PDA

View Full Version : Weird thought: progressive society combined with outdated monarchy?



The Oni
2014-05-14, 05:39 AM
Recently occurred to me while brewing a 3rd party D20 setting that an monarchal arranged marriage does not necessarily preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage, but this seems extremely odd for a number of reasons: not the least of which would be the inability by default to produce an heir. More importantly, it begs the question of which monarch actually is considered to hold the crown.

The notion seems quite likely to crop up in a setting where the average society is said to be accepting of such relationships by default (and Alter Self exists as a spell), but requires logistical work to avoid seeming forced (or worse, fetish-based - the only thing worse than being forced into a DM's 'magical realm' is being forced into an author's). More importantly, even the logistics of Alter Self get complicated; if one gives birth in a severely magically altered form can the child be considered a legitimate heir for the purposes of monarchal succession? It gets weird quickly, and much of this is stuff that really doesn't need to be explained in a particular country's fluff section.

Honest opinions all round, please - I know the general attitude on GitP is fantastically PC but would you actually be interested in such a setting or are you just being tolerant for tolerance's sake? I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.

Eldan
2014-05-14, 06:07 AM
My first thought upon reading it was actually "Does the heir need to be a blood relation?" Many historical societies were very open about adopting heirs. Those that immediately come to my mind are the Romans and the Japanese. If the Monarch (for whatever reasons) does not have a son by blood, they find some likely talented young person and adopt them.

You could even make that the default assumption. Children of the last monarch don't automatically assume royalty themselves. They'd have an advantage, from education and resources, at the very least, but wouldn't always inherit. You could even combine it with some other historical societies (Celts, Holy Roman Empire) and have a council of nobles voting on a new king.

So, in general, to answer your question: yes, very much. I love world building and considering societal implications with my roleplaying.

The Oni
2014-05-14, 06:34 AM
This is probably a valid point - the same country in this case is a mostly human nation but granted a small Barony to a dwarf in exchange for his service to the crown, and some of the human baronies are only distantly related.

Rhynn
2014-05-14, 06:44 AM
Eldan is spot on; this issue is basically trivially solved using real feudal customs like adoption. There were many models of inheritance even in Medieval Europe alone, and absolute primogeniture is just one. The simple answer is: the heir is appointed. This was generally the case anyway (absolute primogeniture really only became a clear thing after the Middle Ages). Read up on the first 300 years or so of successions to the English throne after William the Conqueror; it's inspiring stuff, and shows you how messy it all was.

Also, the issue of titles is likewise solved very simply by existing customs: when nobles marry, they each keep their titles. Eleanor of Aquitane was Duchess of Aquitane in her own right, and although the marriage with King Henry II joined the duchy to the English crown, Eleanor remained Duchess of it. She was an exceedingly wealthy and powerful woman, which is why she spent 16 years as her husband's prisoner. (Well, that and supporting his sons in their rebellion...)

Since spouses are usually entitled to the title as well, you can append -consort to the title when referring to the spouse who married into it. This was usually reserved for monarchs, and then usually the rare Kings who married into the title and didn't come into absolute power (although usually they'd be called Prince consorts, as e.g. Prince Phillip). In Medieval times, almost all queens were Queen consorts (as opposed to Queens regnant, like Elizabeth I, etc.), so the "consort" bit is usually omitted as unnecessary.

Example: Trollo Duke of Gambol marries Ernt Count of Frooth. Trollo becomes Count Consort of Frooth and Ernt becomes Duke Consort of Gambol. (The titles do sound a bit akward, but that's mainly because they're never really used in the real world; they're essentially theoretical.)

In a same-sex noble marriage, unless there's some specific contract that makes one party subservient to the other, one would assume that the "higher" domain takes the "lower" as a vassal (if that's not already the case, and unless that would cause war with the lower domain's current liege), but both retain control of their own holdings.

HighWater
2014-05-14, 06:55 AM
which monarch actually is considered to hold the crown.
This is easily fixed through a common real world solution. In the "Real World", there is the problem that the title of King is generally taken to be higher than Queen, or that families want to exclude the married partner from claiming the throne when the original family member dies. Here's the solution: one partner (the actual crown-holder) is the "real title", the other is the consort. So you have a King and his Prince Consort (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prince%20consort), or a Queen and Queen Consort (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/queen%20consort) (though you might want to change that to Princess Consort for term-consistency as the unequalness between King and Queen has little place in a setting where same sex royalty is accepted).

You can decide that alter self or polymorph don't let people conceive in sex-changed forms, actually I think that's probably RAW. Especially alter self only goes skin-deep, so the production of gametes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete)may simply just not work in the new form. Furthermore, most spells, such as alter self and polymorph generally last far too short to even conceive, let alone give birth 9 months later. You have to go through serious shenanigans to pull such a time period off, the kind of shenanigans setting-characters never indulge in (or you face the Tippy-verse). Of course, you can still argue that anything can be fixed with magic (for a price), such as growing a baby from two same-sex partners in a magical incubator after splicing their genes with magic. This can even be a nice touch to set your setting apart and can be a great way to introduce some "unintended consequences".
Alternatively procreation (the already mentioned adoption) can be a valid alternative for same-sex couples looking for an heir and has plenty of historical precedent.



Honest opinions all round, please - I know the general attitude on GitP is fantastically PC but would you actually be interested in such a setting or are you just being tolerant for tolerance's sake? I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.
This one is trickier. In my own DM-setting, I try to be as tolerant as possible, but it takes effort to overcome the default assumptions. Neigh every history/fantasy story you read doesn't feature that kind of tolerance (it is often hand-waved "yeah they're tolerant and equal-opportunity", yet the on-screen traditional positions of power are almost always held by straight men). If you feel like you have to shoehorn stuff in, it may be time to reconsider. On the other hand, the only way for people to experience equal-opportunity, tolerant fantasy as "normal" is for it to exist in the first place. Try to be subtle about it, this includes not going into the details too much, unless they make for a nice background story (the time the infant prince of the Queen and Queen consort was corrupted by his creator-Wizard).

Rhynn
2014-05-14, 07:12 AM
are you just being tolerant for tolerance's sake?

Who cares? Except bigots, obviously.


I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.

You're probably fine, unless they're bigots!

There's no reason for a fantasy culture to have a stigma against same-sex relationships. Plenty of real-world cultures didn't or don't (although they often have very specific cultural contexts for it, but who cares? It's a fantasy world).


Also, heir appointment or adoption don't need to be much more common than they were in the real world in feudal societies (which varied widely), but so long as it exists, it solves the inheritance problem. The default mode could still be, say, cognatic primogeniture, but appointment overrides it.

Inheritance can go "up" and "sideways," depending on the system; if a ruler dies with no direct heirs, his/her siblings or uncles/aunts or more distant relatives could inherit. If the system is very clan/house -based, this could be seen as perfectly acceptable; your clan's lineage is secure because your siblings have produced heirs even though you're in a union that can't produce heirs (for whatever reason).

Edit: Personally, I think I'd actually prefer to come up with specific cultural contexts for same-sex attraction, rather than absolute tolerance, just because I like difficult settings and social structures that can create conflicts just by their nature. There's plenty of inspirations, like the mentor-student romance popular (and even expected) in feudal Japanese and Ancient Greek warrior culture, or Pacific Islander gender roles, etc.

