Why is it that "good aligned" societies in fantasy seem to be against sex and "evil societies" in fantasy settings...

The real question should be: "Is this a male elf, or a female elf?"

>i'm stupid and say dumb things

What is wrong with you? Are you literally so stupid as to not have seen that OP set his bait out specifically for you, to catch exactly this kind of retarded post?

To which the response is "Doesn't matter."

So say we all

Do you have any actual points to make or arguments as to why I'm wrong?

Yeah, you're right, there's nothing a womans mouth can do that a mans can't.

>i have a character that uses potion of grease for lube.
>rogue switched out potion of grease for soverign glue.

Not surprising that the degenerate says shit about stuff from a shit setting and thinks that he's not a degenerate. You need Jesus.

Are you smart enough to understand any of them?
You honestly think you deserve an argument, like you said something entitled to a point by point deconstruction.

You're an idiot. Everything you said is wrong, and even just casual research makes you look like even more of an idiot for trying to make the claim there are no points or arguments that can be made against you.

I'm not here to help you. I'm here to laugh at you.

Actually... strictly speaking he's probably not 100% wrong.

Puritanism gave us the idea of succubi and witches having sex with the devil. It also has a lot of rules about where you can't stick your dick (e.g. someone else's wife or another dude)

Since certain kinds of sex are considered bad we get baddies who have ALL THE SEX. At least I assume that's how it happened.

Size/Type: Large Magical BeastHit Dice: 5d10+25 (52 hp)Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +5/+14
Attack: Claw +9 melee (1d6+5)
Full Attack: 2 claws +9 melee (1d6+5) and bite +4 melee (1d8+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Improved grab
Special Qualities: Scent
Saves: Fort +9, Ref +5, Will +2
Abilities: Str 21, Dex 12, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 10
Skills: Listen +8, Spot +8
Feats: Alertness, Track
Environment: Temperate forests
Organization: Solitary, pair, or pack (3-8)
Challenge Rating: 4
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 6-8 HD (Large); 9-15 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: —

So you're just spouting nonsense, gotcha.

>Implying evil cannot show moral restraint

We live in a culture where we're more comfortable watching brutal violence and people die in a piece of media than we are enjoying acts of intimacy, love and the creation of life.

Just stop and think about that for a moment. Sex, a natural process and part of all human life, is more taboo and avoided than depictions of violence and murder, of people ending lives.

I enjoy violent media as much as the next guy, but that doesn't make violence being more acceptable than sex make any more sense.

>Puritanism gave us the idea of succubi and witches having sex with the devil.

You mean folklore that predated Christianity for witches, and succubi can trace their roots all the way back to the Lilitu of Babylon. As far as rules about where you can't stick your dick, you'll find those in every last lawbook ever written in every single culture.

Really, the guy's just about wrong on everything he could be wrong about.

>It’s a uniquely American prudishness. You can write the most detailed, vivid description of an ax entering a skull, and nobody will say a word in protest. But if you write a similarly detailed description of a penis entering a vagina, you get letters from people saying they’ll never read you again. What the hell? Penises entering vaginas bring a lot more joy into the world than axes entering skulls.
Quoted from George R R Martin

>Because good alignment shows restraint. That's why debauchery in general is constrained to evil societies.

There's a difference between "showing restraint by only fucking your boyfriend" and "showing restraint by being a pure waifu that only holds the hands of her true love after a lengthy 200 episode series."

Good societies should be all over freaky sex between two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship.

Why is the Drow covering herself? Aren't they all about being 100% confident in their bodies?

Other cultures also has positive depictions of sexuality, sexual openness and passion. Christianity on the other hand has a strongly restrictive perspective- Only between married partners, and only in the strictest of privacy.

This isn't unique to Christianity, but christian moral values are the ones which had the greatest influence on the developed world.

Reaching for a weapon probably

Not really. If he had moral reatraint he wouldn't have burned that building.

