LG, sex and Star Trek

[S'mon]

The BoEF interpetation, on the other hand, seems to be a rationalization of a Lawful Good character acting like a N or CN character in regards to sexual conduct.

To me it seemed more like a CG characterisation - "do what you feel like as long as it doesn't hurt other individuals".

 

[S'mon]

The Federation of Star Trek, when you get right down to it, is a socialist, humanist utopia that only works by first assuming some really wacky things about the basic nature of man. When you postulate the Federation, and more specifically the Federation as seen on one starship, as being your LG baseline then guilt-free, rampant, recreational sex is a given. It's a society that has no religions, only spirituality. It doesn't have even a governmental approval over marriage and a basic family unit much less religious ideology regarding it. Marriage seems to be a strictly personal commitment with no legal or sociological fallout when it fails. Hey, this is a world where only the most rare, the newest and most savage diseases ever occur - and most of those are cured by the end of the show. Venereal diseases? Herpes? HA! Unintended pregnancy? Contraception? What old-fashioned low-tech worries those are! In the world of Trek sex has virtually no moral or ethical limitations or stigma so asking if LG people can sleep around in Trek, well the answer is just too obvious for words.

Thanks for your analysis - I take it the obvious answer is 'yes', right?
I think you're saying that given ST's assumptions - some major changes to basic human nature*, technology solves every practical problem et al - then you can be LG (as per PHB) and be sexually promiscuous, because it's both socially acceptable and has no observable detrimental consequences to the society - indeed sexual promiscuity arguably _supports_ that society, much like in Huxley's Brave New World (another sf 'utopia').

*At least amongst the ruling caste of Starfleet officers we see on the tv shows.

 

[Mallus]

The Federation of Star Trek, when you get right down to it, is a socialist, humanist utopia that only works by first assuming some really wacky things about the basic nature of man.

Moreso, it works by first assuming some wacky things about future technology [virtual unlimited cheap energy, no economy of scarcity, etc.] Human nature in most Trek seems about the same. There's anger, jealousy, ambition, insecurity, hostility, etc. Is that what you meant by human nature, or am I being too cynical?

When you postulate the Federation, and more specifically the Federation as seen on one starship, as being your LG baseline then guilt-free, rampant, recreational sex is a given.

Gulit-free, rampant recreation sex? Which Trek are you watching? And more importantly, why aren't I watching it? Seriously, which shows are you talking about? Kirk is an old-school playa, and Riker is a homage to Kirk in that regard. Aside from that, I felt the most Trek's were rather prudish, at the very least discreet. Their sexual content was limited to Risa episodes [which is the only place in Trek where the sexual mores you describe exist --and is itself just a SF version of real-world resorts like Hedonism]and Jeri Ryan in a catsuit [which hardly demonstrates a progressive attitude towards sex]. People date, some marry, raise families, some are single parents... Its exactly like the US culture that produced the show. In fact, relationships seem more stable, I can't recall any mention of divorce until "All Good Things". You describe the Federation as if its Melrose Space...

It doesn't have even a governmental approval over marriage and a basic family unit much less religious ideology regarding it.

Where is this shown? And there are basic, familiar family units all over the place, lending a tacit enforcement to traditional familial structures.

Marriage seems to be a strictly personal commitment with no legal or sociological fallout when it fails.

Again, where do you get this from? Can you site episodes? I'm curious because I never saw this...

Venereal diseases? Herpes? HA! Unintended pregnancy? Contraception? What old-fashioned low-tech worries those are!

So morality at heart is just being risk-averse?

In the world of Trek sex has virtually no moral or ethical limitations or stigma.

Again, what show are you watching? If anything, the Trek universe is more conservative than any place I've ever lived...

 

[Voadam]

- This seems to say that you can be both sexually promiscuous and LG (perhaps a Paladin). I was trying to think whether this was justifiable in terms of any real-life societies I could think of.

Well I think your mistake is looking at societies versus individuals.

Can a LG individual be promiscuous?

A LG individual can do chaotic and evil actions, there is no prohibition on actions inherent in an alignment. If he does enough chaotic and evil actions so that overall the character taken as a whole is more properly categorized as a different alignment then an alignment shift is in order.

