I was going through Greg's supplemental information on sex and dishonour (http://www.gspendragon.com/sexanddishonor.html, and wondered. Since this section does not apply to pagans, how do pagans view female sexuality? Is it different among the heathen pickts and wotanic saxons? What about the more bizare and distant faiths (Manacheaism comes to mind)?

Manicheans believe that the physical world in general is corrupt, so sex is right out (or am I think of small-m manicheanistic religions?)

Wotanic pagans, at least, were rather okay with sex. Adultery was bad, of course (much more so for a woman to commit, I would think), but divorce was rather easy even after children were conceived, premarital sex wasn't a big deal, and neither was marrying a woman who brought stepkids with her.

At the same time, this is all happening in the framework of Arthurian romance, which is more or less inseparable from its Christian context, pre-Christian origins aside. I can't imagine a pagan belonging to Arthur's court would clash that much with the pervading culture set by the king.

Aaaah! Thank you for bringing this up!

How the heck does a cymric pagan family deal with its Lustful ideals? Do the women also have +3 on their Lustful trait? And if so, do they have lots and lots of kids running around who aren't "confirmed-kids-belonging-to-the-bloodline-of-the-daddy"? It is a Classic within western (human?) culture with any trace of partiarchy to control female sexuality through informal and formal rules and by physical boundaries - mostly to secure the offspring is of the correct bloodline, I guess. But how to deal with this cymric-pagans-are-Lustful-thing? Don't they care if their spouses are screwing around? Don't they care about who might be the father of their latest kiddo? "Hey, the shepherd had his way with the missus and now we have another mouth to feed. Ah, never mind, maybe I'll even let the kid inherit me." Plz, help me. I am such a hardass monogamist that I can't even imagine a believable way this would work.

Ciao

I hope to have the chance some time to collect all my thoughts on these Pagan knight issues.
For now, here I am.


How the heck does a cymric pagan family deal with its Lustful ideals?

With difficulty, like everyone else. Maybe with a bit more forgivingness for errors.
Understand that these are residual practices from ancient times, perhaps not well suited for the current urban, Christian standards; but useful long, long ago.
Note, too, how lust is submerged under Romance in the Christian tradition, thus contained even though within an "outlaw" stance.


Do the women also have +3 on their Lustful trait?

Yes.


And if so, do they have lots and lots of kids running around who aren't "confirmed-kids-belonging-to-the-bloodline-of-the-daddy"?

No. Lustfulness does not necessarily mean licentiousness, any more than Chastity means absolutely "no sex."


It is a Classic within western (human?) culture with any trace of partiarchy to control female sexuality through informal and formal rules and by physical boundaries - mostly to secure the offspring is of the correct bloodline, I guess.

Yes, this has been the dominant paradigm for quite some time.


But how to deal with this cymric-pagans-are-Lustful-thing? Don't they care if their spouses are screwing around? Don't they care about who might be the father of their latest kiddo? "Hey, the shepherd had his way with the missus and now we have another mouth to feed. Ah, never mind, maybe I'll even let the kid inherit me."

I don't think that the Pagans are so loose and so impersonal as this indicates. There is ALWAYS the tension of jealousy--go think about how the greatest warriors of Ireland are when their women are threatened, never mind violated.
If that little scum shepherd had sex with the missus, and the hubby doesn't care, his Pagan ideals are probably not the only factor involved.
That said, there certainly IS more likelihood that some Pagan man or woman will be on the make, because they have more social sanction (even if not complete). But truth is, seduction is just as likely from some lonely, frustrated Christian wife who's married to someone for whom she bears no affection, perhaps whom she sees a few times a year while she is cooped up in a castle, yet who has some private space.


Plz, help me. I am such a hardass monogamist that I can't even imagine a believable way this would work.

You are not alone.

--Greg

I see Lust as a Pagan virtue being more than just promiscuity. It is an attitude toward the carnal world in general. Pagans, as Greg points out in the description of Lustful/Chaste view sex as a sacrement. Sexual expression is to be enjoyed and reveled in.

The Christian trait of Chastity views sex as something to be restrained and if at all possible avoided. When sex is neccessary to produce an heir it should be undertaken as a duty, not pursued as a pleasure in its own right.