For instance, in Glorantha (of RuneQuest and HeroQuest), Heortling society generally isn't bothered about who you have sex with (although marriage is a family affair, not a personal thing), but if you were born a man and want to dress like a woman and perform women's duties, you need to follow a specific goddess (Nandan); and if you're a woman but want to be a warrior ("men's work"), you have to follow either Vinga, the Goddess of Women Warriors (in which case you're treated as a man, to the extent of being able to perform the male roles in mythic reinactments), or one of the more uncommon war deities (in which case you're treated as a representative of that deity rather than a man or a woman).

I find this sort of structures to be interesting and to have verisimilitude.

The Oni
2014-05-14, 08:27 AM
Who cares? Except bigots, obviously.

You're probably fine, unless they're bigots!

There's no reason for a fantasy culture to have a stigma against same-sex relationships. Plenty of real-world cultures didn't or don't (although they often have very specific cultural contexts for it, but who cares? It's a fantasy world).



I don't mean by any means that I would cater to bigots. I just worry about going too far in the opposite direction and looking as though I'm pandering or playing to fetishes. It's quite the balancing act, I must say.

But I see what you're saying, and I think I've done a pretty good job of contextualizing all these different relationships. For instance, I've got one society in the setting that ended up with a really small gene pool since they were isolated in a foreign land, and keeping that pool refreshed with new blood is a priority. So for instance, it's alright if you prefer the same sex, but if you're a reasonably healthy member of said society (not as common as they would like) you're expected to find a mate who's a capable outsider so you can bear children. It's treated as a duty rather than a gender role; what you do before/after that is entirely your business.

@ "Consorts" - Ah, thanks! That's actually more or less what I was looking for, a way to term that particular situation, since the marriage in question (as so many royal marriages are) was for political maneuvering's sake, and so the one who ends up as the Prince Consort is an important distinction.

Cikomyr
2014-05-14, 08:45 AM
Actually, "Marriage" for had a lot more to do about producing children (for labor among commoners or ensuring a succession) as well as political and material succession than anything "love"-related.

Sexual preference, romantic relationships and other such sentiments were usually achieved with the use of consorts, mistresses, etc.. Marriage was more of a utility-centric social contract.

Only in modern society where official polygamy is frowned upon (thus forcing in a mono-partner relationship) and that an actual desire to live your life with your significant other has Marriage became more about "love" than having children/succession/alliance. Thus, we have started to tolerate and accept same-sex marriage, since Marriage became more about love than about having children.


An Homosexual-friendly medieval society would NOT have same-sex marriage, since it would detract from the actual function of marriage; securing a succession/alliances, etc. You'd just have male Consorts for homosexual royalty, and they would probably have more power than the King's wife.

Rhynn
2014-05-14, 08:59 AM
I'm not actually that convinced common people - who didn't have to worry about the inheritance of noble titles* - were that much into marriage in the Medieval and post-Medieval periods. Even in the late 19th century, an estimated 50% of children in Finland were born outside of marriage, because people just didn't get married.

AFAIK among peasants, "marriage" was no more formal than cohabiting and having sex (there have been, in some times and places, customs that demanded children actually be produced or the marriage is considered null, or may be annulled).

Nobles had to worry a bit more about the strong appearance of legitimacy, because heirs were actually likely to face challenges from other potential heirs. A peasant's heir was known as his son by everyone in the village, and no one was likely to challenge the inheritance; the word of neighbors etc. would suffice to settle the matter if it was brought to the lord. (Of course, if the heir couldn't pay heriot, and the other claimant could, the lord might find for the challenger, although he'd probably weigh his desire for the payment against the potential unrest...)


But yes, in many (most?) historic societies, romantic love and marriage were considered largely separate, even actively incompatible. In Japan, romance was between a man and a married woman (or a married man and a mistress); in Ancient Greece, the ideal was that you begat children with your wife, but you loved men; and even in Medieval Europe, marriage was basically a business affair and necessity. Feudal lords could force their serfs, in particular, to get married (freemen had more, well, freedom), and IIRC there were specific fees that might be assessed on people who didn't produce heirs; just like there was chevage and manumission for those who wanted to leave the manor, even temporarily, and merchet for marrying your daughter off the manor... (Granted, a lot of this is specifically English, but they got a lot of this from other older codes.)

Sith_Happens
2014-05-14, 09:18 AM
Honest opinions all round, please - I know the general attitude on GitP is fantastically PC but would you actually be interested in such a setting or are you just being tolerant for tolerance's sake? I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.

I would be no more or less interested in it than any otherwise similar setting.


Sexual preference, romantic relationships and other such sentiments were usually achieved with the use of consorts, mistresses, etc.. Marriage was more of a utility-centric social contract.

Only in modern society where official polygamy is frowned upon (thus forcing in a mono-partner relationship) and that an actual desire to live your life with your significant other has Marriage became more about "love" than having children/succession/alliance. Thus, we have started to tolerate and accept same-sex marriage, since Marriage became more about love than about having children.

This is another plausible direction to come at it from; the society in question can just not have the same sort of assumptions about exclusivity. The case would then be that Trollo and Ernt (which really deserves to be the "Alice and Bob" for this thread, by the way:smalltongue:) still spend most of their time together, the only caveat is that their families and advisors expect them to periodically lie back and think of England, so to speak.

Cikomyr
2014-05-14, 09:19 AM
This is another plausible direction to come at it from; the society in question can just not have the same sort of assumptions about exclusivity. The case would then be that Trollo and Ernt (which really deserves to be the "Alice and Bob" for this thread, by the way:smalltongue:) still spend most of their time together, the only caveat is that their families and advisors expect them to periodically lie back and think of England, so to speak.

That's what I was arguing for, effectively. Thank you for putting it succintely.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-14, 10:59 AM
I think it would be cool if it was legally possible, but still reviled. In a medieval society, some might not care, but the overwhelming majority would probably denounce their unnatural love as blasphemy, madness, or even SPARTA witchcraft. The heir would most likely be widely regarded as illegitimate, and would need to fend off many potential claimants.

But yeah, opposition would probably come in a few categories:

Belief that the monarchs are bat-**** crazy and need to be stopped.
Opportunism: Opponents (foreign and domestic) capitalizing on the monarchs' bizarre marriage to break with the crown, or make their own claims seem more legitimate.
Religious institutions (whose teachings may call homosexuality an abomination/witchcraft/the devil).


As a player, I'd want to see the royals given at least some trouble for it, so that I could relate their struggle to those of real-life homosexuals.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-14, 11:11 AM
You might also consider that such a society might not be strictly monogamous; it might be well accepted that the King has a Prince Consort, but openly claims his child by his mistress (or the Prince Consort's child by HIS mistress, or the Queen adopts the Princess Consort's child by her lover, etc.)

Also consider that monarchy might not be entirely outdated, due to the technology and reality of a fantasy world. If you have people becoming monarchs when they are anointed as such by priests (or actual deities), then pretty much any chosen successor can be a Monarch.

I'm actually thinking of Valdemar, here. It's often assumed that the children of the monarch will become the next monarch... but the monarch must always be Chosen by one of the Companions, and an unChosen child of the king cannot become king or queen himself. Nor can an unChosen Prince Consort. However, the Companions are perfectly willing to Choose someone who is "born on the wrong side of the sheets"; Vanyel impregnated the Queen because she wanted babies and her husband couldn't give her them, and this was done with the King's full knowledge and assent.

137beth
2014-05-14, 11:51 AM
...I saw the thread title, and that the last post was by Mark Hall, and assumed it was locked. Then I clicked on it and realized it wasn't:smallamused:

My first thought upon reading it was actually "Does the heir need to be a blood relation?" Many historical societies were very open about adopting heirs. Those that immediately come to my mind are the Romans and the Japanese. If the Monarch (for whatever reasons) does not have a son by blood, they find some likely talented young person and adopt them.

