jscott991's page

Furthermore, the presentation of her at the very start as a "petulant teenaged queen" was an error in judgment that we were looking to fix anyway. It was nonsensical to me that an "inexperienced low-level brat queen" would be able to maintain her role as one of the setting's primary villains.

Makes sense to me. Thanks for all the back and forth.

By the way, I think it's amazing that you still are so responsive on these forums. I've had a rocky relationship with this board over my time liking Pathfinder, but I've always appreciated how the designers interact with simple questions like this.

Thanks again!

And even in that period, you're looking at a shorter period than between the day Abrogail II took the throne in 4709 and the start of Hell's Vengenace (where we first had her show up on-screen). At the current point in the setting, she's been in charge for over a decade.

Yes, it makes sense that she would be very powerful 10+ years into her reign.

It was the Inner Sea Magic book (from 2011/4711, when she had been on the throne just a couple of years I think) that took me aback. She had the same levels there as she did in the much later references to her levels and stats. Also, a lot of the books talk about how inexperienced she is and that struck me as odd combined with her very high number of class levels.

Inner Sea World Guide (also from 2011/4711) doesn't give her levels and it's my main source for Golarion, so I hadn't really looked at Inner Sea Magic closely (or at all) until recently.

And even if she went from 0 level to 18th level in a few years, she's still way slower than a lot of PCs out there.

Ha.

Good point. I prefer campaigns that space things out over time (like PCs might start adventuring at like 18 and end five or more years later), but I know not everyone does that.

The story they want to tell is that she is both very young, and incredibly powerful for her age. What I mentioned above is a good in universe way to understand why, but going too far trying to figure out how NPCs level up, when they don't level up at all, is effectively a waste of time.

She's incredibly powerful for any age. A level 18 spellcaster is one of the most personally powerful people in Golarion. :)

I think I am struggling to explain to myself how someone could be level 18 at 19 years old under the mechanics of the rules as presented, when you're right, those mechanics don't really apply to NPCs. I have trouble acknowledging that NPCs and PCs don't play by the same rules, but that's kind of making a futile attempt to stretch RPG rules to be some kind of simulation of all life, instead of just the mechanics to enjoy being a party of adventurers.

In Abrogail's case, I do think it would make more sense for her to be less powerful in 4711 than she is 4715 and on, so if for some reason a party did encounter when she was 19, I would scale her back and have her hit her peak power later in life.

In Inner Sea Magic, Abrogail Thrune II is listed as 2Ari/16 Sor. This 2011 book is set in, I think, 4711, when Abrogail Thrune is 19 years old. The Cheliax, Infernal Empire book confirms her levels (although it is set in 4715, making her 23 at the time). One of the themes of a lot of the 1E Golarion books is that Abrogail is young and inexperienced.

Does it make sense that she's already a level 16 sorceress (and has 18 class levels over all) at this young of an age?

If I were trying to explain how she accumulated so many levels so quickly in life (without really ever adventuring because she is royalty), what would a good in-universe explanation be?

If I was going to set adventures in 4711 (before a lot of the setting is disrupted by the constantly advancing timeline), would it make more sense to have Abrogail be less personally powerful?

Thank you for any help.

No fan of Golarion should be without the book. If you don't like the setting, it has very little to offer, but if you like a book that isn't just filled with feats and stat blocks, this is for you.

It was an unexpected treasure.

This is an amazing book if you want lore and background.

In my return to Pathfinder, this has been my unexpected favorite book.

Buy it. You won't regret it.

If they had meant "penalties like a wight spawn", they'd probably have said that instead of "statistics are identical to those of a wight". It's really very simple--take the wight stat block, make the changes under the vampire spawn rules, and you're done.

I think this is exactly what is meant. But it doesn't make any sense and clashes with every other depiction of vampire spawn (including their own later version in Monster Codex).

I think they ran out of space in the Bestiary and short changed vampire spawn, creating unintentional problems (vampires with no strength bonus for example).

Having worked on this a bit, the best solution, by far, is to just use the 3.5 vampire spawn template. It makes a lot more sense.

Hopefully in future bestiaries, they won't be so eager to save a half a page that they cram something like vampire spawn in and say "just think of them as wights."

That works mechanically, but I don't think it's a very logical vampire spawn.

I suspect they reference the wight to save space, but it produces weird results, in my opinion. I was hoping they had updated somewhere else (other than the Codex, which is sloppily done).

I'm not sure what your question is. I guess you could run it as written once you decide how to resolve the template HD requirement (whether it requires 4 HD or not).

That doesn't really solve the issues with using the wight's base stats (whatever that even means) if you think the 3.5 MM version is better, or the problems with resetting all attributes to the wight's (or the 3.5 spawn's numbers), or the issue with the template not really changing the base creatures attributes at all (which clashes with the entire vampire concept).

I thought that spawn lost their personality and individuality as well, but I can't actually find that flavor text anywhere. And I'm not sure it makes sense for vampire spawn to have their ability scores "reset" to a wight's, regardless of what they were before (so, say, someone with an 18 intelligence becomes an 11, while someone with a 6 also becomes an 11, and so on).

Plus, the wight is a great deal weaker than the vampire spawn in the 3.5 monster manual (just look at the ability scores). Was this intentional?

The template concept in monster codex is a lot more attractive, but it removes the idea of a spawn losing most of their personality when created. Now they are just a vampire-lite. Plus, as I mentioned above, the ability score changes don't seem complete (+2 CHA as the only bonus is bizarre; aren't vampires, even spawn, supposed to be somewhat strong). The template also says you need 4HD or more to use it, but the example has only 2 HD. Which is correct?

My question was really how have people resolved all of this weirdness when using vampire spawn? If you disregard the text in Monster Codex about needing 4 HD, I suppose you could decide that a vampire, when choosing to make a spawn, has the option of using the template or the wight statistics, but is anyone actually doing that?

My own thought, without being a Pathfinder v. 3.5 expert, is that the best option is to use the vampire spawn as presented in the 3.5 monster manual, but to craft some kind of a template-lite that applies to their ability scores (so they get stronger, but less intelligent or willful, or something along those lines).

The transformation to a vampire spawn has never been the easiest thing to GM/DM. The only time I've ever used them was when I was just creating them from scratch and not transforming an existing NPC or PC into one.

Vampire spawn have always been a confusing concept. They started, I think, in 3.0 for creatures with few HD and for creatures slain by the vampire's slam attack. Then they became a template. Then, in Libris Mortis, they became kind of a playable class.

They are supposed to be weaker than vampires, but share their weaknesses.

Pathfinder doesn't make them any more clear. Vampires can now create either spawn or full vampires, at will, regardless of their attack (Bestiary 1). Vampire spawn doesn't seem to be a template any more in the Bestiary. Bizarrely, it says use the statistics for a Wight (even for like a gnome vampire? won't this make some creatures ability scores get worse or better illogically?).

If I'm reading this correctly, a vampire could kill a level 20 halfling fighter and recreate them as a vampire spawn with the stats of a wight and a CR of 4. The halfling fighter would basically lose all of their other abilities. This probably makes very little sense.

But the vampire spawn seemed to have gotten a makeover in the Monster Codex. Here vampire spawn are back to being a template. The template allows vampire spawn to keep their class levels. It's a major improvement, but there seem to be some flaws in the template's design. For example, the vampire spawn only gains +2 CHA and no strength. That kind of clashes with most depictions of vampires.

It is also very strange that the text says this template can only apply to characters with 4 or more HD, and the example spawn is a level 2 rogue with 2 HD.

So what is the best solution here? Is it to just use the D&D rules on vampire spawn? To use the template but give it more strength?

Has this been clarified somewhere else?

If you google Queen Ileosa, you can find out a lot of bits and pieces about her past as a Chelaxian and her motives for coming to Korvosa in the first place. But I can't find the actual book where this information comes from, or I'm just reading over it.

I own the hardcover Curse of the Crimson Throne and the Guide to Korvosa. She doesn't get much attention in the Guide to Korvosa or the CotCT player's guide. She gets a lot of attention in the hardcover AP, but almost all of the information after the first few pages is about her role in the campaign and not about her past.

Am I just missing her biography somewhere in the hardcover book?

Is it in something else?

Incidentally, in her wiki, they say she was 30 when she died. When you match this up with information about her being less than a third of Eodred's age, it means the king was over 90. He really was pretty negligent about trying to get an heir.

I'd love to know the answer. I don't have any of the novels.