A Lustful pagan will happily greet his wife after a prolonged absence and straight away to the bedroom, if they make it that far, for the next couple of days.

A Chaste Christian will journey to the marital bed out of a sense of duty, perform his duty, and then resume a properly chaste relationship with his wife.

Both men may very well be monogamous. A Lustful Pagan is however much more likely to flirt with every maiden who crosses his path. "I can look as long as I don't touch" may be his, and his wife's attitude. His Chaste Christian counterpart is likely to feel uncomfortable even being in the presence of a lady who is not his wife.


Lustful societies may also support a more open "do what you will, as long as you don't get caught" attitude.

Asafinal thought, I consider all of Greg's notes, rules, etc to be "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" when it comes to behavior.

Asafinal thought, I consider all of Greg's notes, rules, etc to be "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" when it comes to behavior.
Thanks for the input! :) I'm not sure, though, what you mean by what I've quoted above. How can rpg source material and rules be anything but prescriptive, Gregs or anyone elses? And how should we interpret this point of yours when it comes to this specific question?

As it has been said, sexuality is was a much more open aspect among the Pagan peoples of Northern Europe. With the rights of women much higher than under the yoke of Christianity, women could have lovers aside from her husband and not be stoned to death, if this was a part of the couple's relationship. The real key to remember is that the Lustful ideal was about maintaining your sexuality and being free to express your interest, ie flirting, without anyone's tail getting twisted up. Remember, with gods and goddess such as Lugh and Freyja inspiring sensuality as an art, sex becomes a much less taboo subject. As for Chaste/Lustful, I think that the good Pagan keeps sensual thoughts on the front burner, where as the proper Christian would not want to encourage the sin of lust by think about this too much, especially outside the context of one's wife/husband.

Returning to this dusty topic:

Bear in mind that back then, proper and decorous sex looked something like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/Brundage_medieval_safe_sex_flowchar.gif

The standards for being "lustful" are not particularly high; it seems to me that a lustful pagan knight could restrict his sexual romps to the marital bed and still be "lustful" by certain standards of the day.

I'm still curious as to the mechanics for a pagan woman who is caught out, and whether she loses honor to any degree.

I'm inclined to say:

-Premaritally, no. A pagan girl is not really expected to be a virgin on her wedding night; "girls will be girls," and anyone who's marrying a pagan in the first place probably doesn't really care all that much. If she's wildly licentious, that may be another story.
-Extramaritally...I'm not sure. I'd say that, by default, if her husband makes a point of it she loses 5 honor (and may still be sent to a nunnery). If her husband doesn't object, she's not dishonored by pagan standards and the furor will eventually subside.
-"Postmaritally," of course not. If a pagan widow is between husbands, nobody's going to object to her bouncing a few young men. A pagan double-widow can probably get away with being the village bicycle, though most are somewhat more discreet than that.

I've rationalised the pagan lustful things with modern day swingers.

With consent and by having it all in the open, anything goes. For them, its no big deal.

I'd expect Christians to be a little nervous when attending Pagan feats, as things could get a little un christian very quickly.

I think that there are probably not as many social problems for unmarrried Pagans.

A friend once pointed out an old Irish Law that stated that rape commenced from the moment the woman screamed. It the sex was consentual, it was no crime (unless it was also adultery, incest or some such).

Also, much of Pagan fertility has to do with ceremonies and religious rites. So there might have been a feeling of "It's okay, it was a church function.Everyone does that during Beltaine".

Plus with the whole celtic femininity/magic thing failing to have sex is essentially denying the power of women and weakening them (probably part of the reason for Christianity's stance on the matter).

But, as doorknobdeity's humorous chart shows, just stopping home for a "quickie" on a Wedesday morning, during Lent after seeing your wife coming out of the bath is probably worth a lustful check during the Middle Ages.

I hve seen Pagans described as loosey goosey swingers a lot here. I dont really see them that way. Everyone is Lustful. That doesnt mean they act on it. What about a christian knight that has a 15 lustful ( for arbitrary example). He might feel like gettin it on and have a hard time supressing his feelings, but Im sure he doesnt throw caution to the wind and get it on at inappropriate times. He may a time or two on a fumble, but I dont think it forces him to act suicidally horney. I also dont think Pagans have a NO care attitude toward sex. Some may, but I find it hard to believe that the majority would be uncaring about who their mate was sleeping with. Humans are Human and Jealousy is an emotion that you might be able to supress, but NEVER get rid of, even if you are in private anguishing over it, you care. I just dont think pagan men with a 15 or higher Lustful run around and let their raging hard ons fully dictate what they do or how they act. There has to be a little self preservation instinct here. Perhaps in cases of religious ceremonies u could justify some adulterous sex, but I would be interested to see how a real life Pagan felt about it all. And not one of these new age ill-informed , hippy pagans. A real one that shared the same beliefs as a mideaval pagan. We may never know, i guess. I think playing up the flirting a lot is an excellent way to present a high lustful. After all a person with a high Chaste would be suitably scandalized by it. Imagine a pagan knight commenting on Dame Brandewaines toosh! A nearby christian knight would most surely be scandalized by this! Duels have been fought for less..... :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/Brundage_medieval_safe_sex_flowchar.gif


That's awesome!

On the subject of pagans and sex: yes, if the wife is adulterous, she loses honour.

Pagans have lustful drives, but the laws of the land, the behaviour of the court and nobility, these can be considered separate from their religious traits. Just as a Christian lord may find ruling his land and family occasionally conflicts with his Virtue of Merciful, and some knightly activities conflict with his virtue of Modesty, so to a pagan finds the behaviour expected of a lord or lady will conflict with their virtue of Lustful (and/or Honesty).

The world, the culture, the law, the religion - all these things pull characters in separate ways. The pagan religious wife has to find a way to exercise her Lustful trait without losing either her Honesty trait (lying) or her Honour (telling the truth), and as has been noted upthread, being lustful within the marriage is one way to do that.

Of course, she'll often be tempted to stray... But so will non-pagans who happen to have Chaste scores that aren't exceptional.

Thank God I don't live in the Middle Ages in RL. If I did I'd have a lustful of 39....

Hello All,

Several questions come to mind immediately, plus one answer.

First, as someone that tries to follow the path of my pre-Christian ancestors, jealousy is an emotion and different people feel it to different degrees. I have always thought of any feelings of jealousy over an paramours that my wife has had as a weakness.

Second, why would a Pagan wife lose honor or honesty? It seems odd to me that for a little fun on the side. What does law have to do with how a Pagan husband treats his wife. Loss of honor for "cheating" is a culture/religious based penalty, not legal one. KAP is fairly silent on law.

Finally, why would a lord ever have to be unmerciful? And why would a Pagan lord ever be in conflict with his Lustful?

Regards,
Alan Day

Finally, why would a lord ever have to be unmerciful?

Squeezing the peasantry for one.

Dispensing justice for two.

Regards
Luke

Having had a rethink on the matter after that very useful chart, I have realised my interpretation of lustful was wrong. Pagan lustful is effectively how people live in the western world. We enjoy sex, admire sexuality and engage in it recreationaly. Whereas Christians would only do so to reproduce, pagans are more natural about it and use it as a social glue. No promiscuity is necessary, although its not probably more than what happens nowadays.

I imagine Pagan women to be assured of their sexuality and will be active in the seduction of the males, rather than as bargaining chips that Christian women have become.

Thanks for the discussion on this as it has helped me come to grips with this.

D

Second, why would a Pagan wife lose honor or honesty? It seems odd to me that for a little fun on the side. What does law have to do with how a Pagan husband treats his wife. Loss of honor for "cheating" is a culture/religious based penalty, not legal one. KAP is fairly silent on law.

In Feudal Europe, law and custom are basically one and the same. If a pagan is living in a Christian court, then the law and customs of the land are Christian and the pagan woman would lose honor for infidelity, unless everyone accepts "oh, they're pagans, we all know what they do on All Hallows' Eve. I was there once, heh heh..."

It's also that the customs and honour are there to represent the needs of society.

While in history, it isn't possible to completely disentangle feudal social structure from Christianity, for the purpose of the game, Pendragon, Christianity is not really the issue. Pendragon posits a world where Christianity and Paganism exist side by side, and people can be one or the other. And in the game, the religion aspect plays a very small part of most character's social lives - it's an option which they may ignore.

