LG, sex and Star Trek

Oh yeah, and Star Trek...

...pretty dang prudish. Those quarters don't even have beds large enough to sit on. And they decorate like they expect to hold meetings in there.

Has there ever even been a beach party episode of Star Trek?

C'mon the jumpsuits don't even have snap away buttons along the seams!

There's even an episode where Riker talks about dressing up in nothing but feathers as though its a chore.

TNG has a society that has evolved beyond the need for 'Savage Love' columns.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

techno said:
I know this is getting a bit OT, but I hate to see inaccurate information about the Mormon Church being spread in this discussion. Only a small percentage of the membership of Church ever actually practiced polygamy.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20 to 25 percent of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. At
its height, plural marriage probably involved only a third of the women reaching marriageable age—though among Church leadership plural marriage was the norm for a time.


In 1890, the leadership of the Church received a revelation that the practice should be abolished.

Yes, the Mormon god conveniently changed his mind in the face of anti-polygamy legislation which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Since that time, members who are found to be in polygamist relationships are excommunicated from the Church and have no connection with it whatsoever.

That does not change the fact that they think of themselves as Mormons (indeed, the only true Mormons).

The Book of Mormon clearly states that having one wife is the rule and that polygamy is the exception.

Doctrine and Covenants, another one of their "holy" books, says otherwise. So did Brigham Young, their second "prophet":

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned (July 14, 1855, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 266).

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy (August 19, 1866, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).


PS I apologize for being OT, but I cannot abide vacuous Mormon apologia.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
My main point, however, is that I think LG characters are the most, even to the point of probability, likely to sacrifice love and pleasure to social responsibility.

C'mon this is the literary archetype that joins the foriegn legion to hide from his heart. Not the type to pursue love through dale and bower.

I think that's very well said. LG acts for the 'greater good', and emphasises duties over rights, responsibilities over desires. IMO.
 

Depends. If you want to go into literary archetypes, the LG character generally seems to follow his heart in matters of romance. On the other hand, I could see a LG character, with LN leanings, acting as Dr. Strangemonkey describes. I seriously doubt a LG character would ever enter into a loveless relationship, however.

PS

No more religious debate, please. The rules of the board prohibit such, and I do not want this thread closed because those rules were ignored.
 
Last edited:

Lawful societies like the Victorians, the Chinese and the Japanese had a tendancy for the men (and women) to have mistresses/lovers outside of wedlock. However, the primary thing about such extramarital affairs was that you were expected to be VERY discrete about them. You didn't mention your lover except in the company of people whom you trusted with your life, and you kept your affair secret from your spouse at all costs, even if they had grounds to suspect on their own.
 

*plinks down a handful of cents* (this way exceeding the basic two.)

I'm seeing a lot of ideas being confused here. The differences between societal alignment vs. personal alignment, between alignment vs. personality, and at times even reality vs. fiction seem to be missed quite often, so here's my attempt to sweep away some of the debris.

First and foremost, the "pure" Lawful Good take on relationships/sex/love would be to seek stable, long-term relationships. The Good vs. Evil portion of alignment has minimal impact on this, but Lawfuls prefer stability, predictability, and "comfort factor" while Chaotics prefer intense whirlwinds. Anyone trying to confuse these facts just wants to earn a "my way is the right way" stamp of approval, which strikes me as rather silly and juvenile.

That doesn't quite close off the possibility of the promiscious paladin, though, any more than it does the possibility of a paladin who enjoys gambling as a hobby. Enjoying gambling is fairly obviously a chaotic trait, but I think we'd all rightly be upset at a DM who stripped my character's paladinhood for that. So long as it's kept under control, it's a quirk, not enough to make my character unreliable enough for proper Chaos modifiers. Similarly, promiscuity in many campaigns is only mildly Chaotic, not enough to send the paladin off his stride. (All this does depend on the paladin's intelligence, wisdom, Sense Motive score, experience, and the way the DM handles human nature, mind you. While I'd show said paladin how other people are setting themselves for hurt and he's offering himself as an accessory, many gamers see humans/demihumans/humanoids/etc as rational actors and sex as a morally uplifting sacrament. In games like those, if there's no harm in orgies, why not?)

This all happens regardless of culture. Lawfulness means "likes predictability and order", not "follows the local customs mindlessly". (Lawful characters will tend to follow local customs, but that's more out of a desire to not make waves than anything else.) Real-life examples of Lawful cultures need to keep in mind that even these cultures had a large number of non-Lawful members. Those Chaotics and Neutrals would likely drive a market for vices, but that only says that Chaotic tendencies need to be vented, not that these activities are actively smiled on by Lawful individuals.

So that clears up many of the Lawfulness issues there. The Good/Evil axis is less of an issue here. Good characters will want to keep their partner happy (and prevent their partner pain) while Evil ones will not care. This can apply to either end of the Law/Chaos divide; the Lawful Good attitude will be towards a harmonious marriage, the Chaotic Good attitude will be towards open but nontraditional romances (or a series of open, communicative, but short-lived flings), the Lawful Evil attitude will keep one or more partners as virtual sex slaves (concubinage or a "the wife's place is in the kitchen!" marriage), while Chaotic Evils would keep actual sex slaves and indulge in kidnapping/rape to get their jollies when they have the opportunities. Keep in mind the above caveat about atypical attitudes in characters, though.

And finally, stop trying to define Neutrality as if it were an active force in either alignment issue. It may be in some cosmologies, but there has to be room for the people who just don't take an active focus in alignment issues. The "Pure Neutral" attitude would be to just sit there and do nothing, but I for one dislike the earlier attitude that Neutrality is the razor edge between the alignments. (Sorry for the rant, that last one's just one of my pet peeves.)
 

Humanophile said:
That doesn't quite close off the possibility of the promiscious paladin, though, any more than it does the possibility of a paladin who enjoys gambling as a hobby. Enjoying gambling is fairly obviously a chaotic trait, but I think we'd all rightly be upset at a DM who stripped my character's paladinhood for that. So long as it's kept under control, it's a quirk, not enough to make my character unreliable enough for proper Chaos modifiers. Similarly, promiscuity in many campaigns is only mildly Chaotic, not enough to send the paladin off his stride.

This seems about right to me - that a paladin could be promiscuous or a gambler without losing paladinhood - depending on the campaign and the circumstances. If they're so addicted to sex or gambling that it dominates their behaviour they would likely 'fall' IMO. In any case, the important thing IMO is that even if the paladin is promiscuous without losing their paladinhood, it's un-paladinlike behaviour, ie it's a way in which the paladin deviates from the LG paradigm. So a character _could_ be LG and still act as the BoEF describes ('honest' sex without commitments), but it seems a poor description of paradigmatic Lawful Good behaviour. A description of paradigmatic LG behaviour would emphasise the individual's duty to society, usually embodied in the formation of supportive long-term relationships (monogamous, polygamous or polyandrous depending on the culture) and a concern to ensure the 'best' (most Lawful & Good) future for any offspring. At a pinch LG will sacrifice the welfare even of loved ones to the greater good of 'society' though, and will seek to avoid 'scandal' - eg the LG prince will not marry the 'unsuitable' woman they love, but rather go ahead with the arranged marriage that's expected of them.
That's my conclusion, anyway. :)

Re Star Trek - I see that aside perhaps from the early years of STTNG (when Rodenberry's influence was still dominant), 'free love' is not usually a major emphasis on the modern show. The writers are primarily concerned to present a utopia, as they envisage a utopia to be, and so it tends to embody the mores of modern Californian society with bad (racism) or controversial (homosexuality) bits excised.
 

LuYangShih said:
You seem to be misinterpeting my comments. CN characters would save someone if they took little to no risk by doing so, after all, why not? I am not making an argument that CN=CG. A CG character would risk their lives to save other people, while a CN would not. Han Solo is the perfect example of a CN character in this regard. Unless they have a personal reason to take risks to save others, they will not get involved. However, they will help other people as long as they aren't really taking a great risk in doing so, or if they are personally involved with them.

Right, which is what I thought I pointed out. You implied that CN was good "by default", which I disagreed with. We may just have to agree to disagree, though, since you consider Han Solo to be CN, and I consider him to be the poster child from CG. Oh sure, he talks a good game, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions are pure CG. The only case that could be made is choosing not to take Ben and Luke's offer...but considering they were wanted fugitives attempting to avoid the lawful authorities notice, I'm not sure that I'd qualify them that way.


As to main topic, the Victorians could be considered an excellent example of a LG society that had sex discretely and often. The issue of having sex while unmarried and it's relative morality it entirely based on societal mores. In that society, and many others, it was considered acceptable for certain members of society to behave in such behaviors. But let's not confuse the behavior of nobles with society in general, which may not have had the same mores.

As for the rules of medieval society, I'd recommend reading Magical Medieval Europe. Peasants had more rights than you might think, and nobles were just as bound, in their way, as their vassals. Separating fact from fiction about the past is a big task, and one I certainly haven't mastered.
 

Han was fairly CN until ESB, where he shifted to CG. He only helped Ben and Luke because they were paying him, and it wasn't until he was offered a reward that he went to rescue Leia. "Better her than me!" Was his initial attitude, after all. I have read several medieval histories, and I really do consider it a completely evil time. However, the reasons I do so would likely eventually lead into political and religious debate, and I strive not to get into those types of arguments on these boards.

Humanophile makes a great argument, and I really agree with him on the behavioral patterns of Lawful characters, in particular. Regardless of all the other alignment debates we are currently engaging in, I think most of us can agree that the BoEF does not accurately describe a LG viewpoint in regards to sexuality. Which, I think, was the whole reason the topic was started in the first place.
 

LuYangShih said:
Humanophile makes a great argument, and I really agree with him on the behavioral patterns of Lawful characters, in particular. Regardless of all the other alignment debates we are currently engaging in, I think most of us can agree that the BoEF does not accurately describe a LG viewpoint in regards to sexuality. Which, I think, was the whole reason the topic was started in the first place.

Yes - it does not appear to describe paradigmatic LG within any real world modern or historical paradigm. While it might describe LG behaviour in a fictional universe (Star Trek), this is only possible by postulating a society very different from anything we know of, where human nature itself is apparently quite different. The BoEF description seems closer to NG or CG, depending on interpretation. Eg for the characters in 'Sex & the City', Samantha would be CG (sex without commitmnents is the only kind for her), Carrie & Miranda NG (serially monogamous, & probably closest to the 'typical American' mentioned above), Charlotte LG (always seeking marriage to the perfect partner).

(Oh, and I do think Han Solo was indeed CG from the start, even though he tried to act CN.)
 

Remove ads

Top