I'm playing a character who is gay. He's always been gay and has never felt attraction to women. I wanted to pick the Maztican goddess of love, Kiltzi, but I read that:

her favored form of devotion was performed privately between a man and a woman

Does that mean that when my character enters the afterlife, he will be rejected by her? Or does she accept all forms of love?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: What happened in Maztica to make Tabaxi emigrate? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 4:50
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Note: The quoted text comes from this article on the Forgotten Realms fan wiki, which cites the 1991 Maztica Campaign Set. \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeQ
    Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 5:13
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ This would have been a really interesting question to ask TSR in 1991, in a letter to Dragon magazine or as a question to one of the devs at a convention. You are about 28 years late to the party, it seems. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 6:24
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ That reads to me like a way to imply sex without coming right out and saying it. From that standpoint, it likely wasn't meant to imply a limit on orientation, just to get the idea across without losing a "G" rating. \$\endgroup\$
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 21:18

5 Answers 5


It's an interesting question. There is no hard-fast answer, but there is an implicit suggestion in the way that D&D 5e has adapted to a more updated view on diversity.

So, in your quote about Kiltzi it mentions that the "favored form of devotion" is between a man and a woman. This in itself does not mean that it is exclusive. You could have you character be many times devoted as others for instance. The devotion practice itself is not specific. It could be sharing intimacy on many different levels, not just sexual intimacy. Also, consider that Kiltzi possibly has another facet, which could be hidden to the world at large, but which your character is in touch with. Maybe it is part of your character's purpose to enlighten Kiltzi's followers and show them that she favors all forms of love devotion.

Discuss this with your DM: if the script doesn't fit, just ask her/him/them to change it.

Remember, the information about Kiltzi was published almost 30 years ago (Maztica Campaign Set, 1991) and D&D (and society) has mostly come a long way since then. I played the first edition D&D and AD&D so I'm keenly aware of this. For instance in the PHB (p. 8) of AD&D there is a whole self-justified blurb about this:

A Note About Pronouns: The male pronouns (he, him, his) is used exclusively throughout the second edition of AD&D game rules. We hope this won't be construed by anyone to be an attempt to exclude females from the game or imply their exclusion. Centuries of use have neutered the male pronoun. In written material it is clear, concise, and familiar. Nothing else is.

[Thank the Gods that is not in D&D 5e.]

There has been, and quite rightly so, positive changes in D&D 5e so that it is more reflective of and embraces a wider variety of narratives. You can choose your character's sex, gender, sexual orientation - and it actually says so in the 5e PHB. The materials are widely gender-neutral now too and say "he or she" - which is great because we have a lot of women players. Implicit in this too, is that the DM can also adapt, update or create deities and pantheons which suit the campaign and the players'/characters' preferences. The main thing is that you and your group enjoy role-playing your characters and their adventures.

The section in Chapter 4: Personality and Background of the Player's Handbook/Basic Rules relating to your character's sex supports this wider view (PHB, p. 121):

You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture's expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.

You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

May the many hues of Corellon's light shine on you!

  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer is pretty good but would benefit from explicitly stating that-- while the source material is, as we agree, silent-- the source material Klitzi almost definitely opposes homosexuality but a published updated Klitzi would almost definitely support homosexuality. I think that's the point you are making by comparing the texts on pronouns and orientation but it would be good to make it explicit. +1 for actually doing the work to support your position, though. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 20:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I wonder why they included that note. At the time it was the norm to use "he" as gender neutral. Even 20 years ago it would have been ok, 10 years ago a note like that would have been seen as marginally defiant but in defense of "common sense & grammar". \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 3:03
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you. I wouldn't personally say Kiltzi, even in the source material, is "definitely" opposed to homosexuality (same-sex love). Rather, it was omitted, which is different. I think Robert Fletcher (below) explained my reasoning well. The omission of female pronouns or the acknowledgement of the existence of relationships other than mixed-sex reflects the view that one need not mention women or LGBT communities. I would say it male-focused heteronormativity. Saying that, there have been fantastic changes. D&D 5e had given accolades for these positive changes. (Feminist War Games?, 2019) \$\endgroup\$
    – Senmurv
    Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 10:41
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Strongly agree with your comment, @ETgothome. "Performed privately between a man and a woman", to me, just reads as "*wink wink nudge nudge* sex!" from the author in the early 90's. The phrasing of the author's obfuscation is exclusive, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that the intent was to exclude. Given the context of the time, I'm happy to assume it was just an oversight. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 3, 2020 at 16:39

There is no canonical answer

Maztica, whence that particular deity comes, is not detailed in 5e material at any length. Indeed, that deity is not mentioned in any available 5e product. Male homosexuality was not explored in the source material where the deity originated-- namely TSR's 1991 Maztica Campaign Set and accompanying trilogy-- and said minor deity has not really been revisited since.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I mentioned solutions for the OP in my answer to cover this. I'll refer to this question as suggested. \$\endgroup\$
    – Maxpire
    Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 11:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with all of this, but I would add that in a simple textual reading "favored form" does not mean "only form" and also this is more likely a euphemism than meant to exclude homosexuality specifically. I believe that would remain short, authoritative, and nonjudgmental (other than acknowledging the frequent use of euphemism for certain topics) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 18:36

I believe the answer is Yes if the DM accepts the Forgotten realms Lore about Kiltzi in 5e

Otherwise nothing can be said about it.

As for canon Sune, Sheela Peryroyl, Freya, Aphrodite and Hathor are probably goddesses you should check.

The Forgotten Realms Wiki is the source of my deduction (1991) but there is no other info for 5e according to Please stop being evil so that would be the DM's call:

If the DM accepts the old info here is my interpretation of how it should be handled now in 5e:

Kiltzi was the Maztican goddess of love, both romantic and lustful, fertility, and health.