What really matters in the game as far as Honour (and law and customs) is concerned, is feudalism and primogeniture - if the lady starts sleeping around, she is dishonourable, because she damages the family by making it hard to know whether the lord's son is really his son, and also damages herself by becoming less valuable as a potential bride for the same reason.

Now, if PCs come from distant foreign lands or backwaters, this isn't an issue, but if they come from any of the feudal kingdoms that player characters can come from, this is what matters - and that's why ladies suffer loss of Honour for being promiscuous, or just being like modern women.

Hello All,

Luke,
Why would you do something as dishonorable as squeezing the peasantry. It is dishonor, cruel and arbitrary. With appropriate stewardship, I can not see anytime this would be required.
Also, shouldn't justice always be tempered with mercy? Justice without conscience is just cruelty. Justice should be about what's right for the parties involved and society. Murders earn what they get, but what is the best course for dealing with starving commoners that have stolen? Floggings or distributing food and having the thief do some work to pay for the wrong?

Darrell,
Your still mixing Christianity in with things. Primogeniture is a Christian feature, not a key component of feudalism. It was popularized by the Normans. Also, the damaging herself and the family is also based entirely on Christian perspective. Some cultures value a woman more for sharing herself. For example, the Inuit people have a saying. "Loan out your tools, they will come back broken. Loan out your wife, she will come back happy." This is a key difference with Pagan and Christian people. Pagan tradition say that it's your child because your wife birthed it, whether or not you were the person that actually did the planting.

Regards,
Alan

Why would you do something as dishonorable as squeezing the peasantry. It is dishonor, cruel and arbitrary. With appropriate stewardship, I can not see anytime this would be required.
Also, shouldn't justice always be tempered with mercy? Justice without conscience is just cruelty. Justice should be about what's right for the parties involved and society. Murders earn what they get, but what is the best course for dealing with starving commoners that have stolen? Floggings or distributing food and having the thief do some work to pay for the wrong?


Let's see. Bad weather, bad stewardship, tribute needs to be paid...Most knights aren't good stewards, y'know.

And you're coming at this from a modern perspective, not a medieval one. Those who toil exist to support those who work. A knight who cuts off the hands of starving bread thieves is acting completely within his rights.



Darrell,
Your still mixing Christianity in with things. Primogeniture is a Christian feature, not a key component of feudalism. It was popularized by the Normans. Also, the damaging herself and the family is also based entirely on Christian perspective. Some cultures value a woman more for sharing herself. For example, the Inuit people have a saying. "Loan out your tools, they will come back broken. Loan out your wife, she will come back happy." This is a key difference with Pagan and Christian people. Pagan tradition say that it's your child because your wife birthed it, whether or not you were the person that actually did the planting.

Regards,
Alan


Feudalism, and particularly knighthood, are based in Christian tradition. The law of the land is Christian, knights have vigils in a Christian chapel, and any acceptance of paganism is itself an anachronism. The extent to which pagans are accepted and allowed their own foibles, thus, is for the individual GM (or more likely, the individual lord) to decide. If the woman's lord decides to make a point about it (which, if he's a devout Christian, he may feel obligated to), she's in trouble. Arthur himself is tolerant of all religions, but that's not the same as religious freedom; it means he doesn't hassle pagans for their choice of god. Chastity in a maiden is still an ideal.

Also, note that Chastity is one of the virtues of a Gentlewoman. That's based in Christian ideals, true, but it's also a realm-wide ideal. Pagans have to simply live with it or live without it.

Finally, you're making an assumption about paganism that may or may not be the case (I very much doubt it is, in fact). Greg Stafford developed the "paganism" used in Pendragon out of several sources (including what scraps we know of classical Celtic myth and modern neopaganism); I'm fairly sure the Inuit were not one of them, and I'm also fairly sure that the Heir Club For Men (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeirClubForMen) is still important to pagans, if for no other reason than the fact that Christian-style patriarchal primogeniture (and not Celtic gavelkind) is the law of the land. (Note that in Irish myth, Cuchulainn's son by Scathach was still his son, never mind that she wasn't his wife.)