I'd go for about 1000 at most. In PF, huge gangs of mooks aren't very useful compared to many fewer higher-level characters. So you won't have large armies of conscripts sitting around in peacetime. They'll be called up in the militia in wartime, but not as a standing army.

This is a very WWI conception of army deployments -- lots of units with a paper strength that fill out with a mass mobilization when war is declared.

I think fantasy worlds work a little more like the early Roman or early Renaissance era -- standing armies are mostly mercenaries or highly trained, long-service troops.

Taldor is clearly trying to emulate Rome (and Byzantium in places). I think those legions consist of long-service troops that are highly trained and basically spend their lives in the army once they join (or are forced to join). I think the Taldan Horse is like Byzantine cataphracts (I think they are actually called cataphracts in some books), who dress like medieval knights (at least they do in the art).

I like a Taldan legion being around 5,000, and I like the Empire having a population of about 6 million (which, for reference, is about half the population of Basil II's Byzantine Empire in 1025).

If you use smaller numbers, I've found that players can wreak a lot of havoc on local law enforcement / garrisons just by killing 10-12 guards (that's 10-15% of some of the smaller legion sizes being proposed). I'm not all that comfortable with that.

Of course.

I was just curious what number seemed reasonable to people or what they thought on first reading about the legions.

I did a lot of work on Golarion population totals in 2009 and I think 3 to 4 million might actually be small for Taldor.

Basically, through about the Renaissance, about 5% to 10% of a country's population could be expected to live in cities (just for perspective, worldwide, the number was about 30% in 1955 and is near 60% today). So if you sum up all the cities listed in the Inner Seas setting book and times that number by 10 or 20, you get between 2.3 and 4.6 million for Taldor's population.

If they didn't use battalion (usually 1,000 troops) somewhere else, I'd say you could argue that a legion could be around 1,000 men, but that seems too small in context.

I'm trying to create some NPCs to fill out a scenario I'm writing and I was curious about what the level curve looks like in Golarion (or, more accurately, what people think it looks like).

I'm a long-time Forgotten Realms gamer, so I'm used to just automatically creating 20th level BBEGs because of the nature of that setting.

It doesn't seem like that's the case in Golarion, though. Whereas virtually every nation in Faerun seems to be dominated by a 20th level spellcaster of some sort, there seem to be very few max level NPCs in the Inner Seas Setting book and the various sourcebooks that I have (Taldor, Cheliax).

What do people think? If I wanted to create a wizard who really stands out as powerful, but isn't the most powerful being on the planet, what level would be appropriate?

Based on a lot of the NPCs in Cheliax and Taldor, I was thinking between 12 and 15.

Taldor seems to deploy the legions in big groups. So if they have 12 legions at Maheto, that's an army of about 72,000 men if it is 6,000 per legion or 120,000 if it's 10,000.

That would be a pretty enormous fantasy army. Certainly it's conceivable, but it would be really big.

Just as an example, the battle of Manzikert in 1071 between Byzantium (whom Taldor shares a lot of traits with) and the Turks saw about 20,000 to 30,000 on each side. Battles not involving Eastern Rome or its enemies were a lot smaller. Agincourt in 1415 was between 6,000 to 9,000 English and 12,000 to 15,000 French.

In the Dune universe, a legion is 30,000 men, so there is precedent for legion being used to describe pretty big numbers.

I think the 5,000 or 6,000 number makes the armies a little more manageable, but I'm really curious about what everyone's first impression is.

Legion strength certainly varied (although the army got much bigger as the Empire declined and became more of a military dictatorship).

I'm just curious what number pops into people's head when they hear "legion." I will admit that's it is 6,000 or so for me because of classical Roman strengths.

When people read in Taldor: The First Empire or Echoes of Glory that the Taldor army is made up of units called legions, how big do most assume that unit is?

A classical legion is 6,000 men (Roman), without auxiliaries.

Taldor has a lot of legions, which would suggest a pretty big population if the Taldor unit is that big.

For example, Echoes of Glory says that 12 legions are stationed at Maheto and "scores" are at Zimar.

That's about 180,000 men right there (assuming just 20 legions at Zimar), which would give Taldor at least 3.6 million people if that's 2% of the population (which is actually a little high for a medieval state). The Roman Empire had an army of about 400,000 men in the first century AD with a population around 50 million (just under 1% of population).

Does that seem right or do people think a legion is bigger / smaller?

Turns the Taldor you loved from 'First Empire' into head canon? now you're just being dramatic. You haven't had the time to really love 'First Empire' yet... you just met her, so it's all lust and fun and games at this point. Then you saw her at work, being bossy and confident and getting s##* done, and it just scared you a little, but she'll still be the loving 'First Empire' when she comes home and asks you what's for supper! :)

Simply awesome. :)

It's Christmas day, dammit. Be joyous and festive. Stop poo-pooing the moment I've been waiting for. Don't obsess over one single little dam detail of the AP.

It's a pretty big detail, as the pervasiveness of all the quotes about it show.

That being said, I loved First Empire. Loved it. It puts Echoes to Glory to shame. It undid some silliness in the older book (the bearded stuff) and gave us a fully fleshed out empire.

And it introduced a ton of amazing female NPCs! General Gwein. Just awesome. Grand Duchess Solari. Scheming and tons of interesting nuggets crammed into a small space. Grand Duchess Tiberan. Political neophyte trying to ignore the growing revolution. Just so cool.

It gave Taldor tons of interesting, sophisticated problems that Eutropia would have to solve if she took power. A bloated bureaucracy. A treasury perpetually in deficit. Tensions with Qadira. Nobles ignoring Taldor's progressive, post-feudalism structure. It hinted that Eutropia seeks to return Taldor to glory (which I admit that I define closer to what Crownfall says Pythareus is about).

That's why I was devastated to read Crownfall (and I probably shouldn't have purchased it, since I don't intend to GM or play it; I just love the older version of Eutropia and was greedy for more details). It twisted Taldor from a complex, decaying empire into a simplistic, black-hatted state. And it transformed Eutropia into a white-hatted paladin of very modernist politics (I'm absolutely shocked she's a monarchist, frankly, given how she's written in the Player's Guide).

War for the Crown has changed Taldor forever. It means that future material on it will use Crownfall as the foundation (and not First Empire), whether there are contradictions or not. It basically turns the Taldor I loved in First Empire and the older Campaign Setting into head canon.

Remember it's a game.

I don't think I'm the one that forgot that in this case.

Nothing about the AP suggests it.

"Taldor’s ancient law that decrees only male heirs may inherit their families’ titles, lands, and the authority that comes with both. Its repeal would be an enormous step forward for all of Taldor’s women and people of other genders." Frasier, War for the Crown: The Player's Guide, p. 4

"Intense traditionalism means Taldan culture is still steeped in sexism and racism that many other nations have spent decades gradually shedding. While any Taldan can own property or hold a title via promotion, marriage, or appointment, the law of primogeniture dictates that only men can inherit, both demonstrating and perpetuating Taldor’s inequalities." Frasier, The Player's Guide, p. 13

"While proud of her nation, Eutropia recognizes the horrible things Taldor has done in the past: the genocide of native Kellids, imposition of strict gender roles, the expulsion of Sarenites." Frasier, The Player's Guide, p. 17

"Your own interpretation of the princess may prioritize additional social reforms beyond the gender equality usually attributed to her." Frasier, The Player's Guide, p. 17

"A ruling class steeped in the racism and sexism . . . ." Frasier, Crownfall, p. 2

"Allowing not only the rabble-rousing Eutropia to inherit family power, but every ill-deserving woman." Hillman, Crownfall, p. 6

"Overturning the backward law will improve not only her own fortunes, but also those of many other Taldan women." Frasier, Crownfall, p. 90

I'm just curious. Nothing in the AP suggests that women are denied power and even full rights?

Nothing in the AP contradicts the existence of powerful women in Taldor: The First Empire serving as senators, grand duchesses, and generals?

Not even a little?

I honestly didn't think my thread would be that controversial. I thought it was a retcon, like "the bearded" or Sarenrae. I thought the discussion would revolve more around why than whether.

I guess I was wrong.

I think Crownfall reduces Taldor to a cartoon. And I think War for the Crown will make General Pythareus into a mustache twirling caricature that he was never presented as before.

There was a lot of subtly and richness in Taldor as presented since the beginning of the line and through First Empire (it's my favorite Golarion nation by far). That complexity is completely stripped out when you transform it into a sexist, misogynist society that is so backward it treats women like chattel. Except of course, all the women who are grand duchesses . . . or generals . . . or senators . . . or prominent adventurers . . . .

Ring of Gyges is on to something. Some wires got crossed somewhere between the writing of First Empire and the writing of Crownfall. I have theories, but I find the entire thing very odd.

Yeah, I definitely bought that.

As I said above, it's a great book. I'm not 100% sure it was worth purchasing if you already have the original Campaign Setting book, but it is still filled with a lot of cool stuff.

It's the type of book that will make you love the campaign setting, warts and all.

The whole campaign and goal of it isn't just to have true gender equality, its to reform Taldor in general <_<

It's the main point in Crownfall and the Player's Guide. As I pointed out earlier, it's such a major part that in the player's guide writeup of Eutropia, they talk about how to change the princess's focus to other issues if that resonates better with your group of players.

I've enjoyed some of this discussion and I appreciate everyone's thoughtful replies.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of all the source material is that War for the Crown and Crownfall contradict the the prior setting material, particularly First Empire. First Empire goes out of its way to introduce significant, politically powerful women. It includes a section on Taldor's government. It mentions the law that bars Eutropia from succeeding. If gender inequality was tearing the nation apart or if gender inequality was the issue that was driving Eutropia's base of support (and disenfranchised women are not mentioned even once as a source of Eutropia's support; in fact, bastard nobles are singled out), it would have been mentioned in First Empire.

Crownfall's presentation of Taldor is a retcon, just like the bearded and Sarenrae banning in First Empire.

I'm sure others will continue to say that you can contort the earlier material to make Crownfall work, but, honestly, the strained explanations and the excuses made for lack of editing in the Player's Guide, seem like they help make my point.

Nor is it unheard of for Taldor (among other things) to get smacked, hard, with the retcon-hammer.

Exactly. I mentioned the bearded and Sarenrae First Empire retcons a while ago. They had no problem tweaking Taldor for the book that supposedly set the stage for War for the Crown. But it doesn't mention anything like what Crownfall is talking about.

I also had someone point out that Taldor's politics come up just a bit in the Half Dead City adventure (Mummy's Mask). A Taldoran woman (NPC) seeks glory in Osiron to return to Taldor to restore the empire. Again, none of the empire's gender inequality is remotely mentioned in her bio.

It's just bizarre.

4. Yeah females is a bit dehumanizing. Though this does raise a super off topic question of mine: is a female Halfling also called a woman? Woman and Man are designations...

This is the issue I've always had with describing characters while DM'ing. It's why in fantasy and sci-fi settings I've always used "female" and "male" as nouns. As I said earlier, it's what is used in NPC stat blocks, whether you are playing D&D, Star Wars, Pathfinder, or whatever.

I've re-read everything on Taldor that I have (Campaign Setting, Echoes of Glory, Inner Sea Setting, Inner Sea Races, and First Empire).

If gender equality were a problem in Taldor the way that Crownfall describes, you'd think it would be mentioned at least somewhere else in a significant way. According to Crownfall and the Player's Guide, it is Eutropia's main platform for reform. Eutropia's succession issue is mentioned in four different books. But all we get is the line in the description of Taldans (both Campaign Setting and Inner Sea Setting, but not, interestingly, Inner Sea Races) about men displaying excessive machismo.

I still maintain the oddest thing about this whole situation is that until First Empire we basically had no women in positions of power in Taldor other than Eutropia. If they wanted to make War For the Crown about gender inequality, why create so many powerful female nobles and generals? It just makes no sense.

That being said, I will make one concession a little clearer. It's possible to get a good deal of very interesting information out of Crownfall even if you find this contradiction extremely off-putting. Just don't read Harris's strange introduction, and ignore a few sentences from Hillman in the initial setup. That means I'm sure it's possible to play the AP (which wasn't really why I bought it) and ignore it too.

Thanks all for the great points.

Acid free book binding glue is pretty cheap, since I got it for my Starfinder Core Rulebook I've been going back and touching up some of my more problematic books.

This is a good tip.

I have a ton of these softcover books now.

I'm going to test on one that I don't like that much. :)

A couple of questions: Do we have any examples of females inheriting other top-tier titles while they have surviving (non-disgraced) brothers?

A daughter inheriting over younger sons would be a very modern succession system on Earth (Britain just recently adopted this, right before the birth of Prince George). The question is really whether a daughter can inherit at all, in the absence of other male heirs. That's where Crownfall seems confused (see quotes cited above).

On p. 28 of First Empire, the grand duchess described is implied to have male cousins who did not inherit, as they are scheming against her. So women seemed to take some precedence over more distant men before Crownfall jumbled things up.

It changes the central conflict if one insists to oneself it must.

It's hard to read Crownfall's introduction (pp. 2-3) and not think that gender equality isn't the central conflict of the story. They mention it repeatedly there, on p. 5-6, and throughout the Player's Guide.

If someone wants to complain without any responses, there is a place to leave a review.

I certainly hoped for responses and some discussion. :)

I am surprised at some of them, but certainly not disappointed that people replied.

Closing the loop on this a bit, the following books have tons of flavor and are well worth it.

Inner Sea Races
Advanced Race Guide

The Inner Seas Campaign Guide has a lot of information, but it's a toss-up whether it's worth it if you have the original Campaign Setting book. I don't regret buying it, but there's a lot of duplication (including, strangely, outdated information on Korvosa and other areas).

If you can tolerate the little paperbacks (and I barely can), the following are great:

Taldor, The First Empire
Cheliax, The Infernal Empire

I also bought Bestiary 2 (I love nereids) and found that it isn't any better than Bestiary 1 in terms of information presented. It's too focused on stat blocks at the expense of usable information.

I may buy the hardback Book of the Damned and Inner Sea Gods when I completely finish everything else.

My view is that women inherit everything but the throne. I think that's plain.

I think the authors of the AP exaggerated the sexism of Taldor so they could focus Crownfall on that issue. I'm curious as to why, considering that Taldor has many other problems that previous books spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for.

I agree with you, too, that the flavor of the AP suggests that Taldor should be interpreted in the most sexist way possible. I'm uncomfortable with that because it doesn't match any other source material. Nothing else written about Taldor, save one line about machismo in the setting book and Eutropia's inability to inherit, has ever suggested that this issue was the most important problem facing the empire.

I love Taldor. I love Eutropia. I think the AP went out of its way to bend both the nation and the princess in a way that was never suggested before.

What's most curious is that they had no problem retconning "the bearded" and the banning of Sarenrae into the past in First Empire. If they wanted to make Crownfall about gender inequality, why not change everything there (and not create all the NPCs that they did)? I think that was odd (although I'm glad it worked out that way because First Empire is a pretty decent book).

Sigh.

I don't think I'm the one overreading the significance of the law of primogeniture.

I actually think that's the problem that caused the authors to contradict First Empire (and the other setting material) to begin with.

It sounds clinical and dehumanising to me (in any context). I don’t like the usage either.

It's the term used in NPC blocks. Nothing dehumanizing or clinical was intended.

No, the adventure path is focused on the fact that Princess Eutropia is denied the right to inherit the crown. Other women and their political power, or lack thereof, are not really part of that focus.

I'm sorry. This simply isn't true. The Player's Guide on p. 17 explicitly contradicts this (even saying GMs should refocus Eutropia if necessary). That's not even considering all the other material on this issue.

They made creative choices you don’t like. There is a sensible interpretation of the state of affairs in Taldor that is not contradictory, you just don’t like it.

They made a ton of creative decisions that I love . . . in First Empire.

I don't see the "sensible interpretation".

They created numerous, interesting female NPCs in First Empire that held positions of extreme power in Taldor (grand duchesses and generals in particular), and then focused their Adventure Path on the fact that women in Taldor are denied political power.

I'm sorry. It makes no sense. I'd love to know why they did it (or maybe I don't).

I mean, my heart aches, bleeds almost, at the thought of how many fascinating discussions and exchanges of views did we lose over those 9 years. Regretful. But we'll catch up very quickly.

It warms my heart to be missed. :)

One more thing: can I ask why you keep referring to the authors by their last names? They are frequent posters on the forum and people here, including Paizo staff, are usually on a first name basis. I'm curious because I can't help but it feels like some kind of passive-aggressive put-down to me.

Generally authors are referred to by last name when referencing their work. I would have felt pretty strange saying "Billy, A Guide to Everything, p. 26."

jscott991 wrote:

Crownfall and the Player's Guide present a world in which women are excluded from power. Again, Hillman literally writes that women can't inherit family power.

jscott991 wrote:

Frasier writes that Taldor excludes women from positions of influence, which is out of line for the rest of Golarion (a broad term that I think she misuses -- she seems to have meant Avistan or the Inner Sea at most).

Can you quote or give page references to what exactly you are referring to?

It's in my first post, but here are several.

"A ruling class steeped in the racism and sexism most of Golarion discarded long ago." Frasier, Crownfall p. 2

"Hardliners (especially elder nobles) believe the vote to be yet another wound to be yet another wound in the great history of the empire, allowing not only the rabblerousing Eutropia to inherit family power, but every ill-deserving woman." Hillman, Crownfall p. 6

"Taldor’s ancient law that decrees only male heirs may inherit their families’ titles, lands, and the authority that comes with both." Frasier, Player's Guide, p. 4. (This is just unbelievable, given that Frasier also helped write First Empire, which introduced a half dozen female grand duchesses. And Crownfall has at least three females with titles in the Faces of the Senate section, not to mention all the others mentioned throughout the adventure.)

There are a few other sentences throughout Crownfall and the intro to the Player's Guide (including something about Senate seats going to males "traditionally"), but these are the main ones that stuck out to me.

At some point, Eutropia went from a symbol to restore Taldor to greatness (the two campaign setting guides) to a symbol for reform (First Empire) to a symbol for mainly gender equality (Crownfall, and the player's guide; see p. 17 in particular).

The gender equality part is what bugs me. With so many prominent female leaders ruling provinces, commanding the army, and being in the senate, it just doesn't seem like something that is such a pressing issue that it should be the focus of the entire campaign.

I'm a little confused. Your post is quite well-reasoned, but I'm not sure we're arguing quite the same thing.

Crownfall and the Player's Guide present a world in which women are excluded from power. Again, Hillman literally writes that women can't inherit family power. This is shown, time and again, in First Empire (and even in Crownfall) not to be true. Women inherit titles. They are grand duchesses, countesses, and marchesses.

Frasier writes that Taldor excludes women from positions of influence, which is out of line for the rest of Golarion (a broad term that I think she misuses -- she seems to have meant Avistan or the Inner Sea at most). This also is demonstrably false. Women in Taldor are senators, generals, and high-ranking nobles. The book she oversaw, in fact, introduced all of these important female NPCs and showed how common they were in positions of true power in Taldor.

I don't think I'm guilty of binary thinking. I actually think Crownfall is guilt of that. Taldor is immensely complicated as presented in previous books. It's a nation steeped in traditions that are holding it back. But it's not as black and white as Crownfall states. Women aren't excluded from power. They aren't denied inheritances. Crownfall seems to misunderstand its own use of a primogeniture law. It implies the law bars all women -- in fact, it only bars Eutropia from inheriting the throne.

It's certainly possible to imagine Taldor might be a sexist nation where women aren't given the societal respect they deserve (even though the law allows them considerable power). But Hillman and Frasier aren't consistent in using that interpretation. They reduce and simplify things to "Taldor is misogynistic; women can't inherit power; Eutropia is the symbol for changing the law." That contradicts prior material, even the Setting book (which only states that Taldor men display extreme machismo and never makes reference to how imperial law treats them; and even this characterization isn't mentioned once in First Empire or in the Inner Sea Races book).

I completely disagree.

My whole point is that Crownfall's construction contradicts First Empire. Whoever put together the scenario in Crownfall seems unaware of the NPCs and political background that were presented in First Empire.

The Wikipedia reference was to the other thread quoted above, where Hillman says he reads Wikipedia all the time and understands what the word primogeniture means. Instead of Wikipedia, I would suggest a more careful reading of First Empire.

You might want to tone down the insulting language.

Just saying.

Me?

I'm struggling to find anything in my posts that's been insulting, either toward other posters or even toward Frasier and Hillman.

Their response to valid complaints about a misuse of the word primogeniture is a little snarky for my tastes.

My point, though, isn't whether they are using the right word.

They are ignoring their own material and speaking in absolutes. Crownfall doesn't say it's hard for women to wield power. It says it is impossible (against the law). Then it proceeds to present us with even more females who are in power (senators and nobles holding titles). It contradicts itself, without even considering First Empire's more numerous examples.

If 25 U.S. states had female governors, it would be pretty difficult to argue that women are excluded from power.

If about half of Taldor's provinces are governed by female grand dukes and if there are female nobles holding titles they've inherited, it's hard to argue that women in Taldor can't inherit family power. Thurston and Frasier speak in absolutes in Crownfall. Re-read the quotes above or just re-read the first pages by Frasier.

It's not so much that they didn't read enough Wikipedia. They didn't read their own material, including the main Taldor book that was also overseen by Frasier.

They reset Taldor with First Empire (it makes subtle changes to Echoes of Glory and the first Campaign Setting). If they wanted to set up that Taldor was a "men only" club, they shouldn't have created all of those female grand dukes (and generals). Even in Crownfall, they introduced a lot of titled females (and senators), while at the same time writing sentences implying women were barred from inheriting titles or wielding power.

Again, though, tons of stuff is really interesting in Crownfall. But I think they tried to shoehorn something into the story that was unnecessary and made no sense. Eutropia could be a symbol of reform and modernity without this one issue, which is made prominent for no reason at all.

Of the 12 senators profiled, four are female. Three of them appear to have hereditary titles, unless the "sexist" emperor is appointing tons of female nobles.

There's just a lot of examples, even within Crownfall itself, why the gender stuff seems to not have not been thought out very well. It simply doesn't fit with the characters that are presented to us.

I don't want to start a thread about inserting real world politics into Adventure Paths, but I have to say that Crownfall has as its premise something that contradicts a lot of what has been written about Taldor, including the First Empire book that supposedly sets the stage for it.

I own, I think, basically everything that's been written about Taldor since the first Campaign Setting book 10 years ago. This includes Echoes of Glory, First Empire, the Inner Sea setting book, and, now, Crownfall. It's by far my favorite country in Golarion (despite the weird Grand Prince / Emperor title reversal thing).

This idea that Taldor is sexist and that its gender politics are out of date is completely contradicted by First Empire.

It is true that Eutropia is barred from being empress. But other than that, the Empire is filled with females in positions of power.

Here is just a partial list, using only First Empire:

General Relyson Gwein, commander of Taldor's cavalry
Grand Duchess Mella Denzarni, governor of Kazuhn
Grand Duchess Destalita Solari, governor of Ligos
Grand Duchess Breateeza Fahlspar, Northern Tandak
Grand Duchess Vivexis Darahan, Whitemarch
Grand Duchess Cisera Tiberan, Tandak

The Grand Duchesses are mostly appointed by the Emperor -- an emperor painted in Crownfall as sexist and antiquated.

The existence of all of these powerful females just doesn't make sense with a lot of the text in Crownfall. In fact, it's impossible to square with this by Crystal Frasier on p. 2: "a ruling class steeped with the racism and sexism most of Golarion discarded long ago." Or " while hardliners (especially elder nobles) believe the vote to be another wound in the great history of the empire, allowing not only the rabble-rousing Eutropia to inherit family power, but every ill-deserving woman" by Thurston Hillman (p 6). I hate to break it to Mr. Hillman (and these supposed elder nobles), but women have been inheriting power in Taldor for a long time, just not the throne. The player's guide is also filled with sentences that contradict the state of gender politics shown in First Empire.

I've always loved the character of Eutropia. And I have looked forward to her being Empress of Taldor since the setting was first published. But I don't think painting her as a crusader for gender rights in a misogynist empire that discriminates against women matches much, if any, of the setting information we've been given so far. Taldor has lots of problems in need of reform. But gender inequality isn't really one of them, at least according to everything published before Crownfall.

There's a lot of great stuff in Crownfall. There's even more in First Empire. I just wish they were a little more careful in their language and in keeping things consistent.

I think you might be (or I'm misreading you!) As I read it, this is the AP where the PCs help her on the road to doing precisely that.

Well, I don't want to spoil anything but the GM's page at the end of Crownfall that lays out all six episodes and the plot summaries available on Amazon and other places have me wondering just how it might happen.

Also, they inserted quite a lot of real world politics that don't make a lot of sense (besides primogeniture for the throne, I'm not sure how Taldor is backwards on gender politics considering many of its prefectures are ruled by females, and a female general commands its cavalry).

Anyway, we'll see what happens in a few months. :)

This was a ton of helpful information. Thanks!

I think for some of the more colorful courtiers, I'll just use Elves or Humans with a Fey creature template applied.

But I love the idea of using Pechs and your Biloko idea was amazing too.