Only a paladin has game effects for doing single evil or chaotic actions.

So is promiscuity evil or chaotic? I would say no. I would argue it is value neutral like most things not inherently good or evil on its own but depending upon context and usually neither.

So is a LG character affected by doing neutral actions. No, the majority of a person's actions chatting, eating, earning a living, are neutral and don't affect whether you are a good or a bad person, or whether you favor groups over individuals.

I would not have promiscuity affect a LG character's alignment in my games.

I can see an argument that if trying to place it on the law chaos axis that promiscuity is generally chaotic, but I don't think it necessarily or inherently is.

 

[Farganger]

here's how i would view things:

. . . .

So here's my view of the alignments:

LG: Sex only in long term FORMALLY commited relationships (which may be monogamous or polygamous, depending on the standards of their culture), and always looking out for the other person's desires above one's own.

LN: Pretty much same as LG, but more selfish with regards to how they treat the other person in the relationship. Looking out for self first, but not acting malicious toward the other person.

LE: These characters would tend to be in long term formal relationships, but within those relationships, they would be abusive, manipulative, controlling, etc.

. . . .

The emphasis on "long-term" might not be so strong in a slave-owning society (similarly-aligned perhaps), which might fairly be characterized as LN or LE and inhabited by persons largely of similar alignment. Notionally, the civilizations of ancient Babylonia -- as well as many later slave-holding societies -- were quite "Lawful", but brief "affairs" between master and slave were both commonplace and socially accepted.

Returning to your thumbnail sketches of alignment attitudes (which I thought were very useful), it might be said that the master-slave relationship is indeed exceptionally "formal", so that element remains present in a lawful slave-owning society. The "long-term" aspect of the sexual side of that relationship, however, would frequently be absent.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well can you give an example of this, as per my original question? a society real or fictional where sex-with-no-commitments is characterisable as LG behaviour.

Off the top of my head I can't think of real world but fictional have you read Kate Forsyth's series? It is a lwaful society and sex outside of marriage is allowed it is not frowned on at all.

Also there is Mercedes Lackey Valadamar the Harpers are all about law and premartial sex is allowed even encouraged.

 

[S'mon]

Off the top of my head I can't think of real world but fictional have you read Kate Forsyth's series? It is a lwaful society and sex outside of marriage is allowed it is not frowned on at all.

Also there is Mercedes Lackey Valadamar the Harpers are all about law and premartial sex is allowed even encouraged.

I haven't read them, but thanks.

Re previous posts on alignment & promiscuity, I do tend to think that promiscuity is characterisable as chaotic behaviour in that it emphasises individual satisfaction (especially short-term satisfaction) and is often regarded as detrimental to the stability of the social order which is seen as being supported best through long-term relationships, preferably backed by a formal contract (eg marriage). I can think of totalitarian and fictional societies where long term bonds (eg family bonds) are discouraged because eg they may detract from loyalty to the State (in a totalitarian society) or are otherwise regarded as 'unhealthy' (eg Brave New World).

The society presented in STTNG seems to neither encourage nor discourage long-term bonding, although long-term bonding seems to be somewhat the exception rather than the rule (only a minority of characters are ever married), at least amongst the Starfleet caste.

And I agree that Star Trek of course has little 'sexual content' (leaving aside Jeri Ryan's catsuits), I'm talking about the mating behaviour of the characters, the forming of short-term and (occasionally) long-term relationships, etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just some Startrek Notes on Sex and Romance:

Picard always seemed lawful good to me. He followed all the Federation laws, and unlike Kirk, he always tried to follow the Prime Directive. His relationships do also show this - there were approximately four or five (counting the movies) romantic partnerships in it:
He was attracted by Dr. Beverly Crusher, but he never got into it, because she was first married with his friend, and later his personal code of honor seemed, most the time, forbid a direct relationship with her - at least he never really tried (except maybe in the future timeline of the show)
He had approximately three sex partners in the show:
One he met when he was captured by some alien probe of a dead civilization that let him live a whole life on the now destroyed planet. He married (I believe he was already married to her) her and even became father, at least he always kept to this family.
Then there was Vash, our roguish archeologist. This relationship was very similar to the one of the BoEF - the first time they met was on Rysa, and they did ended their relationship when they left the planet. When he met her again, he seemed a bit embarrased about this relationship (he met Dr.Crusher on a regular basis then - not actually a date, maybe, but a very subtle try to come nearer to her, I guess) to Vash, indicating it didn`t fit in his usual behaviour "pattern" (and indicating the BoEF definition does not fit for LG). Anyway, he still proved he was feeling responsible for her...
The third was a female Science Officer (I forgot her name) aboard the station. The relationship didn`t last longer than a single episode - they split up when he decided he could not combine the relationship with his command of the ship and beeing her commanding officer. (Which probably only proves his lawful attitude, nothing regarding to the BoEF philosophy).
In Startrek 9, he had the last relationship. Not much to tell about - he left her on her planet, unwilling to give up his current life. (Not surprisingly, and probably also a lawful act - not chaning anything)
Oh, and there was Lwaxana Troi, but he was not interested in her, she was interested in him

Sisko was also quite lawful, I think, and I currently tend to consider him more neutral then Picard - he did make some very harsh decision Picard would probably never approve. (Like the assassination of the Romulan Ambassador, or some actions to capture his former Security Officer that became member of the Maquis). He was very lawful in his relationships - he only had three, if I remember correctly. His wife (that died at the Battle of Wolf 359), a short contact with Fenna (a astral projection of a married, but unhappy woman, not a "real" person in a strict sense), and Cassidy Yates, the freigther captain he is introduced to by his son. (He also met again his wife in the parallel dimension.)
The relationship with Fenna might fit into the BoEF description, but seems more chaotic (well, like most: "We have a story here that does not 100% fit the character, but want to tell it anyway because it is fun"-Stories in TV).

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Mallus]

The society presented in STTNG seems to neither encourage nor discourage long-term bonding, although long-term bonding seems to be somewhat the exception rather than the rule (only a minority of characters are ever married), at least amongst the Starfleet caste.

The society presented in STTNG seems to neither encourage nor discourage long-term bonding, although long-term bonding seems to be somewhat the exception rather than the rule (only a minority of characters are ever married), at least amongst the Starfleet caste.

Not to be disagreeable, but I disagree

Picard and Crusher
Sisko and Yates [well, they were engaged]
Worf and Jadzia
Riker and Deanna
O'Brien and Keiko
Be'lanna and Paris
Rom and that saucy Dabo girl...

[does LaForge marry Leah Brahms by the time of the series finale future-frame?]

There seems to be a lot of marrying going on it Trek, probably more than in most mainstream drama and sitcoms [hey, I'm a big fan of Coupling... now there's a paean to guilt-free sex if I ever saw one, plus, your ex's end up as your friends...]

Granted, few of these relationships happen during the their respective series's run [excepting O'Brien and Keiko's].

Yes, people have relationships, which presumably include sex. But they eventually end up married. In this regard, the Trek universe resembles my personal universe as the majority of my friends made it into their 30's...

Anyhow, I realize this isn't on-topic. If you're interested in more of this [SF, sex, morals and marriage] lets continue in SF/Films...

 

[Hida Bukkorosu]

The emphasis on "long-term" might not be so strong in a slave-owning society (similarly-aligned perhaps), which might fairly be characterized as LN or LE and inhabited by persons largely of similar alignment. Notionally, the civilizations of ancient Babylonia -- as well as many later slave-holding societies -- were quite "Lawful", but brief "affairs" between master and slave were both commonplace and socially accepted.

Returning to your thumbnail sketches of alignment attitudes (which I thought were very useful), it might be said that the master-slave relationship is indeed exceptionally "formal", so that element remains present in a lawful slave-owning society. The "long-term" aspect of the sexual side of that relationship, however, would frequently be absent.

I think you make a good point. I could easily see LE characters using slaves in that manner, regardless of the slaves' wishes. LN characters would most likely only enter consensual relationships with their slaves, and in an LG slave holding society (which would be characterised by fair and equitable treatment of slaves, as well as regular opportunities for slaves who wished to be free to go free - think ancient israel and the provision that slaves would be set free every seven years unless the slave freely chose to continue his servitude) most likely they would only form relations with their slaves if the wife was okay with it.