You could even make that the default assumption. Children of the last monarch don't automatically assume royalty themselves. They'd have an advantage, from education and resources, at the very least, but wouldn't always inherit. You could even combine it with some other historical societies (Celts, Holy Roman Empire) and have a council of nobles voting on a new king.

So, in general, to answer your question: yes, very much. I love world building and considering societal implications with my roleplaying.
These are pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well.

I'd also like to point out how the rulers of Aeranal (Eberron) are determined: the elves are ruled by a pair of siblings, who are appointed by the Undying Court. Sexuality really need not have anything to do with it.

Jay R
2014-05-14, 12:12 PM
You are making the modern assumption that marriage is primarily about sexual entertainment or living together. In the medieval period, its primary purpose was to create heirs. The secondary purpose at the royal level was to create alliances, by creating children who were related to both houses.

In places where the Crown is inherited, the lack of a clear, undisputed heir is bad for the kingdom. It's a potential civil war.

Crowned heads often had paramours for recreation as well as a spouse for procreation.

Note also that you didn't need marriage in order to live in the same house. Hundreds of people live in the castle, and many of them routinely visit the royal bedchambers. Kings and Queens often had paramours who lived in the castle.

So I would only have a royal same-sex marriage in the game for a kingdom in which succession was completely unrelated to blood.

[And I've never done that before either, which in retrospect, surprises me. Given the ease with which a peasant can become the most powerful war leader in the kingdom, you'd think succession would be much more fluid. But I've always assumed primogeniture.]

Sith_Happens
2014-05-14, 03:52 PM
I'd also like to point out how the rulers of Aeranal (Eberron) are determined: the elves are ruled by a pair of siblings, who are appointed by the Undying Court. Sexuality really need not have anything to do with it.

Certain segments of the Internet would disagree with you on that point.:smalltongue::smallyuk:

Gildedragon
2014-05-14, 04:41 PM
Note that blood-relations might be involved, but needn't needfuly be via the children of the ruler, but by the children of a sibling.
It is possible that if the institution of monarch is a sacred one that they are deemed 'dangerous' for procreation bringing about all sorts of holiness derived maladies (burning up, plague, Doom) to their non Royal blooded parent and to anyone unfortunate enough to have contact with them.
Thus the Royal divinity is kept dilute by moving the crown down branches.

so monarch is locked into a non-reproductive marriage with a tutelary divinity via a priest(ess), and the monarch's heterosexual sibling is tasked with producing at least 2 children. If multiple members of the family want to be the parents of the next monarch interesting succession rules come into play. One is taken into the monarch's household/temple and is taught the roles of divinity, meets the aegis's acolyte...

This way you end up with one (or two) 'royal' bloodlines that allow for sexual-gender roles different from those we ordinarily see.

Aedilred
2014-05-14, 04:57 PM
You are making the modern assumption that marriage is primarily about sexual entertainment or living together. In the medieval period, its primary purpose was to create heirs. The secondary purpose at the royal level was to create alliances, by creating children who were related to both houses.
Although that frequently proved not to work out well, of course. It's suggested part of the reason Louis XIV was so aggressively anti-Habsburg was because he was half-Habsburg himself. Would the Hundred Years War have happened - or at least have lasted so damn long - had Edward III not had a French mother?

veti
2014-05-14, 05:15 PM
Actually, "Marriage" for had a lot more to do about producing children (for labor among commoners or ensuring a succession) as well as political and material succession than anything "love"-related.

This. In classical Sparta, where same-sex relationships were the norm (at least between men of aristocratic birth), a man would be expected to have a pair-bonded male (which is the most important relationship in their life), and, as a matter of duty, also a female wife to bear children.

Adopting an heir is perfectly fine, but you're stilly supposed to produce children of your own. Even if you didn't have any particular wealth or rank to pass on, there still needs to be a next generation. You can even disown your own blood-child and adopt a completely unrelated heir, and that still doesn't absolve you of the duty to procreate.

Jay R
2014-05-14, 05:16 PM
Although that frequently proved not to work out well, of course. It's suggested part of the reason Louis XIV was so aggressively anti-Habsburg was because he was half-Habsburg himself. Would the Hundred Years War have happened - or at least have lasted so damn long - had Edward III not had a French mother?

I'm not defending medieval thought, merely describing it.

Rhynn
2014-05-14, 05:38 PM
I think it would be cool if it was legally possible, but still reviled. In a medieval society, some might not care, but the overwhelming majority would probably denounce their unnatural love as blasphemy, madness, or even SPARTA witchcraft.

Why, though? Plenty of real-world cultures didn't. There's a pretty specific background to the Medieval European attitude that we can't get into. Where that background didn't exist, the matter was frequently different. (Even in Imperial Rome, attitudes varied widely.)


You might also consider that such a society might not be strictly monogamous; it might be well accepted that the King has a Prince Consort, but openly claims his child by his mistress (or the Prince Consort's child by HIS mistress, or the Queen adopts the Princess Consort's child by her lover, etc.)

This is a good approach, too, and again history bears it out. Making an heir out of a bastard was as simple as acknowledging him and naming him; ultimately, it didn't matter that much (even to religious authorities) whether a man's wife was the heir's mother - in patriarchal/patrilineal culture, only the father's identity really mattered.

As time went on, inheritance customs got more rigid and formalized, but it was a long process to get to the modern systems. See, for instance, Henry FitzRoy, who died while his father (Henry VIII) was trying to get Parliament to allow him to disinherit Elizabeth and name "someone" (Henry FitzRoy) as his successor.


In places where the Crown is inherited, the lack of a clear, undisputed heir is bad for the kingdom. It's a potential civil war.

Medieval inheritance frequently had to be enforced by military might even when it was clear who the heir was (firstborn legitimate son named by the king as his heir, etc.). The first 300 years or so of English succession after William I were pretty much never without troubles.

Grinner
2014-05-14, 07:40 PM
@Lord Smeagle: Have you ever heard of Blue Rose? Because that's largely what you're describing.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the setting. It's so...simplistic. If you're going to explore such territory, be sure to fully consider the implications of your assumptions.

The Oni
2014-05-14, 07:58 PM
@Lord Smeagle: Have you ever heard of Blue Rose? Because that's largely what you're describing.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the setting. It's so...simplistic. If you're going to explore such territory, be sure to fully consider the implications of your assumptions.

Judging by the reviews, it does seem to come across as a bit contrived just because the "good guys" are by default super-accepting of said relationships while it's the evil guys who are all bigots. I'd like to have some grey areas based on cultures and stuff (because a culture defined by negative traits is dumb.)

jaydubs
2014-05-14, 08:55 PM
I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.

Make sure the society and NPCs in question are similar in depiction to the other societies and NPCs in your setting. The NPCs just happen to be homosexuals, and the society in question just happens to be accepting of such relationships.

If most NPCs in your world are morally grey, flawed characters struggling with their own personal issues, have the monarchs be the same. If most societies have a large number of economic and social issues, this society should have similar problems.

For instance:
-One of the monarchs is significantly older than the other, and the marriage was politically motivated. The younger monarch is unhappy with the relationship, and there are rumors of him/her being involved in an illicit affair. Court intrigue ensues.
-The society could be accepting of same-sex relationships, but there are significant racial disparities. Perhaps gnomes and halflings are considered second class citizens to humans, elves, and dwarves.
-The monarchs themselves could be more interested in preserving their power than the welfare of their citizens.

The above are all problems that could be seen in any other society or pair of rulers.

In essence, don't turn your campaign into an episode of Star Trek. There shouldn't be a moral takeaway or aesop. That rule applies to this issue as much as any other. As long as you adhere to that, the players probably won't sigh and roll their eyes at you.

Eldan
2014-05-15, 01:49 AM
Judging by the reviews, it does seem to come across as a bit contrived just because the "good guys" are by default super-accepting of said relationships while it's the evil guys who are all bigots. I'd like to have some grey areas based on cultures and stuff (because a culture defined by negative traits is dumb.)

Make "the good guys" prejudiced about something else. Age, skin colour, species, magical power, ear size... humans are creative when it comes to exclusion.

Rhynn
2014-05-15, 01:59 AM
Make "the good guys" prejudiced about something else. Age, skin colour, species, magical power, ear size... humans are creative when it comes to exclusion.

Better yet, don't cast entire nations / cultures / races / species as "good" or "bad." That's really ironic in a "progressive" setting... :smallamused:

Arutema
2014-05-15, 04:21 AM
You are making the modern assumption that marriage is primarily about sexual entertainment or living together. In the medieval period, its primary purpose was to create heirs. The secondary purpose at the royal level was to create alliances, by creating children who were related to both houses.

...

So I would only have a royal same-sex marriage in the game for a kingdom in which succession was completely unrelated to blood.


A fantasy world with multiple races which may be biologically incompatible muddies this somewhat. If an Elf and a Dwarf house seek an alliance by marriage, the Elf princess may as well marry a Dwarf princess as a prince, as they won't be producing children regardless.



[And I've never done that before either, which in retrospect, surprises me. Given the ease with which a peasant can become the most powerful war leader in the kingdom, you'd think succession would be much more fluid. But I've always assumed primogeniture.]

This, plus the above is why I tire of monarchies in fantasy worlds, and tend to populate the ones I build with republics, magocracies, theocracies, tribal councils and stranger things.

Eldan
2014-05-15, 04:46 AM
One could have a Merit Monarchy. (Is there a name for that?)

Something along these lines: once every year, or every X years, there's a tournament of some kind. I'm not sure what. Probably not combat, something more relevant to rule. Then the winner of the tournament gets to challenge the monarch, fi they win, they are the new monarch.

Rhynn
2014-05-15, 06:17 AM
One could have a Merit Monarchy. (Is there a name for that?)

There's elected monarchies. Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs, Sweden until 1544, Denmark until 1660 (Scandinavians sucked at the whole feudalism thing), Poland from 1370 and Poland-Lithuania until 1795, the Venetian Doge (Duke), the Mongols' Great Khan, Muslim Caliphs, the Mali Empire...

It amounts to the same: some criteria is used to select a monarch, instead of the position being hereditary. (Although, a lot of the time, the son - often the eldest - of the last monarch had a leg up.) In a fantasy setting with superhuman heroes and/or active gods (or the appearance of regular miracles, etc.) some divine proof or quest or challenge could definitely be used. Maybe a moistened bint lobs a scimitar at someone...

Eldan
2014-05-15, 06:22 AM
A literal Theocracy is definitely viable in a fantasy setting. Golden light from the sky and proxyhood for the worthiest.

Aedilred
2014-05-15, 06:57 AM
There's elected monarchies. Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs, Sweden until 1544, Denmark until 1660 (Scandinavians sucked at the whole feudalism thing), Poland from 1370 and Poland-Lithuania until 1795, the Venetian Doge (Duke), the Mongols' Great Khan, Muslim Caliphs, the Mali Empire...

It amounts to the same: some criteria is used to select a monarch, instead of the position being hereditary. (Although, a lot of the time, the son - often the eldest - of the last monarch had a leg up.).
In most elective monarchies it has tended to be "select the best family member" and this is probably an older and (theoretically) better system than straight father-son primogeniture, since it tends to avoid the problems incumbent with child kings. In practice it led to a lot of succession disputes and civil wars... The HRE widened the franchise a bit and had "select the best from these several families", although that tended to work out, if anything, even less well.

Poland/Poland-Lithuania probably got it closest to being right, since there was effectively no restriction on who could be chosen. It's worth mentioning of course that even there it wasn't a particularly democratic election - all the candidates and electors were noblemen.

(I still can't get my head around the institution of the Queen of Naboo in The Phantom Menace, who is elected democratically and serves a short fixed term. How, exactly, that differs from a presidency is beyond me. And they still managed to elect a child.)

Jay R
2014-05-15, 09:50 AM
A fantasy world with multiple races which may be biologically incompatible muddies this somewhat. If an Elf and a Dwarf house seek an alliance by marriage, the Elf princess may as well marry a Dwarf princess as a prince, as they won't be producing children regardless.

That misses the point of an alliance by marriage. The long-term alliance is primarily formed by the production of children who are related to both houses.

You bring up an inherent difference between the fantasy worlds and the real one. In our world there is only one sapient race, and all noble houses can form an alliance by marriage.

This gives some extra justification for long-term irreconcilable differences between otherwise reasonable races, like elves and dwarves. (To be sure, such differences have existed in our world as well, but this makes it even harder for them to reconcile.)


This, plus the above is why I tire of monarchies in fantasy worlds, and tend to populate the ones I build with republics, magocracies, theocracies, tribal councils and stranger things.

I understand, and that makes sense for your purposes. Since my goal is to simulate classical fantasy, I don't throw away medieval structures without a compelling reason.

The Oni
2014-05-15, 07:19 PM
To be sure, the setting definitely includes at least one theocracy, one "monarchy" that's really a democratic bureaucracy because the king got Magna Carta'd into irrelevance, one mob-rule democracy, a region that's total anarchy, one region where the government is structured more or less like a lion's pride, two rural communist collectives, a plutocratic cluster**** where noble houses rise and fall every day, and an *incredibly* complex system where a monarch is appointed by a four-thousand year old ruleset, a council is elected by the "informed citizenry" (read: top 10%) and the two vie for power like it's Calvinball.

But I figured a good old fashioned monarchy (with a twist) for good measure would cap it all off nicely.

neonchameleon
2014-05-15, 08:17 PM
Recently occurred to me while brewing a 3rd party D20 setting that an monarchal arranged marriage does not necessarily preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage, but this seems extremely odd for a number of reasons: not the least of which would be the inability by default to produce an heir. More importantly, it begs the question of which monarch actually is considered to hold the crown.

Welcome to modern Britain? And no which monarch holds the crown isn't in question. There's always been a lot of legalism round royal weddings - Prince Phillip is the consort of the Queen rather than the King.

The Oni
2014-05-15, 08:23 PM
Welcome to modern Britain? And no which monarch holds the crown isn't in question. There's always been a lot of legalism round royal weddings - Prince Phillip is the consort of the Queen rather than the King.

Yeah, but I'm not modeling it after Modern Britain (Sithrak knows there's been enough of that), especially because in this particular case, the governmental structure is an absolute monarchy with a handful of baronies, as opposed to a nominal monarchy/functional presidency.

Ravian
2014-05-15, 11:33 PM
Slightly related to the topics of fantasy marriages. I had an interesting situation when I was building a vampiric feudal state. Vampires don't reproduce sexually, and heirs were less of an issue overall (though sill necessary in such a violent society as one made up of back-stabbing vampires), so most vampires kept retainer houses of mortals to train suitable heirs from. (along with occasional adoptions from other mortals). Marriages in particular were primarily considered political alliances (especially given that both spouses would usually have their own spawn and heirs).

I never included much mention of same-sex alliances in such a state (the game was primarily based in historical Europe and most of the Vampires were still Catholic(ish) (long story, lots of vampire manipulation, communions takes a more literal turn, etc. etc.) so progressive ideas were still developing, especially in a society as stagnant as one of immortal vampires) but it would certainly be possible, and probably considered a rather clever political move. (though the social aspects would probably make it easier to contest)

Always an interesting exercise to think of social institutions through the perspective of creatures with different biologies and concerns.

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 12:24 AM
don't reproduce sexually, and heirs were less of an issue

Were you making a pun, or was this a happy accident?

Coidzor
2014-05-16, 01:57 AM
Recently occurred to me while brewing a 3rd party D20 setting that an monarchal arranged marriage does not necessarily preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage, but this seems extremely odd for a number of reasons: not the least of which would be the inability by default to produce an heir. More importantly, it begs the question of which monarch actually is considered to hold the crown.

The notion seems quite likely to crop up in a setting where the average society is said to be accepting of such relationships by default (and Alter Self exists as a spell), but requires logistical work to avoid seeming forced (or worse, fetish-based - the only thing worse than being forced into a DM's 'magical realm' is being forced into an author's). More importantly, even the logistics of Alter Self get complicated; if one gives birth in a severely magically altered form can the child be considered a legitimate heir for the purposes of monarchal succession? It gets weird quickly, and much of this is stuff that really doesn't need to be explained in a particular country's fluff section.

Honest opinions all round, please - I know the general attitude on GitP is fantastically PC but would you actually be interested in such a setting or are you just being tolerant for tolerance's sake? I worry about breaking immersion or inducing player groans for the sake of inclusiveness.

I'd be wondering what anvil the GM was looking to drop or what horrible, facepalm-worthy gimmick they had cooked up for the scenario myself if it became pertinent, unless it involved a succession crisis in which case that would just be a sigh and shoulder shrug worthy gimmick. As far as setting fluff goes, I'd just yawn and move on, like most fluff that's not going to be relevant.

That said, it's much easier for a woman to be impregnated than a man.

If the Monarchy is actually outdated relative to the society though, I doubt it would have much power for heirs to really matter except to the kinds of people who breed royals the same way some people breed dogs, and those people would tend to be literal minded when it came to the breeding of their royals as far as my imagination goes. At most I could think they'd have workarounds for extreme cases, but I doubt they'd make a habit out of it.

Also, I can see royals breaking off marriages that were arranged between children of the opposite sex when they were 3 because one or both turned out to be gay, but I can't see royals deciding that they'd arrange a marriage between two male children or two female children that far in advance, at least not without homosexuality or bisexuality being the rule, which is its own kettle of fish.


Yeah, but I'm not modeling it after Modern Britain (Sithrak knows there's been enough of that), especially because in this particular case, the governmental structure is an absolute monarchy with a handful of baronies, as opposed to a nominal monarchy/functional presidency.

Then it's not exactly outdated and hidebound, now is it? :smalltongue: Should be quite relevant to that society.


To be sure, the setting definitely includes at least one theocracy, one "monarchy" that's really a democratic bureaucracy because the king got Magna Carta'd into irrelevance, one mob-rule democracy, a region that's total anarchy, one region where the government is structured more or less like a lion's pride, two rural communist collectives, a plutocratic cluster**** where noble houses rise and fall every day, and an *incredibly* complex system where a monarch is appointed by a four-thousand year old ruleset, a council is elected by the "informed citizenry" (read: top 10%) and the two vie for power like it's Calvinball.

But I figured a good old fashioned monarchy (with a twist) for good measure would cap it all off nicely.

What, is the point of the setting "look at all of the kooky governments people can cook up for themselves?" :smallconfused:

JusticeZero
2014-05-16, 03:10 AM
More importantly, it begs the question of which monarch actually is considered to hold the crown..
That's generally not an issue, because the lineage is already traced. At least one country has had a couple female Kings, and IIRC, at least one other has had a ruling Queen with a secondary King, because in both cases, the line of power was clear.
It is also worth note that not all monarchs have been chosen by strict lineage; a King that is groomed and placed on the throne by the nobility is no less of a King, nor is a King who is King because she single-handedly united the kingdom through their skills.

Weirdlet
2014-05-16, 04:20 AM
Maybe the arranged same-sex marriages are deliberately created to create a limited-term alliance that can seal a deal, show good faith between the agreed parties, and have a convenient tie/hostage/diplomat available, while guaranteeing that the cadet branch won't be able to grow independently powerful over the generations, because the property reverts or the deal that was made can be renegotiated on one, the other or both partners' deaths.

Kid Jake
2014-05-16, 04:38 AM
Maybe the arranged same-sex marriages are deliberately created to create a limited-term alliance that can seal a deal, show good faith between the agreed parties, and have a convenient tie/hostage/diplomat available, while guaranteeing that the cadet branch won't be able to grow independently powerful over the generations, because the property reverts or the deal that was made can be renegotiated on one, the other or both partners' deaths.

I could suddenly see two very resentful straight guys being wed together with the understanding that if either family fails to hold up their end of the bargain they're to kill their husband or die trying.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-16, 04:45 AM
I'd like to point out that societies which had both hereditary rule and gay marriage are something that existed in real life. The vikings spring to mind, for example - they didn't call it gay marriage, it was called blood brotherhood, but for all purposes it was pretty much that.

Ravian
2014-05-16, 12:10 PM
Were you making a pun, or was this a happy accident?

Definitely not intentional, not even really sure what you were referring to.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 12:16 PM
Issue: as in children, particularly in regards to inheritance.
---

Another idea: The Crown is a telepathic intelligent object and is the one that picks who wears it. Negative levels to whoever keeps it on without permission. It is the actual source of legitimacy and power, the head of state, but it needs a head to speak for it and act for it

The Oni
2014-05-16, 12:21 PM
Then it's not exactly outdated and hidebound, now is it? :smalltongue: Should be quite relevant to that society.

To clarify: It's an old political and succession system combined with modern societal mores (as opposed to the mores of, say, 200 years ago).



What, is the point of the setting "look at all of the kooky governments people can cook up for themselves?" :smallconfused:

Well hell, we call it speculative fiction for a reason. What's the point in making countries at all if not so the players can burn them to the ground cackling like madmen/women to imagine how they differ from real world nations what with the presence of gods, magic and such.

Jay R
2014-05-16, 01:07 PM
Another idea: The Crown is a telepathic intelligent object and is the one that picks who wears it. Negative levels to whoever keeps it on without permission. It is the actual source of legitimacy and power, the head of state, but it needs a head to speak for it and act for it

And it was built by Drow to soften up the humans, train them to stop making their own decisions, and prepare them to be conquered and enslaved.

[Or perhaps it is all it claims to be, and a boon to society, and some evil group is trying to convince the kingdom that is was made by the Drow, etc.]

I like this campaign idea.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 01:15 PM
And it was built by Drow to soften up the humans, train them to stop making their own decisions, and prepare them to be conquered and enslaved.

[Or perhaps it is all it claims to be, and a boon to society, and some evil group is trying to convince the kingdom that is was made by the Drow, etc.]

I like this campaign idea.
I was thinking more of Divine Right made Artifact
Or that Grand Wis-zier managed to attain immortality (or pseudo demilichom) in an custom-made magic item
Or some idiot aristocrat took too many item feats "item of legacy" line + item familiar + ancestral relic and then went and gave it an Int score.
The Ego score rose past 40 and the "superior to everyone" line is at 20...
It was a bloodless coup

...or a gestalt of all past rulers. Which just means you don't take it into the bedroom

Coidzor
2014-05-16, 06:32 PM
To clarify: It's an old political and succession system combined with modern societal mores (as opposed to the mores of, say, 200 years ago).

Well hell, we call it speculative fiction for a reason. What's the point in making countries at all if not so the players can burn them to the ground cackling like madmen/women to imagine how they differ from real world nations what with the presence of gods, magic and such.

In this case I think it just muddled your meaning. :/

I suppose if you had "X powerful force is deliberately propping up this untenable state of affairs to see how long it takes for someone else to come along and change it." as the explanation for several of those, it might work. I find it hurts suspension of disbelief if you have that many vastly different societies rubbing elbows together with no two societies having any similarities. Aside from the rural (agrarian?) communist collectives, anyway. That, or it demands some pretty good explanation, which, admittedly, there's no room or time for that here. XD


And it was built by Drow to soften up the humans, train them to stop making their own decisions, and prepare them to be conquered and enslaved.

[Or perhaps it is all it claims to be, and a boon to society, and some evil group is trying to convince the kingdom that is was made by the Drow, etc.]

I like this campaign idea.

It does seem to have lots of possibilities, yes. :smallsmile: Kudos, Guigarci.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-16, 07:01 PM
I think it's neat to have little contradictions like this in a culture. It speaks of history and traditions, rather than some generic Mary Sue-topia with all the things the world maker likes in a culture.

russdm
2014-05-16, 07:34 PM
I don't see a problem except for the big one right in front: Succession Wars. Even with Man/Woman pairings, there were some ones that happened anyway. I just don't see a Male-Male pairings in the monarchy producing nothing but bloodshed and continuous civil wars. There is no heir, and the adopted Heir will be challenged by anyone interested in the crown more so.

A Female-Female pairing would probably be viewed more acceptably because you can produce an heir more easily that would have some measure of legitimacy. This is what all nobles are going to be looking at their monarchs over. The only way to get Legitimacy in a Male-Male pairing will result in one effectively playing a woman to produce heirs, unless you get a woman in which that offspring would be seen as legitimate but get challenged by the other side. You could have a King and his prince consort, but congrats, you have created a succession crisis with it. Does the Prince Consort rule after the King dies? if not, who does then? the king's family? the Prince Consort's? Both sides will be clamoring with claims. And if you adopt an heir, well, that will end up solving nothing really, because of the fact that the families on both sides will challenge and so will the nobles.

Adopted heirs were only used when there were no living family members to inherit and if there were, that family member or their kid would end up getting appointed heir. A pairing of Male-Male would mean that if one or both had kids, both could be placed as heirs and since there is no mixing (A female-female pairing could produce kids by the same male, which would work far better at legitimizing heirs), it means you end up with two families directly fighting over the crown.

Crown (kingships) were usually passed down one line or to branched out lines, but with two families vying (like in the Male-Male pairing), you get the war of the roses and such until one heir line has been destroyed from the running.

Short of constant divine intervention to make the Male-Male pairing last beyond those two, its too much of a silly gimmick to pull on players. Its far easier just to have the king/queen married to the opposite gender, but have their actual lover (regardless of gender) be rather public because there will be far less legitimacy issues.

I don't have an issue with having the kingdom be open about same sex relationships/marriages, in fact some medieval kingdoms had that stuff going on in some form that was really discreet or named differently, but most people in a kingdom don't want succession wars to happen unless they personally benefits and given how much the common folk would suffer, they would end up opposed more often than not to any regal marriages that can result in wars that hurt them with a very likely to happen chance.

I only see a Same-Sex marriage for the monarchs only happening to a kingdom that ruled by a council where the monarchs will act as figureheads. Its the only I think that could really produce either one, without it causing it succession wars if the monarchs actually had power.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 08:01 PM
....I just don't see a Male-Male pairings in the monarchy producing nothing but bloodshed and continuous civil wars. There is no heir, and the adopted Heir will be challenged by anyone interested in the crown more so...
Except the line of descent is far more clear. It is the difference between a heir presumptive ie an unverified heir and a heir apparent the confirmed successor. In a system where same sex monarch are not unusual, appointment would be the determiner for succession (excepting avuncular inheritance, which I talked about earlier, where it is the monarch's sibling that produces the heirs) which cuts down on legitimacy issues. Doesn't eliminate them because, well, assassination IS a thing. But then you end up with the usual cluster**** of who did daddy/uncle/sugar-daddy kingman love/trust/think-highest of more.

[/quote]A Female-Female pairing would probably be viewed more acceptably because you can produce an heir more easily [/quote] except you end up with the forcing them to 'breed' problem of before. And the queen-consort's issue is of no interest. Heck it might cause more issues because births can be even more simultaneous.
that would have some measure of legitimacy.
birth != legitimacy
legitimacy = legitimacy
Bastards were often excluded from heirships, as were women. Being born of the right body is not legitimacy in and of itself unless the culture dictates it is. And then you will need to produce testimony

The only way to get Legitimacy in a Male-Male pairing will result in one effectively playing a woman to produce heirs Wat? And Nope (see above)

You could have a King and his prince consort, but congrats, you have created a succession crisis with it. why?
Does the Prince Consort rule after the King dies? I am reminded of several queens that ruled until the Heir came of age. Same principle. Prin. Con. rules as Lord Protector or Chamberlain or something
if not, who does then? the king's family? the Prince Consort's? Both sides will be clamoring with claims. Don't see why P.C.s family would have a claim. They are spliced onto the monarchic branch. They aren't part of the line of descent.
And if you adopt an heir, well, that will end up solving nothing really, because of the fact that the families on both sides will challenge and so will the nobles. What sides? The king's family? No because the king was then probably adopted. Or if you mean as a surrogate son. Yeah people are gonna challenge it, but no more than things got challenged when monarchs had multiple spouses and thus A LOT of children. Except here you get to pick your heir and make sure the heir isn't cuckoo for cocopuffs (somewhat. powerplays probably affect the choice of heir, and sometimes there is no choice but select that crazy kid cause he's the best of many bad options).


Adopted heirs were only used when there were no living family members to inherit and if there were, that family member or their kid would end up getting appointed heir. Rome begs to differ. Pretty sure other places as well.
A pairing of Male-Male would mean that if one or both had kids, both could be placed as heirs and since there is no mixing not as heirs to the throne, no. PCs kid inherits PCs non-monarchic holdings, King's kid inherit's Kingship.
(A female-female pairing could produce kids by the same male, which would work far better at legitimizing heirs) Why? Mr. Spermbank there has no bearing in the situation. If anything it ****s up HIS line of succession.
it means you end up with two families directly fighting over the crown. No it don't.



Crown (kingships) were usually passed down one line or to branched out lines, but with two families vying (like in the Male-Male pairing), you get the war of the roses and such until one heir line has been destroyed from the running.
or it can consolidate THREE lines into one. King's, PC's, and whatever line provides the kid to be "adopted" by the royal family.



Short of constant divine intervention to make the Male-Male pairing last beyond those two, its too much of a silly gimmick to pull on players. Its far easier just to have the king/queen married to the opposite gender, but have their actual lover (regardless of gender) be rather public because there will be far less legitimacy issues. Nope



I don't have an issue with having the kingdom be open about same sex relationships/marriages, in fact some medieval kingdoms had that stuff going on in some form that was really discreet or named differently, but most people in a kingdom don't want succession wars to happen unless they personally benefits and given how much the common folk would suffer, they would end up opposed more often than not to any regal marriages that can result in wars that hurt them with a very likely to happen chance.
Oh for fourletterword's sake...
There is no need for succession wars. No more than with any other form of kinship system.
Succession wars are inevitable because people are kinda bad at letting everyone know what their last will and testament was
and people will always challenge whatever the dead guy's will is even if it was explicit. Just look at modern families fighting over a P/M-atriach's will post-mortem.

It gets simpler with non-reproductive pairs AND adoption. Because you make sure to adopt just ONE healthy, sane 5 year old and there. Line of succession established

russdm
2014-05-16, 08:13 PM
It gets simpler with non-reproductive pairs AND adoption. Because you make sure to adopt just ONE healthy, sane 5 year old and there. Line of succession established

The nobles can still cause problems by disagreeing anyway. So why not just make like how Britain has it, with the country ruled by a parliament with the Monarch more of a head of state, and then worry any about the kings/queens or their adopted heir? It would work why better than anything.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 08:18 PM
The nobles can still cause problems by disagreeing anyway. So why not just make like how Britain has it, with the country ruled by a parliament with the Monarch more of a head of state, and then worry any about the kings/queens or their adopted heir? It would work why better than anything.

Except contemporary GB is a nominal Monarchy, not a funtional (insert joke here on how the only functional monarchy is a non functioning one)

I believe the thought exercise is to have an actual monarchy.

And the nobles might cause trouble, if it is in their favor. But say that being approving of the system means you get a shot at putting your family on the throne; or what if disagreeing gets you cut off from court, and thus from access to other nobles, and your fortunes wane; or what if disagreeing gets your family Castamere-d... And point is; nobles stirring trouble up is not exclusive to same sex reigns. It has happened all the time.

russdm
2014-05-16, 08:27 PM
That's all true, but it really feels to me that is being done mainly to be preachy rather for any kind of actual value. That having a progressive society somehow immediately translates into having a progressive monarchy too. If the monarchy is outdated, then why not let them be outdated? And if it a progressive society then why is it an actual monarchy? If you are going to have it progressive than have a progressive monarchy, its essentially what you are asking for anyway. Outdated monarchy and progressive society implies to them that the monarchy may be intolerant or not copying what the rest of society is really doing. If the monarchy is copying what everyone else is doing, than how is it outdated? Because it still exists? Then why is it an actual monarchy still with a progressive society?

This just feels really wonky when you could have it just be an actual monarchy that's progressive and have it sound a lot better than how it does.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 08:36 PM
That's all true, but it really feels to me that is being done mainly to be preachy rather for any kind of actual value. That having a progressive society somehow immediately translates into having a progressive monarchy too. If the monarchy is outdated, then why not let them be outdated? And if it a progressive society then why is it an actual monarchy? If you are going to have it progressive than have a progressive monarchy, its essentially what you are asking for anyway. Outdated monarchy and progressive society implies to them that the monarchy may be intolerant or not copying what the rest of society is really doing. If the monarchy is copying what everyone else is doing, than how is it outdated? Because it still exists? Then why is it an actual monarchy still with a progressive society?

This just feels really wonky when you could have it just be an actual monarchy that's progressive and have it sound a lot better than how it does.

Preachy how? It isn't necessarily progressive within the world it takes place in. It just is. Sure there might have been a crisis of succession the first time it happened, but things got sorted out.
And it is not preachy to acknowledge that our social mores are different now than then; and expect our fantasy worlds to conform to our modern social mores. For example:
I didn't see you arguing against there being a Queen as the rightful sovereign. Despite that queens being queens-as-bearer-of-The-Crown (not queens consort, or queens-regent) was unusual.
Likewise I don't see you arguing that the aforementioned Queen-ocracy is preachy in the name of women.

russdm
2014-05-16, 08:43 PM
And it is not preachy to acknowledge that our social mores are different now than then.

It is when things are setup through wording to make it sound like that you are acknowledging those social mores are different and also apparently needed to be changed too since they are wrong, instead of just acknowledging them.



I didn't see you, for example, arguing against there being a Queen as the rightful sovereign. I don't see you arguing that is preachy in the name of women.

Because there have been times in history when queens have ruled directly or as a queen regent? Its something that did happen at times and Queen Victoria happens to a rather famous queen ruler.

Edit: It sounds more to me that the intent is to complain about how the social mores were different than having them be just like more modern ones and never bring up the issue of different social mores. This is implied heavily to me by saying "progressive society combined with outdated monarchy" and then having an argument about how needs to be updated, rather than just calling it a "society with a same-sex monarchy" as that implies that the society is the same as the monarchy itself. The other way makes it sound like the monarchy and society are opposed to each other on the matter of social mores and that what is outdated about the monarchy in compared to the society.

It puts the issue of differing social mores and than pronounces judgement while trying to appear neutral. Instead of just flat out saying that society has progressed so its a same-sex monarchy that wields absolute power. Why is saying "A progressive society with an absolute monarchy" and then saying how that monarchy is same sex unacceptable and that saying "progressive society combined with outdated monarchy" and then saying that monarchy is same sex and bringing up the implied different social mores acceptable? The first one implies having it work the way you want it to, while second with the "progressive society/outdated monarchy" implies the whole point is drop an Aesop about how things are supposed to be.

In my opinion at least.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 08:54 PM
It is when things are setup through wording to make it sound like that you are acknowledging those social mores are different and also apparently needed to be changed too since they are wrong, instead of just acknowledging them.

I don't even...



Because there have been times in history when queens have ruled directly or as a queen regent? Its something that did happen at times and Queen Victoria happens to a rather famous queen ruler.
two things.-
1) queen victoria is nowhere near medieval-esque, nor autocratic. nor all that powerful. Elisabeth I was a far better choice if you wanted to argue this point (but then again, she adopted)
2) queen rulers are, as I said, not common historically. historically women have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to inheritance; particularly in europe.
which leads to other points:
-Fantasy is under no demands to follow the same trajectory as history. History can be a starting point but it is not the rulebook.
-Fantasy is much less obliged to reproduce the prejudices and injustices of the past. It can. it can be great fantasy while doing that. But it has no obligation, nor must it to be Right or Good Fantasy

russdm
2014-05-16, 08:59 PM
which leads to other points:
-Fantasy is under no demands to follow the same trajectory as history. History can be a starting point but it is not the rulebook.
-Fantasy is much less obliged to reproduce the prejudices and injustices of the past. It can. it can be great fantasy while doing that. But it has no obligation, nor must it to be Right or Good Fantasy

That's fine, but it sounds a lot to me that the change is being highlighted and presented in a way to put those past issues up and then promptly claim that is was wrong rather than to have the change made because its how it should be rather than to air some baggage or complaints.

You can have your fantasy be modern without making how past things were done was all wrong and solely done by wrong people, presenting it solely as "modern way, good; past way, bad" that the OP is doing.

Coidzor
2014-05-16, 09:49 PM
Edit: One thing I'm reminded of now is the way that the Dragaeran Empire worked with each ruler succeeded by a different one of the 12 Houses. Some sort of "rotation" might be a workaround, particularly if there's some very high incidence of homosexuality amongst the royal line/nobs. Though how you'd work around that, I don't know.


Except the line of descent is far more clear. It is the difference between a heir presumptive ie an unverified heir and a heir apparent the confirmed successor. In a system where same sex monarch are not unusual, appointment would be the determiner for succession (excepting avuncular inheritance, which I talked about earlier, where it is the monarch's sibling that produces the heirs) which cuts down on legitimacy issues. Doesn't eliminate them because, well, assassination IS a thing. But then you end up with the usual cluster**** of who did daddy/uncle/sugar-daddy kingman love/trust/think-highest of more.

It can be, sure, but that's only if they have a dedicated groundwork already made up for this sort of thing, and then that either had to be determined after it had become a problem or was determined in advance through some manner of divination/divine mandate/???.

Any system where same sex monarchs were not unusual would need to explain why there's such a high incidence of homosexuality and/or bisexuality amongst the royals, but that's more general setting stuff, such as whether sexuality roughly follows meatspace or if someone played around with the dials during universe creation.


except you end up with the forcing them to 'breed' problem of before. And the queen-consort's issue is of no interest. Heck it might cause more issues because births can be even more simultaneous.

The "forcing them to breed" problem is kind of inherent in any system that depends upon heirs, so it's not like it's actually creating anything new there, at least.


Why? Mr. Spermbank there has no bearing in the situation. If anything it ****s up HIS line of succession.

There's multiple options there, especially since using magic to get a woman pregnant is much less intensive and longterm than using magic to make a man into a woman or sustain a viable environment & gestating embryo. Also the variants where the natural father is irrelevant and never a matter of record or stricken from it.


or it can consolidate THREE lines into one. King's, PC's, and whatever line provides the kid to be "adopted" by the royal family.

Seems a bit far-fetched, but if you can walk through it, more power to you.


There is no need for succession wars. No more than with any other form of kinship system.
Succession wars are inevitable because people are kinda bad at letting everyone know what their last will and testament was
and people will always challenge whatever the dead guy's will is even if it was explicit. Just look at modern families fighting over a P/M-atriach's will post-mortem.

Well, I mean, they are a little bit common, but I don't think they're completely played out, either.


It gets simpler with non-reproductive pairs AND adoption. Because you make sure to adopt just ONE healthy, sane 5 year old and there. Line of succession established

As long as no siblings are irked that someone who they don't know from Adam is going to put an end to their dynasty without even killing them first, aye.


It is when things are setup through wording to make it sound like that you are acknowledging those social mores are different and also apparently needed to be changed too since they are wrong, instead of just acknowledging them.


To clarify: It's an old political and succession system combined with modern societal mores (as opposed to the mores of, say, 200 years ago).

I think what they meant was that it's just some kind of pseudo-feudal/medieval monarchy + some spin on modern progressive social values.

The Oni
2014-05-17, 12:15 AM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

I really had no intention of making judgments one way or the other, m'kay? As a designer I don't play politics, and I do everything I can to keep my personal beliefs out of it. I just wanted to know if this was something that was important to players and would be interesting to them or if it was too weird to be appealing. If you wanna fight about video game preachiness or the meaning of progressive there are other threads boards for that.

Gildedragon
2014-05-17, 01:20 AM
It can be, sure, but that's only if they have a dedicated groundwork already made up for this sort of thing, and then that either had to be determined after it had become a problem or was determined in advance through some manner of divination/divine mandate/???.

Couple of ways I can see this happening. First one: X-lineal kinship system, where (non X) aunts/uncles pass their inheritance to X sibling's non-X child. Society becomes non-X-al, but is still X-lineal: a non-X member of this society conquers a place and declares themself absolute ruler. Since their children (if any) don't inherit by them but by their partner, crown moves to their nephew/niece. The ruler being a non-reproductive individual is no problem

Second option: Society has 2 institutions, a priesthood and a (sacred) monarchy (hinging upon a sacred royal bloodline). Both are fairly taboo-surrounded. Kingdom's balance believed to arise from the union of both of these institutions. However child from such a union is BAD news. Too sacred, too dangerous: abominable in its perceived power, impossible to handle.
So there is union but it is not a fruit-bearing one. To continue the monarchic line, a sibling must produce 2+ children, one to be reared in kingly ways, one to be the parent of the long after their sibling.


Any system where same sex monarchs were not unusual would need to explain why there's such a high incidence of homosexuality and/or bisexuality amongst the royals, but that's more general setting stuff, such as whether sexuality roughly follows meatspace or if someone played around with the dials during universe creation.
it is no more unusual than in non nobles. Just that the monarch's brood-producing-capacity is not a matter of import. In any system where consanguinity is not the matter this would also be the case.



Seems a bit far-fetched, but if you can walk through it, more power to you.

Royal family and Demi-Royal family are joined in a non-reproductive marriage. Their assets are somewhat tied together because the heirs to their lines are entangled.
There is a third powerful family with too many children. royal couple takes one of them for adoption in a ritualized fashion that bonds 3rd family to the Royal line.



Well, I mean, they are a little bit common, but I don't think they're completely played out, either.
the larger the estate the more vicious the vultures



As long as no siblings are irked that someone who they don't know from Adam is going to put an end to their dynasty without even killing them first, aye.
if surrogate parenthood or inheritance via adoption/appointment are common then the siblings might well be surrogates themselves, or the monarch quite possibly came to title via adult adoption; they would have no basis to presume to inherit the title themselves. Kinda like me getting angry cause... Dunno, will smith's son is gonna inherit his stuff instead of me.

Aedilred
2014-05-17, 04:24 AM
There's no inherent reason that a male-male pairing should produce more succession disputes than a male-female pairing, so long as the law of succession is clear. That could be an adopted child, like at times in the Roman empire (adoption tended to happen in adolescence or adulthood, rather than in childhood, mind, for probably obvious reasons) or the king(s) could have accepted concubines or harems whose heirs would be considered legitimate, or their illegitimate children could be legitimised. Father-son successions are in themselves not always a guarantee of a straightforward succession, since a lot of kings never produce a male heir, or their male heir dies young, or their male heir is an infant on their death, etc.

What you definitely need, though, is a mechanism for producing or procuring heirs, and this is really the crux of the issue. One of the main reason gay marriage - leaving aside oppression and so forth hasn't been a thing until recently is because until relatively recently marriage was considered to be first and foremost a system for producing children - and while a gay couple are capable of raising a child (notwithstanding that traditional gender roles would have caused problems there) they're not able to produce them without outside help. That goes even moreso for nobility and royalty.

JusticeZero
2014-05-17, 01:05 PM
This is true, but they could conceivably adopt from the nobility, particularly whatever subset of the nobility they 1: wanted to strengthen ties with and 2: had an overabundance of lineage-clouding heirs themself.

Taet
2014-05-17, 05:48 PM
Maybe the progressive society is the one that has the strict kind of marriage. Whatever that kind is. Maybe the outdated monarchy is the kind where anything goes and the monarchy cannot understand why the rest of society does not see this marriage as a marriage. It's good to be the king! No being jealous. :smallcool:


Maybe the arranged same-sex marriages are deliberately created to create a limited-term alliance that can seal a deal, show good faith between the agreed parties, and have a convenient tie/hostage/diplomat available, while guaranteeing that the cadet branch won't be able to grow independently powerful over the generations, because the property reverts or the deal that was made can be renegotiated on one, the other or both partners' deaths.


Issue: as in children, particularly in regards to inheritance.
---

Another idea: The Crown is a telepathic intelligent object and is the one that picks who wears it. Negative levels to whoever keeps it on without permission. It is the actual source of legitimacy and power, the head of state, but it needs a head to speak for it and act for it
These are both wonderful ideas. :smallsmile:

veti
2014-05-18, 04:55 PM
Seems to me that if this society is really "progressive", it's not going to have a succession war no matter what. You don't get to be a progressive society if your whole country gets turned upside down two or three times a century. It's the sort of thing that really holds attitudes back.

For society to get to that state, it has to have a good level of confidence and continuity. It will have well established laws about the succession - much closer to modern Britain than 12th-century England. Probably pretty much anyone in the country could tell you the names of the first 4 or so heirs in line to the throne at any time, and - more importantly - they'd all tell you the same thing.