Rules for in-game marriage?

[gurgleflep]

One of my players asked me this morning whether or not there were bonuses or penalizations for getting married in-game and I honestly haven't got the slightest clue :smalleek: Are there any rules for such things? Maybe some magic wedding rings that grant each other bonuses when aiding one another? Penalties to bluff checks when talking to each other or something? I don't care if it's third-party content, homebrew, or houserules, I'd like whatever information I can get on such matters - none of my players have asked me this kind of question before and I'm at a loss for words.

[KingAtomsk]

I hear married couples get great tax incentives in Greyhawk.

But seriously speaking, no there are no mechanical benefits outline in the rules of the game, though as the DM, you could easily have the city/town/country or whatever provide benefits, or give them magic rings for wedding bands.

[Segev]

About the only thing that might come from this in a mechanical sense is that anything which mystically references "family" will recognize spouses, where it might not recognize "adopted siblings," "blood brothers," or "live-in S.O.s."

And I can't think of any such effect that exists canonically in the RAW.

[eggynack]

My initial thought is no, because that sounds incredibly silly, but my second thought is a +1 to the effects of flanking, because that sounds incredibly awesome.

[dysprosium]

There is a magic item in adventure two of the War of the Burning Sky campaign that is keyed off of the wearer's true love.

IIRC it allows the wearer to know if his beloved is in danger or gives some kind of status (like the spell effect).

Something like this can be created for your PCs married couple.

[caimbuel]

Marry rich daughter and get her wealth, as 99% of medieval did not allow women to own anything. Err, for a more PC campaign it is roleplaying they gain, and things that ground the character and help them role play can only help unless its a mega dungeon hack and slash fest.

[Sith_Happens]

At the very least, you almost certainly get the maximum +10 to spot someone disguised as your spouse.

[Vhaidara]

Well, one point is you should probably amend the ceremony. As OOTS has shown, "...'til death do us part" is not particularly all encompassing in a world with Ressurection and Plane Shift and zombies.

[supersonic29]

Can't imagine what mechanical benefits would possibly come from that from a PC POV. I mean wealth share could be a thing, but that is in the DM's hands to a degree, same with the possibility of a magic item based on love/marriage. Spot check thing was mentioned, but it's mostly a roleplay thing.

[gurgleflep]

So it's pretty much all up to me then it would appear - I like all the ideas though :smallsmile: Bonus to flanking, spot checks, and rings are all interesting. Shared money... might not be bad, one of them rarely spends anything so the other would get a fair bit of extra moolah :smalltongue: Thanks folks! Any other ideas would be awesome :smallwink:

[TheIronGolem]

At the very least, you almost certainly get the maximum +10 to spot someone disguised as your spouse.

That wouldn't be a benefit of marriage, but of the romantic relationship that (usually) precedes marriage. Consider a prince who marries purely out of political convenience and rarely sees his spouse; a good disguise would stand a pretty decent chance of fooling him for a time.

[AuraTwilight]

http://lonelygm.blogspot.com/2011/11/good-tidings-one-little-hazard-and-one.html

I've always been partial to this.

[Sith_Happens]

That wouldn't be a benefit of marriage, but of the romantic relationship that (usually) precedes marriage. Consider a prince who marries purely out of political convenience and rarely sees his spouse; a good disguise would stand a pretty decent chance of fooling him for a time.

To quote my favorite line to come out of an otherwise mediocre superhero movie: "I've seen you naked, you think I wouldn't recognize you just because you're covering your cheekbones?"

[kellbyb]

Well, one point is you should probably amend the ceremony. As OOTS has shown, "...'til death do us part" is not particularly all encompassing in a world with Ressurection and Plane Shift and zombies.

...'til oblivion do us part?

[Sith_Happens]

Well, one point is you should probably amend the ceremony. As OOTS has shown, "...'til death do us part" is not particularly all encompassing in a world with Ressurection and Plane Shift and zombies.

Then again, Mr. and Mrs. Greenhilt were both rather happy with that loophole.

[horngeek]

At the most, there's likely a feat out there that gives you a bonus, or a magical item.

The marriage itself should probably not give a bonus, unless there's magic explicitly involved.

[Psyren]

I'd say something like this would be a plot event worthy of a Campaign or Social trait.

[madtinker]

Bonuses on bluff checks and sense motive to relay secret messages to each other would be appropriate.

[questionmark693]

There's a first level spell called marriage on the cleric spell list in a third party book for swords & sorcery. It's for third edition, but you said even third party was acceptable, so there is that.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't see why Marriage needs a mechanical effect. If you want (and the DM and group is OK with it) an NPC partner to keep adventuring with you, you could take Leadership perhaps) but otherwise, why? Perhaps the ceremony itself could have a certain, minor, effect as part of the sanctioning by whatever forces sanction marriage in that world, but otherwise, why? Not everything needs to be spelled out mechanically.

[LibraryOgre]

None that I know of, but if I were to create some, I might tie them to the local deity of marriage, and have it be strictly between the two.

[Yahzi]

I'm with Raven. If your characters are getting married for the mechanical combat bonuses, they are doing it wrong. :smallbiggrin:

If anything, marriage is a detriment to your typical murder-hobo career. There's a reason Odysseus left the little woman at home.

[Vhaidara]

I don't see why Marriage needs a mechanical effect. If you want (and the DM and group is OK with it) an NPC partner to keep adventuring with you, you could take Leadership perhaps) but otherwise, why? Perhaps the ceremony itself could have a certain, minor, effect as part of the sanctioning by whatever forces sanction marriage in that world, but otherwise, why? Not everything needs to be spelled out mechanically.

I did this. Also used the wife as a backup character. Until then, she was running the family business.

[KingSmitty]

I would take multiple wives. And for the extreme roleplayers out there gay marriage would probably have you burned at the stake or stoned to death.

[AugustNights]

I fail to see why "extreme roleplayers" would have to be so horrifically dehumanizing of a particular group in a fantasy world. Unless such violent hatred satiates their own twisted fantasy, but such topics aren't really appropriate for the boards.

[bekeleven]

About the only thing that might come from this in a mechanical sense is that anything which mystically references "family" will recognize spouses, where it might not recognize "adopted siblings," "blood brothers," or "live-in S.O.s."Yep, now anyone that eats your corpse has a 25% chance of recalling her! Thanks, BoVD.


There is a magic item in adventure two of the War of the Burning Sky campaign that is keyed off of the wearer's true love.
I know something else that's keyed to the wearer's true love!

It's also in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[KingSmitty]

to prevent myself from being misinterpreted greatly, ill explain.

Most campaigns occur in a dark ages like setting, where relationships like that would incur the wrath of many religious groups or scared worshippers where punishments would be quite harsh. For instance, lesbians and adulterers were burned to death! There are people in my group who like to be historically accurate with how society was at those times, in our own game. Its one thing to laugh and giggle at hating on peeps, its another to use that to make the game feel genuine and historically accurate.

food for thought is all