Weird thought: progressive society combined with outdated monarchy?

[The Oni]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, or a Queen and Queen Consort (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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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) 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]

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) 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]

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]

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]

...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

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]

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]

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.

[Gildedragon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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...

[Arutema]

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]

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]

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]

A literal Theocracy is definitely viable in a fantasy setting. Golden light from the sky and proxyhood for the worthiest.