Cute, but it sounds like you're just spewing rhetoric rather than actually presenting an argument.

It's almost as if you're TRYING to ignore the obvious arguments. You're running entirely on false equivalences, and somehow you think that an adorable little "We need sex, we don't need violence!" line means anything.

We need to shit. Why don't you make the argument about how we're not comfortable watching fat people have diseased shits? Is it because, sex, violence, and shitting are not anywhere near as identical as you're hoping to pretend they are?

>Christianity on the other hand has a strongly restrictive perspective- Only between married partners, and only in the strictest of privacy.

Unsurprisingly, this view was started by one of the Apostles and perfected by Saint Augustine.

Because sex is something intimate. All that intimacy goes out the window if you fuck someone you don't trust or love, and they don't feel the same about you, the sex is meaningless indulgence of the flesh.

You still haven't made any points, nor presented any actual refutations of mine.

You want an honest answer? Because the artist wanted to make something a kid could look at without some parent getting upset.

They put a bottle of grease on the nightstand, that alone shows the artist wasn't going to balk at some dusky tits if he had the chance to draw them.

>Hi there, I have never read "Name of the Wind"
That character only did what was absolutely necessary to accomplish his goals.

Christianity has positive depictions of sexuality and passion, because to Christians, love comes first.

It's actually hard to argue against the Christian morality once you dive into it (a few 2,000 character posts won't cut it, so there's no point starting that argument here), but since you're not even at the baseline to get started, you instead choose to use your ignorance to let your mouth flap needlessly like you think you've actually got an educated opinion.

>violence
>not natural
Do you even RULES OF NATURE?

>Hey I'm a grognard who judges someone for not reading a random manga 99.995% of people have never seen or heard of before.

If you run on fallacies, you don't have any points to refute. All you have is fallacies to dismiss.

Killing adulterous wives and sparing their husbands, forcing women to marry their rapists, banning homosexuality? Yep, sounds like it's hard to argue against to me.

There are positive elements to christian morality, and it's acted as a strong moral foundation for our societies, but it is by no means flawless.

Its a book you brigand

>Good societies should be all over freaky sex between two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship.

Fun fact: The Bible believes this 100%. In fact, if you aren't regularly satisfying your partner how they want to be satisfied, you're not taking care of their spiritual health, and Sex is Gods gift to a married couple.

It is literally un-Christian to be a prude with your spouse.

Anybody who doubts this has clearly never read Songs of Solomon

Evil societies generally revel in hedonistic, animal pleasures that remain close to the sensual levels while good societies take part in higher, perceptual activities that are more easily attributed to civilized human beings.

So, you don't actually understand anything about Christian morality? Glad you got that out of the way.

OP caught a pretty good idiot in you. You are precisely the kind of idiot who doesn't know when to shut up, and is compelled to express their stupidity at every available opportunity.

If something is fallacious, you can point out why it's a fallacy. You've failed to do so.

An aversion to excrement makes sense- Biologically, we are repulsed by it because it can cause sickness and ill health. As an evolutionary behaviour, avoidance of such foul substances makes perfect sense.

Can you offer a similar argument as to why we are averse to sex and yet attracted to violence?

I'm not just talking about married couples, I'm talking about couples in general, whether they're sharing the same last name or sharing an apartment.

Good societies should cherish passion and intimacy between two people as an expression of love, not lust yes, even if their idea of expressing that love is butt stuff.

All I'm doing is calling out things which are in the damn book most of the western world was built on. As I said, the majority of it is good and helped build stable societies, it it still has a huge number of problematic and flawed elements, and to pretend they aren't there or to argue 'christian morality' as something aside from those flaws isn't just false, it's willfully ignorant.

>hristianity on the other hand has a strongly restrictive perspective- Only between married partners, and only in the strictest of privacy.

Clearly you have not actually read the Bible, most specifically Songs of Solomon and other works regarding sex.