As Niv Mizzet points out in his answer she is the goddess of love (both romantic and lustful) and the gender of the people in love should not matter.

ET got home's answer does a fine job at suggesting how to handle it in 5e.

So for that part I would say yes.

(...)her favored form of devotion was performed privately between a man and a woman.

Favored means she prefers love between a man and a woman, not that it is exclusive as far as I understood. It makes perfect sense that she prefers it to be between a man and a woman because she's also the goddess of fertility!

If you're the DM you decide (go for it!), if you're not, ask the DM how he/she/whatever rules it.


  1. Since the goddess Kiltzi is not in the 5e edition this question probably shouldn't be tagged with the 5e edition, because if your DM accepts she's in 5e, she could be either way the DM want or she could follow the Forgotten realms Lore, so that makes it difficult to answer the question with a satisfactory result for the community. The Default answer is ''she's not in 5e''

  2. As for 5e Canon, there is no answer as pointed out by Please stop being evil

  3. Sune,Faerûnian greater goddess of beauty and love. and Sheela Peryroyl are in 5e so perhaps that's there you should look for (Forgotten Realms).

  4. @Dan B suggested adding Aphrodite and when I searched for her I also found Freya and Hathor.

  5. More info in:Love Domain

    There are three deities whom after the Spellplague lay claim to the love domain. One of them was Sheela Peryroyl (...) Sune, was the second deity whom called to her followers to find and collect beauty in all forms and things. Love must be shown daily. Many nobles in cities followed the teachings of lady firehair who thrived on her followers love(...)And lastly there was Kiltzi the Maztican goddess of love, lust, and fertility. (...)

  6. This Question can give you more info:How common is homosexuality in the Forgotten Realms?

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Just because there is no (5e) answer doesn't mean that the 5e tag should be removed from the question. If there is no answer, then that itself is an answer; and other related metas How to answer a RAW question when the RAW are silent?, What is an acceptable form for a “no” answer to a question of the form “Does X exist in the lore?”. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 10:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I strongly believe there would be an accurate answer to the question (by using standard english) because the Goddess exist in Canon but not in 5e Canon. But fair point. Noted. \$\endgroup\$
    – Maxpire
    Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 10:12
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ So, I'm not sure where you get 'the gender of people in love should not matter' from. As a Maztican thing, I mean. The novel setting is pretty clearly an analogue to the author's poorly-informed stereotype of the Aztec empire, and the Aztec both in actuality and in stereotype opposed homosexuality. The details of any native group besides the Aztecs are a lot harder to come by particularly due to the proliferation of misinformation, but the Aztecs themselves are clearer. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 20:28
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Given that some of the love goddesses on this list are real-world pagan goddesses from heteronormative cultures, I'm pretty sure that they themselves would have been heteronormative. Freya, for instance, came from the Norse, who had a culture where a man who was accused of being homosexual was obligated to kill the accuser. Not sure about Aphrodite's position on the matter, since the Greeks had a culture that involved men having sex with boys relatively commonly, and I'm not sure what the ancient Egyptians thought of the matter. \$\endgroup\$
    – nick012000
    Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 1:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I inserted a part that talks about ET got home's answer to complement what you guys pointed out was missing in my question and I've put ''my interpretation'' in strong text to show it was how I would handle it, thanks for the info though. \$\endgroup\$
    – Maxpire
    Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 16:35

If the DM says that this god has a positive view on non-heteronormative love then within your shared world that is canon. The written lore is a seed for imagination, not a rule book. D&D is a cooperative storytelling game, that's only supposed to be limited by your imagination.

As an aside, it's worth considering how adversity may help your character creation process. This could be a great opportunity to build some back story. Maybe the god accepts all expressions of love, but the church who worships them doesn't. What formative experiences may have come about because of this?

  • \$\begingroup\$ The written lore is a seed for imagination, not a rule book I love this point, bounty initiated. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 7, 2021 at 12:59

You're Overthinking It.

The passage you quoted means that she likes it when people have sex, instead of liking elaborate religious ceremonies. "Her favored form of devotion was performed privately between a man and a woman" is just an cleverly oblique way of saying it. You could maybe read that as indicating her voyeuristic preferences, but it would be unreasonable to say she excludes homosexual sex from her favor based on that passage.

If you think that your character's specific orientation is likely to be an issue for your GM, or if you think the plot is likely to center on the details of Kiltzi's doctrine, or if you expect some relevant game-mechanical effect, you should have a serious discussion with your DM. That has little to do with sex per se, it's just good practice for any time you want to tie your character to a central plot element or any time you expect a non-standard game mechanic.

Otherwise, just write down "Kiltzi" on your character sheet. If you want to write some fluff or fiction about how Kiltzi's worship works for your character, do that. It is vanishingly unlikely that your DM will be unhappy that you fleshed out some minor aspect of the game world in a way that doesn't break anything.

  • \$\begingroup\$ There are quite some DMs out there that use the doctrine of This is my world and some of them might feel insulted by not having been asked about their input before players flesh out background ideas, even if they might or might not have any impact on the game. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 0:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Trish Completely agree. However, those DMs are also unlikely to look favorably on "some guy on stack exchange said..." as a reason for anything, so it's a little moot. I would also think this is not one of those DMs: if OP were supposed to be working closely with his DM, the natural course would be to ask them, not ask here. \$\endgroup\$
    – fectin
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 0:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @fectin I mean, the point of asking is hoping that the answer isn’t “some guy on stack exchange said...” but rather “Book XYZ says,” having discovered that citation from an answer here. That didn’t turn out to be a possible answer (since there is no such book to cite), but that would be the ideal case here. Anyway, not voting, since I don’t really disagree with anything here, but also don’t really... see a whole lot of value-add here. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 3:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .