I should probably not be running this adventure path (or Princess Eutropia as the Villain)

[Balgin]

Hello everybody,

as a long time GM I have known for quite some time that this AP was coming out. Initially I got excited. A war of succession has a lot of dramatic potential. Immediately I thought of the wars of king Steven and The Empress Maud who's war for the English crown raged from 1139 to 1147ad and forms a colourful background for the Brother Cadfael books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda).

However, as time drew on I began to suspect that we'd be talking less Steven & Maude and more Oliver Cromwell's revolution. It became apparent that the adventure path might be geared less towards a struggle for the throne and more towards radically altering Taldor altogether.

Now this presents a problem. I rather like Taldor. I like it the way it is. It has class structure, honour, tradition - it is an unchanging stable rock in the mad crazy world that is Golarion. You always know where you are with Taldor and it's nice to have something reliable to come back to once in a while.

When you take all of that away you're basically left with something like Andoran. A bunch of jumped up revolutionaries with no idea how to run things who think that being independent makes them oh so important and brag and boast about their independence without actually putting much thought into how to run a country or get along with their neighbours.

If it doesn't end up as bad as Andoran then you might end up with something like Cheliax (equally unpleasant to my pro Taldan outlook - I did mention a certain fondness for Taldor earlier, right?).

The reason that this is a problem Is that many of my players are quite excited about this adventure path. I am less enthusiastic than they are and it has been suggested that someone else run it but, the only other player willing to do so (and one of the vocal enthusiasts fr this AP) isn't inspiring a lot of confidence among the group in his abilities to GM it well.

I'm a bit of a traditionalist. When I see phrases like "let's modernise Taldor" I don't exactly feel enthusiastic about it. Instead I feel my shackles rising and want to rise up and fight back against this radical newfangled notion. In one regard this could almost make me the perfect GM for this AP. I can run encounters where npc's espouse the virtue of traditional values possibly causing the pc's to consider the values of their cause. If a pc is sneaking down a corridor and hears to guards standing by a door around a corner holding a conversation about the current political state of affairs maybe he'll stop to ask himself if he really needs to upset the apple cart. A defeated noble knight could lament the social ramifications of his defeat. He will now be unable to protect and provide for those under his charge. By trying to overthrow the "natural order of things" the pc's will be setting off chain reactions that have horrible ramifications for people further down the social ladder. This should be adequately reflected - possibly shaming them into mending their ways.

However, in the end, my gut feeling is that for the authors of this adventure path, Taldor is less like the comfy old armchair that we all know and love but rather an abomination like Gormenghast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gormenghast_(series)), even 'though Gormenghast actually has it's charms. They want the players to see it as an oudated mess that barely functions. Something to be washed away amidst a tide of "modernisation". Unfortunately when you do away with tradition & culture everything becomes rather bland and same-ish. The McDonaldisation effect. Nobody in their right mind wants that.

An interesting twist would be to play princess Eutropia as a villain and the pc's as her villanous henchmen (or unwitting dupes). That could actually be quite a fun campaign to play. Playing it ironically (and often reminding the players that "of course, you know that what you're doing is actually bad, right?")

******

So my gut feeling is that perhaps I should simply refrain from running this adventure path because I personally strongly disagree with the underlying sentiment - the common cause, the theme of the campaign. It rankles me and I don't like it.

What do you people think? Do you think I could enjoy running this campaign? If so then please offer suggestions for ways in which I could find it enjoyable. I'd be most interested to read what people have to offer.

[Phntm888]

From what I've read here on the forums, and based on some of the AP descriptions, this is less of an "upset the apple cart" and "viva la revolution" AP, and more of a "War of Succession" AP. I think the most "revolutionary" concept is the idea of challenging whether or not a woman can assume the title of Grand Emperor in Taldor (since, previously, she could not) and successfully lead the country. I think this AP is more about restoring Taldor to its former glories and setting up Eutropia as Grand Empress, as opposed to making Taldor more like Andoran.

Heck, in book 5, the PCs are supposed to go to Axis and locate the First Emperor of Taldor. If traveling to the plane of absolute law to look for the First Emperor doesn't say "maintain tradition", I don't know what does.

[Skeld]

I think you shuld revisit this idea after all 6 chapters have been released. You'll have all the details available to you, and you'll be able to more effectively estimate how much work it'll take to make your campaign vision a campaign reality.

-Skeld

[Balgin]

That does sound quite reasonable Skeld. I'm hoping it's more along the lines of holding things together instead of letting everything go to hell in a hand basket.

The fact that I initially misread Eutropia as Eutopia probably didn't help either as it seemed the authors might have been a bit heavy handed when naming that npc.

I wouldn't have too much of a problem playing as a character who supports the regime but having to portray npc after npc after npc who are pro dissestablishmentarians (as opposed to all the antidisestablishmentarian npc's that I'll relish playing) might grate after a while if every single npc who sides with the pc's has a belief system that I fundamentally disagree with.

Also Taldogis is supposed to be a pun according to the blog post. Really? Maybe it's because I'm British and have a British accent that it simply doesn't seem like a pun. It might work if you have a really strong Bronx/New York accent (Taldaw/Taldawgis but Taldor/Tal-doggies/doggis simply doesn't work with a Briths accent). Puns that require a regional accent are less effective than puns which do not require a specific accent to sound similar (such as the Bloodthursday beast, a pun on bloodthirsty but it only comes out on Thursdays - a weak pun that requires a specific British regional accent to pull off as, everywhere else in the country, it just doesn't work. People in the Birmingham area would be more likely to pronounce Thirsty as Thirsdee and Thursday as Thursdee but in most other parts of the country the difference between the two would be too pronounced for it to pass as a pun).

Is it supposed to be a pun on something else?

Perhaps I'm missing some vital piece of information that makes this even remotely pun-like.

[GM PDK]

Just curious: have you read the first book yet? is this where your fears stem from?

I'm prepping for our first game March 16th and haven't read the whole first book yet, but none of what I read so far is generating the fears you've outlined.

Feel free to PM me if you want to provide details without spoiling the rest of the people here.

[Balgin]

I haven't fully read the first book yet but my more recent impressions were formed by the press releases, the fan reactions o them, and the introduction to the first book.

[WormysQueue]

To me, Taldor isn't the "unchanging stable rock" as you put it, it's more like a weather-beaten stone at the edge of a cliff waiting for a careless foot to kick it down the chasm. And without an able leader, that will inevitably happen sooner or later. So from what I've read so far, to me it doesn't sound as if the authors planned to stir things up and revolutionize the country. It's more like they put Taldor's destiny in the PC's hands to support the one person that can save the country from it's slow decline and may bring the old glory back if not for a stupid law that would disallow her to do just that.

So unless the mere thought of a woman ruling a country seems to revolutionary for you, I don't think that you need to fear much. If Eutropia is successful, that will go a long way to make Taldor great again (sorry for that ^^).

[Balgin]

WormysQueue wrote:

So unless the mere thought of a woman ruling a country seems to revolutionary for you, I don't think that you need to fear much.

Oh no problems there :). We definitely have differing opinions on Taldor 'though :p.

[Crystal Frasier]

The "comfy old armchair that we all know and love" idea is fine until you realize only 1% of the population is allowed to sit in the chair, and the other 99% of the population is the footstool.

We've always portrayed Taldor as a nation whose glory days are long gone and whose infrastructure and social order are slowly decaying while everyone with the power to turn that around refuses to acknowledge there's a problem. If your home game version of Taldor differs from this that's fine, but the AP is set in the canon version of the nation.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Eutropia wants her nation not just to survive, but to thrive, to take what is best about Taldor and take that forward, while shedding the worst of Taldor's excesses and yes, even Taldor's pride.
The pride which has kept the nation stagnating, the pride which has seen the empire carved up like a turkey.

[Balgin]

Crystal Frasier wrote:

We've always portrayed Taldor as a nation whose glory days are long gone and whose infrastructure and social order are slowly decaying while everyone with the power to turn that around refuses to acknowledge there's a problem.

Indeed you have and that's what makes Taldor good. It can be enjoyed with wanting it to change in the same way that one can enjoy reading the original Gormenghast trilogy without being a fan of Steerpike and quite enjoy the crumbling state of decay as a setting, nay, as a character all of it's own. It is in that regard that I like to think of Taldor as the thing we know and like which is unlikely to ever change much. My vision does not differ much but my preferences clearly do.

I should probably not run this adventure path. If only I'd had a Payer's Guide to look at to help me make this decision. Don't worry. That's not a dig. I'm sure there are very good reasons for it's delay.

[GM PDK]

Balgin wrote:

I haven't fully read the first book yet but my more recent impressions were formed by the press releases, the fan reactions o them, and the introduction to the first book.

As I get older and grumpier I find that the best source of opinion is based on my own reading of something, not others'... :)

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, we decided not to run Hell's Vengeance because we all realized that, even if we were playing evil characters, we'd just decide to lose on purpose at the end. It took a while to reach that decision (well after all 6 books were out) but nobody says you've got to play these as they are released.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. I must say though a game about "the celebration of traditional values" doesn't really sound like a thing I'd want to touch with a 10' pole. Also, Gormenghast is tremendous, highly recommended.

At least, you could wait until the Player's Guide is out and read that (it's free.)

[AnimatedPaper]

Balgin wrote:

Indeed you have and that's what makes Taldor good. It can be enjoyed with wanting it to change in the same way that one can enjoy reading the original Gormenghast trilogy without being a fan of Steerpike and quite enjoy the crumbling state of decay as a setting, nay, as a character all of it's own. It is in that regard that I like to think of Taldor as the thing we know and like which is unlikely to ever change much.

No. If keeping Taldor in stasis is what you want, then this is not the adventure path for you. I don't think ANY adventure path that heavily features one certain area would be for you. Characters as powerful as our PCs get tend to upset local economies and sociopolitical structures as a matter of course.

Plus, Crystal spells out in the foreword that changing the country is exactly what the AP is intended to be about.

I'm coming up completely blank on how you'd even structure the kind of adventure you'd like. If the central conflict involves the very political structure of Taldor, then you have to be able to affect it one way or another, and that involves changing it by defeating some faction or another, which makes the other factions stronger, and they're going to act on that new found strength.

Spoiler:

You can't even back Stavian in this adventure, because HIS primary political aspiration is to eliminate the senate and nobility as threats to his own power, which is even more radical a move than Eutropia is trying. Maybe backing Baron Okerra against both Stavian and Eutroipa?

[BlackOuroboros]

So, the basic point of this AP is that a regency crisis is going on; things are going to change no matter what. That said, I've skimmed the first book and read the GM AP summery at that back and I see no reason why you couldn't make Princess Eutropia a less sympathetic character if you like (making her a straight up villain is going to necessitate massive rewrites, however). Perhaps all of her social work is simply a means to an end in order to remove her barrier to the throne and, once she has it, it's back to "meet the new boss same as the old boss". I'm not sure that's the direction I would go, but it does have a sort of "ending of Chinatown" appeal to it. That being said, it doesn't looks like policy is going to be more than window dressing, and the main thrust is actually getting your candidate on the throne.

[Razcar]

APs are not films or novels. It's your game and it becomes your AP when you prep it. So run it how you want. Make Eutropia want to preserve "class structure, honour, tradition" (quote from you) instead of making the social changes the AP suggests. Seeing as you like those values, why not make the looming threat of the campaign the chaos that would follow on a civil war or on Stavian's continued reign, instead of the continuing decline of the nation?

And even if the players and Eutropia wins under whatever ideological banner you choose to use, she could easily change in the process. Or maybe she hides her true intentions all the time from your players, agrees with whatever they would like her to do on the throne, and when she seizes power they realize they don't agree with her reforms at all, whatever they consist of. The PCs were merely a means to an end for her. That could mean anything from a bittersweet end, if you like those, to a new end boss.

These suggested changes of focus are not the authors' intentions, and would also change the theme of the AP. But you are not playing Pathfinder to please Paizo's writers by following their APs verbatim (something I hope actually *wouldn't* please them), you're playing it to so you and and your players can have fun. You are buying very moldable goods from them. Mold it the way that maximizes your enjoyment.

(As a side note, though I'm anything but conservative myself, and haven't even visited Taldor yet in game (though many times in RL, just kidding) and thus have no Taldogis in this fight, I can see a reason for wanting to keep the country as it is. From a dramatic perspective utopia is boring and makes a very anemic backdrop indeed. Drama needs strife, conflict and misery.)

[zimmerwald1915]

Crystal Frasier wrote:

The "comfy old armchair that we all know and love" idea is fine until you realize only 1% of the population is allowed to sit in the chair, and the other 99% of the population is the footstool.

Do you mean to suggest that after Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, and Hell's Rebels all either missed or botched the opportunity to include it, we might actually see class struggle in an AP?

I want to believe, but I've been let down so many times, y'know?

[Stereofm]

I think the AP will be interesting, however, the OP raises some concern I share : the tendency to write APs that ensure the good guys win. And overnight, everyone and everything changes for good and XXI century earth values.

Very good.

And then what space is left for heroes and adventurers after that ?
Taldor is interesting precisely because it is not a friendly place for most people and because of its decadence.

It reminds me of the Forgotten Realms where at some point every evil area or so was liberated, so ever more ridiculous threats had to be invented to keep the audience entertained.

In short, this is a writing trap. I just hope this AP does not fall into it.

[Razcar]

Stereofm wrote:

And then what space is left for heroes and adventurers after that ?
Taldor is interesting precisely because it is not a friendly place for most people and because of its decadence.

It reminds me of the Forgotten Realms where at some point every evil area or so was liberated, so ever more ridiculous threats had to be invented to keep the audience entertained.

In short, this is a writing trap. I just hope this AP does not fall into it.

I agree with you, but Eutropia gaining the throne doesn't necessarily have to mean that the Disney Corporation will be rolling in, transforming Taldor overnight. Just because there's a new queen doesn't mean pink unicorns will be running down the street and there will be rainbows, cotton candy and happiness for all. Or maybe there will, but the cotton candy has been poisoned by disgruntled nobles. So either she might not be able to affect much change - the nobles will bow and scrape in court, but go back to mistreating their subjects when they're back home, or the journey to power might change Eutropia.

If I run this, I'll probably go for the latter and I'll take a note from the latest season of Homeland.The PCs will help put a benign ruler in place, a person that wants to make changes benefitting the common person. But the repeated assassination attempts and struggles will change her, make her paranoid, vindictive and hardened. In the end the PCs will realize they just replaced one despot with another.

[Michael Talley 759]

Strangest thing I found was them changing the Grand Prince from Aristocrat 8/Diviner 4 to a Aristocrat 8/ Enchanter 4. Went from someone that could see Taldors problems coming to best fix the issue to a mad manipulator.

I was going to play in it as an 'alternate universe' just with that, the first taldor book does seem to hint that what the OP was thinking might have ended up becoming the reality, but this AP seems to do the opposite, but not necessarily in a bad way. It's well written from the parts I was allowed to read through for my wife (Whom is running it)

But the adventure also suggests that it's possible for others to play as nobles related to or whom replace the Princess Eutropia in the adventure, would just need to change the part of heading to the plane of law.

[PossibleCabbage]

Stereofm wrote:

And then what space is left for heroes and adventurers after that ?