While it's true that sex should be between two married people (and remember that marriage usually occurred at the point of sexual maturity in Hebrew and Roman society, unlike many years after sexual maturity like it does today) as pointed out, if you're not making your partner happy in bed, you're a shitty spouse who isn't taking care of their sexual (and therefore spiritual) health, and not truly enjoying Gods gift to a married couple to the fullest that He gave it.

You can almost argue you're spitting at God by not spitting in your wife's mouth as you fuck her senseless and give her the greatest orgasm of her life

You only believe this because you were raised in a country with primarily Christian leadership.

Yes. Simplest is that sex has plenty of consequences, as does violence, and violence tends to be presented as a "neccesary evil", but when presented gratuitously it also tends to get the same kind of revulsion.

Really, you're just a moron who can't see that? You really think sex, violence, and shitting are all the same, and that you're not committing fallacies left and right?

Fuck off, you dumb cunt, and stop asking questions you can figure out on your own.

I'd argue it's still restrictive. Sexual freedom within a single, defined kind of relationship de facto excludes a vast number of other ways to express love and lust- Which isn't intrinsically a bad thing, either.

>yes, even if their idea of expressing that love is butt stuff.

If you're referring to Sodom and its condemnation, it's actually the subject of a pretty large scholarly debate in theological circles whether or not it was about sodomy or rape, as both occurred during the events of Sodom (most specifically the demand to literally rape the ass of an angel of God).

>All I'm doing is calling out things which are in the damn book most of the western world was built on.

All you're doing is thinking that Christianity is defined by a fundamentalist interpretation and adherence to the Bible.

That makes you not only stupid, but not even on the starting line of this discussion. You literally need to unlearn everything you know just so I don't have to reteach you everything each step of the way.

You are literally that stupid.

I don't think they're all the same, and I never said anything to that effect. I draw comparisons between their depictions and our reactions to them, which you continue to dismiss out of hand without any coherent explanation as to why. I'm beginning to see why you rely so heavily on insults rather than arguments.

Oh geez user, I was actually just saying we shouldn't automatically assume only evil people are allowed to stick their dick in a girl's ass.

A Paladin and his Cleric lover engaging in some anal is something both lewd and adorable.

>I'd argue it's still restrictive

Well, like most things in the Bible, there's actually a large amount of safety reasons that the rule is in place. Wild and reckless abandon and sowing your seed with little restraint is a great way to get STD's, many of which were quite painful (or even lethal) and untreatable back then. That completely removes you from the dating pool unless somebody else is already infected, and reduces the health of the society.

This method greatly reduces a common problem that has really only been "solved" in the last 100 years, and even then the best way to not get an STD is to not fuck somebody with one.

Except, if you read my post again, I'm not. I'm merely looking at the whole thing as a single system, where the good and the bad are taken together and considered in their entirety. The examples I gave, factually, are in the book that a large part of the western world believes to be the divinely given book of God. Those passages and many like them are largely ignored, but that doesn't weaken my point- That there are deep flaws in christian morality. Many of them are much less obvious and therefore much more insidious. the existence of these flaws does not make christian morality inherently bad, but it makes it much like all other human works- Imperfect.

So, basically, you said something cute, but ultimately pointless.

Kind of like saying "Ever notice how the stewardess says we can now get on the plane? I'd much rather be in it!"

Your "argument" is basically along the same lines of trying to get a stewardess fired for misleading you, it's that level of stupid.

Sex and violence are different. Comparing them like you did doesn't reveal anything except something that GRRM might use for a cute humorous quip of no real substance.

You raise a fair point. Almost always, there is a good reason for almost any given religious rule or law. The trouble is that books of faith are slow to adapt, so elements that were once useful and valuable can end up lasting long after their relevance has vanished and end up doing more harm than good.

Tell me how sex can be anything more than indulgence of the flesh if you feel nothing for your lover. Also homosexuals don't count since they're not people.

To say nothing of Chaotic characters.

"Those who say this hole is only for pooping are trapped in a frightfully limited way of thinking."

It is an indulgence of the flesh. You only believe that's inherently immoral because you were raised with Christian morals and no counterarguments. It's no more sinful than a bubblebath or a chocolate cake, regardless of whether or not you've married the baker.

What's wrong with indulgence of the flesh? If everyone involved enjoys themselves and take proper precautions to prevent the spread of disease or accidental pregnancy-

>Also homosexuals don't count since they're not people.

Ah wait, never mind, you're either a hateful moron or a troll. If the latter, you got me.

You're just confusing me now. Can anyone else in the thread make sense of this?

Look, you are VEEEEEERY stupid. Very.
You don't understand anything about Christianity, and you're trying to tell people who do know about it what you feel, and I can tell you right now you are quite the ignorant spectacle.

Do yourself a favor, and before you tell people about "deep flaws" in something, you might actually want to learn about it so you don't just present yourself as someone who is willfully ignorant for the sake of perpetuating a senseless hate that was built on ignorance.

Like, I'm glad you think you're more intelligent than the intellectual elite of the philosophical and theological world of the last 2,000 years, but you might want to read some of their arguments before you misconstrue everything just so you can make yourself look like an idiot.

>A Paladin and his Cleric lover engaging in some anal is something both lewd and adorable.

>mfw her time spent on her hands and knees in worship is finally getting put to good use

>so elements that were once useful and valuable can end up lasting long after their relevance has vanished and end up doing more harm than good.
In this particular case, though, it still does kind of apply. Look at the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 60's-80's among gay Americans - the wild and promiscuous lifestyle caused as many as 1 IN 4 gay men to have HIV/AIDS at its peak, which while is "livable" today with treatment, was pretty much a death sentence of 1-5 years at that point in time unless you were insanely rich. STD's can come out of nowhere, and you never know how powerful they can be - by reducing the amount of sexual partners you have, you reduce the risk of catching an STD that can potentially ruin your life if not end it entirely. That still holds true today, even with modern medicine.

this desu

You mean like what Anselm or Aquinus thought proved the existence of God, but actually didn't?

Read
Indulgences of the flesh are literally sin.

>What's wrong with indulgence of the flesh?

Diabetes is one example of indulgence taken too far.

Christianity, with a few exceptions, is almost universally about moderation and not outright restriction unless you are taking an absolutely fundamentalist view of the work and not looking at the "meat" of the work.

Once again, you prove your own ignorance, and the purpose behind their proofs.

Please, do yourself a favor. Stop living your life with a desire to be stupid, just because you want to hate and you know you won't be able to continue to hate if you actually open up your mind a little.

>Why is it that "good aligned" societies in fantasy seem to be against sex and "evil societies" in fantasy settings always sex crazed maniacs?

This literally does not happen. How many traditional games even touch down on the subject of a society's sexual practices?

Reading this thread, the only hate I see is a rather one sided succession of insults from someone claiming moral authority without any actual attempt to justify it.

>Once again, you prove your own ignorance, and the purpose behind their proofs.
What's the purpose behind their proofs? Is it different from their explicitly stated purpose of proving the existence of God through logic?

Only under Christian theology. If you'd been raised under a non-Abrahamic religion, you wouldn't be quoting the Bible.

So it's really not an evil thing to succumb to your basest desires and abandon all reasoning to go fuck whatever moves?

Degenerate.

Only if "whatever moves" is a consenting adult also interested in mutual pleasure, so long as it doesn't lead to any destructive behavior (such as neglecting responsibilities).

>so long as it doesn't lead to any destructive behavior (such as neglecting responsibilities).

So, with a degree of restraint?

I have every right to hate idiots. But, I'm not hating you, I'm just hating your ignorance.

This isn't moral authority. This is me, saying you, are an idiot.
Because, you are an idiot.

There's no point in arguing WITH you. You've started out proving you were too stupid to have even a basic understanding of what you were talking about, and then all you've done is continue down the line expressing just how little you know and how many different ways you've decided to bolster your ignorance.

You are too stupid for an argument, because you don't even know what you're arguing against. It's like you've only done the barebones research to figure out how to condemn Christianity for crimes it never committed for reasons it doesn't have for a purpose it opposes, and you're wondering why I'm just calling you an idiot instead of arguing against you like you've said something meritorious and debatable.

Are we reading the same thread? When did any of what you described actually happen?

Well, with "whatever moves" you run into the ethical issues related to animals and children, who can't give informed consent to sex. Rape is widely agreed to be bad.

>We live in a culture where we're more comfortable watching brutal violence and people die in a piece of media than we are enjoying acts of intimacy, love and the creation of life.

Yeah because I don't get to see people dying in real life. All the gifs I watch on here don't even replace the feeling of watching a human being die before your eyes. Or the feeling of pain rattling up your arm as you beat someone over and over with a club until they die. Ever done batting cages? I bet it feels just like that.

Seriously, though, that's why I play RPGs. It lets me do things I can't do in real life. Same with TV. That's why I am sick of things I have to deal with in real life (like sex and sexuality) being on TV. Why do I want to watch a sex scene on TV? It doesnt' belong.

Same with RPGs. I don't want sex shit in my game longer than a fade to black.

>Good societies should be all over freaky sex between two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship.

Go back to Rddit.

>is more taboo and avoided than depictions of violence and murder, of people ending lives.

Are you implying people killing each other isn't JUST as natural as sex?

>Penises entering vaginas bring a lot more joy into the world than axes entering skulls.

Yeah maybe to a sex-obsessed pervert like George RR Martin. He's not even a good author.

I do wanna note, however, that if you wanna use Christian theology for your moral high ground, you might wanna consider
>Matthew 5:43-47
>Matthew 7:5
>Matthew 15:7-11

I may not be a Mormon anymore but the New Testament's got some good stuff.

Except every time we bring up sex outside of marriage it somehow becomes synonymous with shameful indulgence of the flesh?

>Ever done batting cages? I bet it feels just like that.

It doesn't. It's much closer to smacking a coconut with a baseball bat until it shatters, or with a bladed weapon like sticking a knife in a watermelon.

Source: Did some bad shit as a kid.

Seems like you could be providing quotes or something to show when we're wrong. Even if you don't think it'll change our minds, you can do it so that you can show it to all your friends like "even though I showed them they were wrong, they didn't accept it, 'cause they're idiots!"

Showing is much more satisfying than telling. SHOW us why we're idiots, don't just tell us.

why does OP needs to be such a pedantic faglord

The entirety of your posts are built on flawed fundamental understandings of sex, Christianity, Christianity's views on sex, culture, world culture, historical trends, and so on and so forth.

To educate you to the point where we can actually discuss these topics would require you to unlearn a fair amount that you seem quite committed to, and that's what makes it less effort to call you an idiot because holy fuck I hope you don't actually say these sort of things in public.

Sometimes, I forget people under eighteen manage to find their way onto this site.

Because everyone responding to him is. OP just knows his audience; he doesn't force you to gargle eleben gorillion BBC

““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”
Matthew 5:43-47 NIV

“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Matthew 7:5 NIV

“You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ ” Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.””
Matthew 15:7-11 NIV

Let us all read them

>What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them,
Lol

This isn't specific to fantasy. If anything, it's less of a trope in fantasy than in other media.

Fake an orgasm.

Spiritually speaking.

Are ye also without understanding?

15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

I was joking.

I don't know how this thread ended up about theology, but I'll springboard off that for a question that doesn't deserve its own thread.

Why is it whenever you see a truly /organized/ religion in D&D and the like, it takes the majority of its inspiration from Catholicism?

Surely, there have been other religions with that degree of organization they could draw on?