The Pendragon virtue rules themselves give us a nice indication as to the origins of different ideals in the game's setting. The traits which grant the Chivalry bonus and the Gentlewoman's Bonus are considered virtues in any knight or lady respectively, irrespective of religion. We may consider these the virtues valued by Arthurian society, distinct from religious denomination. The traits which grant the various religious bonuses are the ones which, in the game at least, are considered virtues by a religion. To the extent that there is overlap between religious virtues and Chivalric/Gentlewoman's virtues, we can either see the influence of the game's religions on Arthurian society, or the influence of Arthurian society on the game's denominations.

Whether female chastity became a societal ideal until the influence of Christianity in history is something which could probably be argued over, but for Arthurian Britain, at least, the game rules themselves provide us with a nice divide.

That said, in my campaigns, I haven't applied honour penalties for female Pagan characters who have extramarital sex during religious rites, e.g. Beltane fires. British Paganism in my games is heavily influenced by The Mists of Avalon - yes, Lustful is a religious virtue, but having sex with someone at the Beltane fires is not an act of promiscuous wantonness, but a renewal of the sacred marriage between the people and the land. If you look at it this way, it's not really "extramarital sex" at all. :)

There is, of course, the potential for a Pagan player character who is "caught out" to falsely use Beltane as an excuse, I suppose, but it hasn't happened yet.

Hello All,

Why would you do something as dishonorable as squeezing the peasantry. It is dishonor, cruel and arbitrary. With appropriate stewardship, I can not see anytime this would be required.


In the Middle Ages about a third of the time the crops would fail and there would be famine. It also took about ten people working in the field to feed 11 people. The whole feudal manor system derived from that. It takes several hundred people working the fields to maintain a knight, and all the other non-farmers who are required.

"Proper" stewardship or not, there are times when the harvest just won't provide enough to support the knight and his family. By feudal custom, the peasant "own" their knight that support even if they cannot afford to pay it. The is part of the price they pay for the knight's protection.

That would be one situation where a squeeze might be required. There are others depending on how events go it the game. For example, if a knight looses his horses in battle, he would need to get another horse or else risk loosing status as a knight. So squeezing the peasants might be the only means he has of maintaining his rank and honor. Or if his liege visits repeatedly and the cost is more that the knight can bear and maintain himself as a knight.

Modern stories tend to confine "squeezing the peasants" to greedy nobles who are trying to extract every farthing from a starving populace. In reality is was often desperate and starving knights who were trying to extract enough farthings from a starving population to be able to continue doing their knightly duty.

In Pendragon, if enough bad things happen to a knight or other noble, squeezing can become a necessary action. Especially nobles. Since their expenses are much higher they can get far more desperate when the income-doesn't. Sometimes squeezing the peasants is the lesser of several evils.

Ramidel, you took the words right out of my mouth. I'd like to underline this bit esepcially:


Finally, you're making an assumption about paganism that may or may not be the case (I very much doubt it is, in fact). Greg Stafford developed the "paganism" used in Pendragon out of several sources (including what scraps we know of classical Celtic myth and modern neopaganism); I'm fairly sure the Inuit were not one of them, and I'm also fairly sure that the Heir Club For Men (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeirClubForMen) is still important to pagans, if for no other reason than the fact that Christian-style patriarchal primogeniture (and not Celtic gavelkind) is the law of the land. (Note that in Irish myth, Cuchulainn's son by Scathach was still his son, never mind that she wasn't his wife.)

The Pendragon virtue rules themselves give us a nice indication as to the origins of different ideals in the game's setting. The traits which grant the Chivalry bonus and the Gentlewoman's Bonus are considered virtues in any knight or lady respectively, irrespective of religion. We may consider these the virtues valued by Arthurian society, distinct from religious denomination. The traits which grant the various religious bonuses are the ones which, in the game at least, are considered virtues by a religion. To the extent that there is overlap between religious virtues and Chivalric/Gentlewoman's virtues, we can either see the influence of the game's religions on Arthurian society, or the influence of Arthurian society on the game's denominations.

Whether female chastity became a societal ideal until the influence of Christianity in history is something which could probably be argued over, but for Arthurian Britain, at least, the game rules themselves provide us with a nice divide.

That said, in my campaigns, I haven't applied honour penalties for female Pagan characters who have extramarital sex during religious rites, e.g. Beltane fires. British Paganism in my games is heavily influenced by The Mists of Avalon - yes, Lustful is a religious virtue, but having sex with someone at the Beltane fires is not an act of promiscuous wantonness, but a renewal of the sacred marriage between the people and the land. If you look at it this way, it's not really "extramarital sex" at all. :)

There is, of course, the potential for a Pagan player character who is "caught out" to falsely use Beltane as an excuse, I suppose, but it hasn't happened yet.


I'm trawling through old posts looking to see if my question has been answered before and came across this. I would heavily recommend The Mists of Avalon for a take on British Paganism in the Arthur world, and a reasonably playable take as well. From memory "a Beltaine child" was regarded as a gift from the goddess and something special - for a husband or father conditioned to this viewpoint from birth then his response is going to be very different from a Christian.

The American TV mini-series of the book is also available as a DVD (you need to watch region ratings). When I got mine it wasn't directly available in the UK but was available in Germany (subtitled in German) as a region 2 DVD, so all one has to do is turn the German subtitles off. (search for Die Nebel von Avalon). Website for the series is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mists_of_Avalon_%28TV_miniseries%29


Chris

I didn't know there had been a TV series. Thanks.

As it has been said, sexuality is was a much more open aspect among the Pagan peoples of Northern Europe. With the rights of women much higher than under the yoke of Christianity, women could have lovers aside from her husband and not be stoned to death, if this was a part of the couple's relationship. The real key to remember is that the Lustful ideal was about maintaining your sexuality and being free to express your interest, ie flirting, without anyone's tail getting twisted up. Remember, with gods and goddess such as Lugh and Freyja inspiring sensuality as an art, sex becomes a much less taboo subject. As for Chaste/Lustful, I think that the good Pagan keeps sensual thoughts on the front burner, where as the proper Christian would not want to encourage the sin of lust by think about this too much, especially outside the context of one's wife/husband.


Actualy, that was/is true for "pagan" people from pretty much everywhere. Few cultures in the world share the more restrictive, sinful views towards sex that the judaico-christian world shares. In fact, I can't rememeber a single one, past or present. This idea that northern europe was somewhat more "special" than anyone else towards sex and/or the position of women in society has no basis in reality and is more of a modern construct than anything else. It was certainly more open than the Ancient Latins when it came to women, for example, but hardly special in a continental or worldwide context.

lusty doesnt make you slutty automatically. Its just different attitude towards sex. It means that you are more open about sex and enjoy having it frequently. It doesnt mean that you HAVE to have multiple partners and cant control yourself.You might have it a lot , just with your spouse. Likewise, chaste might mean that you have had a few partners in your life, and not been married. It doesnt make u lusty cause you wrent married. If u have only had sex with 3 partners for instance even if u werent married, I think u could still be chaste, right? Marriage doesnt have to do with either Lusty or chaste, I guess thats what im getting at? lol :-\

I apparently view the Chaste/Lustful dichotomy differently than some. First, I see the pairing as flawed; to principles presented as opposites but not necessarily so. Second, I see the specific interpretation as dependant more on the character's religion than what is inherent to the traits.

In my opinion, a Christian's Chasteness reflects their devotion to monogamy versus polyamorousness. A Pagan's Lustful, by contrast, would reflect sexual openness, possibly polyamorousness and/or polygamy as well, versusc sexual repression.

So, in my opinion, a Chaste Christian still might not make it to the bedroom. Particularly a British Christian one, which I view as a mix of Paganism and Roman Catholicism.

Now, as we head into the Romance period (we are currently just starting the Boy King period), I expect that Chaste/Lustful will apply to Spouse and Lover(s) separately.

Its a difficult discussion , really. We are all trying to make this stuff fit into an RPG game in a neat little package and as we can all see , it is a very complicated subject! It has a need to try and be all-encompassing for game purposes , but realistically it just cant be. I think individual GM's jst have to navigate it the best way they can. You really cant PLEASE everyone no matter how you make the call. There will aklways be a way for a player to make a plausible argument. The gm and players will just have to agree to one representation and stick with it , for game purposes. Luckily the chaste/lustful thing does not come up that often in our campaigns! Un-luckily , when it does it is usually in regards to something major!!! :D