Taldor is interesting precisely because it is not a friendly place for most people and because of its decadence.

Hypothetically if we were to fix one corner of Golarion every 6 months, how long is it going to take to fix the entire place? By my count it's not like a lot of places are Utopia after their APs take place (Irrisen is still bad!). I mean, if this gets us closer to the AP in Nex, I'm for it.

Plus if you were to have the happy benevolent revolutionaries take over, that just sets up the sequel AP where things didn't go according to plan.

[Balgin]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus if you were to have the happy benevolent revolutionaries take over, that just sets up the sequel AP where things didn't go according to plan.

Ah but that would just be delaying the long awaited dwarven adventure path for even longer now wouldn't it? :p

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Stereofm wrote:

And then what space is left for heroes and adventurers after that? Taldor is interesting precisely because it is not a friendly place for most people and because of its decadence.

"Taldor is a land of decadent nobles fighting wars of intrigue against the idealistic new Empress' reform efforts" seems like a better launching point for conflict and stories than "Taldor is a land of decadent nobles".

Is that what we're going to get though? To what extent does the setting update to reflect APs? For example if Paizo published a new PFS scenario set in Korvosa, who would be in charge? Eodred Arabasti? Ileosa? Someone else?

Likewise, if PFS sets a scenario in Taldor next year who will the Emperor be? Stavian or Eutropia?

There are various references to completed APs in published stuff (there are PFS scenarios that reference the society wanting to explore Xin-Shalast for example), but I've never been clear on what the general policy was. Are we basically in an eternal Inner Sea World Guide? Are we assuming readers have consumed the entire AP and setting lines to make sense of things? Some middle ground?

My personal preference would be for a setting that developed and changed with periodic updates rather than something like a comics universe where Batman is a middle aged man for 80 years and Peter Parker never seems to get out of high school for long.

[Sara Marie]

Removed a derail and replies.

[Rubber Ducky guy]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Stereofm wrote:

And then what space is left for heroes and adventurers after that? Taldor is interesting precisely because it is not a friendly place for most people and because of its decadence.

"Taldor is a land of decadent nobles fighting wars of intrigue against the idealistic new Empress' reform efforts" seems like a better launching point for conflict and stories than "Taldor is a land of decadent nobles".

Is that what we're going to get though? To what extent does the setting update to reflect APs? For example if Paizo published a new PFS scenario set in Korvosa, who would be in charge? Eodred Arabasti? Ileosa? Someone else?

Likewise, if PFS sets a scenario in Taldor next year who will the Emperor be? Stavian or Eutropia?

There are various references to completed APs in published stuff (there are PFS scenarios that reference the society wanting to explore Xin-Shalast for example), but I've never been clear on what the general policy was. Are we basically in an eternal Inner Sea World Guide? Are we assuming readers have consumed the entire AP and setting lines to make sense of things? Some middle ground?

My personal preference would be for a setting that developed and changed with periodic updates rather than something like a comics universe where Batman is a middle aged man for 80 years and Peter Parker never seems to get out of high school for long.

When shattered start came out, the developers "decided" the results of a few APs. Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Vrimson Throne and a few others i think were given in canon endings.

And with the prospect of Pathfinder 2, they announced that they'll again decide the events for some APs. So there is the likely hood of PFS senarios in new, struggling, progressive Taldor

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

Now you can always sort of bit rewrite Taldor to change socio-political elements of the conflict.

Certain problem with creation of Taldor is it's mixture of RL medieval Europe elements with Byzantine Empire elements (which obviously co-existed in RL, but in different areas).

Primogeniture laws are in Europe Germanic element (Slavic had traditionally seniorate, and Roman Empire with all its deification of Emperors was basically series of military dictatures with short periods of inheritance, before next and next line crumbled - with strong army and strong people position and later also Church influence over those changes.)

But Germanic people have much more family-based, inheritance perspective. They did not accepted adoption - so in medieval kingdom inheritance of this general would be basically impossible, against all laws.

Which BTW annoys me terribly by calling Taldor - primogeniture country. By primogeniture laws - adoption is nah-nah, blood is sacred.

It's Eutropia who wants primogeniture - not Salic one obviously, but at least semi-Salic (well she probably want Absolute one which appeared in European monarchies only in XX century - but semi-Salic is good way to go.

So it's bit weird mixture overall.

In a way princess Eutropia is advancing Taldor from antiquity to medieval period.

I wonder how it would be advanced in future books.
IIUC genetic lineage of Stavian family (also is Stavian surname - because Eutropia use it as such) - should be well archived - therefore if there are any male-lineage strict descendants of Michael the Magnificent - they should have preference - in "no female rulers" sanctioned country.

So you can make it as a more morally chalenging conflict - with both pretendents being somehow unlawful. Let's say Eutropia couldn't inherit - but her sons could - like in semi-Salic. But she's a unmarried, and want to take throne herself.
But then this General what's his name also want to take precedense with adoption mechanism (just retcon it out of Taldor history it's a small bit).

In such situation throne could be passed to some earlier split cognatic lineage sons of female cousin to Stavian III - but they cannot take it before Eutropia death - because well hell eventual sons would still go first.

Now let's also remind Eutropia is supported by Sovereign Court - aristocracy supporting Pathfinder lodge - who promote sort of feudal alliance of nobility in Inner Sea region against both democrats and absolute monarchs and dictators. In a way - she can be seen as benevolent supporter of quasi-feudal-quasi-roman baron-patriciat rulers over general who want to push Empire in more egalitarian in a way - militaristic country - like Rome also was in part of its history. You know most Empire dynasties were born from support of Legions - some was of quite humble origins, briliant soldiers who advanced quick and then used their influence to take Rome from weakened ineffectual Emperors.

So in a way Eutropia could be... better for saving traditional lifestyle of Taldor than Maximos, who would probably put strong iron hand on all decadent nobles to push them to military deed, therefore limiting their power. I clearly see him as a guy - who could crumble old families of barons, and sent there own procurators because he'll see efficiency of state as better than some petty feudal dynasties.

Eutropia is a small breach in inheritance laws, which are anyway sort of inconsistent - while Maximos - well he's in love in Taldor greastness, not necessary custom, and he will reforge whole country to serve his imperialistic aspiration.

So what's then?

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

Quote:

Do you mean to suggest that after Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, and Hell's Rebels all either missed or botched the opportunity to include it, we might actually see class struggle in an AP?

I want to believe, but I've been let down so many times, y'know?

I cannot see it honestly with Sovereign Court being main ally to Eutropia.

[MadScientistWorking]

Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:

Quote:

Do you mean to suggest that after Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, and Hell's Rebels all either missed or botched the opportunity to include it, we might actually see class struggle in an AP?

I want to believe, but I've been let down so many times, y'know?

I cannot see it honestly with Sovereign Court being main ally to Eutropia.

You mean the organization which discovered Stavians use of torture and slavery? And yes from what I've been told of it's technically canon with the AP.

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

I'm not saying SC are bad guys.
I'm saying they are still privileged Azlanti-blooded rich folks who wants to be benevolent oligarchy.

Ergo rather than monarchy or democracy they want aristotelean aristocracy.

So still not good material for a class struggle, because Galt class strugglers would still cuts their pretty NG heads of.

[MadScientistWorking]

Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:

I'm not saying SC are bad guys.

I'm saying they are still privileged Azlanti-blooded rich folks who wants to be benevolent oligarchy.

Ergo rather than monarchy or democracy they want aristotelean aristocracy.

So still not good material for a class struggle, because Galt class strugglers would still cuts their pretty NG heads of.

Galt isn't a class struggle though and has always been portrayed as kind of place to dump people to get murdered.

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

well I assume it's closest to be with burgeois first killing of nobles, and then start too killing each other ;)

sure no proletariat rising, but then proletariat is rare thing in pre-industrial society

[Lord Fyre]

Balgin wrote:

as a long time GM I have known for quite some time that this AP was coming out. Initially I got excited. A war of succession has a lot of dramatic potential. Immediately I thought of the wars of king Steven and The Empress Maud who's war for the English crown raged from 1139 to 1147ad and forms a colourful background for the Brother Cadfael books.

This is a derail.

Let me chime in at say that reading the Brother Cadfael mysteries would be an excellent preparation for this campaign.

[Yakman]

Razcar wrote:

APs are not films or novels. It's your game and it becomes your AP when you prep it. So run it how you want. Make Eutropia want to preserve "class structure, honour, tradition" (quote from you) instead of making the social changes the AP suggests. Seeing as you like those values, why not make the looming threat of the campaign the chaos that would follow on a civil war or on Stavian's continued reign, instead of the continuing decline of the nation?

And even if the players and Eutropia wins under whatever ideological banner you choose to use, she could easily change in the process. Or maybe she hides her true intentions all the time from your players, agrees with whatever they would like her to do on the throne, and when she seizes power they realize they don't agree with her reforms at all, whatever they consist of. The PCs were merely a means to an end for her. That could mean anything from a bittersweet end, if you like those, to a new end boss.

These suggested changes of focus are not the authors' intentions, and would also change the theme of the AP. But you are not playing Pathfinder to please Paizo's writers by following their APs verbatim (something I hope actually *wouldn't* please them), you're playing it to so you and and your players can have fun. You are buying very moldable goods from them. Mold it the way that maximizes your enjoyment.

(As a side note, though I'm anything but conservative myself, and haven't even visited Taldor yet in game (though many times in RL, just kidding) and thus have no Taldogis in this fight, I can see a reason for wanting to keep the country as it is. From a dramatic perspective utopia is boring and makes a very anemic backdrop indeed. Drama needs strife, conflict and misery.)

COMPLETELY CONCUR.

Just from book 1: Stavian isn't fighting for "old taldor" - he's staging an absolutist coup against the Taldan Senate and its ancient houses. Eutropia is the one who's using the rules and traditions to accomplish her goals.

So far in book 1, there's no reason where you can't just make Eutropia the "conservative" candidate. Remember - Toldor has drifted substantially from its glory days. Eutropia can just be seen (or easily made to) be trying to pull them back to the old path.

[The Raven Black]

Joan of Arc being a woman did not upset that much the king and nobles who benefitted from her victories. Nobles tend to favor pragmatism over ideology

[Lord Fyre]

The Raven Black wrote:

Joan of Arc being a woman did not upset that much the king and nobles who benefitted from her victories. Nobles tend to favor pragmatism over ideology

... until they no longer needed her.

[The Raven Black]

Lord Fyre wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Joan of Arc being a woman did not upset that much the king and nobles who benefitted from her victories. Nobles tend to favor pragmatism over ideology

... until they no longer needed her.

Pragmatism ?

After all she was not even a noble, aka part of their vast expanded family. As opposed to Eutropia

[Evan Tarlton]

Yakman wrote:

COMPLETELY CONCUR.

Just from book 1: Stavian isn't fighting for "old taldor" - he's staging an absolutist coup against the Taldan Senate and its ancient houses. Eutropia is the one who's using the rules and traditions to accomplish her goals.

So far in...

That's true, and it's an interesting irony. I'm of the opinion that Stavian could have probably avoided this mess had he just gone ahead and openly adopted Pytharius. Eutropia's bid to end primogeniture might not have been fully defeated, but it certainly would have been kicked down the road as it were. Instead, he had to conspire with foreign powers against a legitimate part of his own government, which I believe constitutes treason. Of course, Stavian is rewarded for this with betrayal by his handpicked heir. Good.