Note that there is an intermediate step between male only succession and full equality of succession. Many real world nations have male preference succession, which means that the heir apparent would be the eldest male child, with the eldest daughter inheriting only if there are no sons. That approach would be less disruptive as it would avoid changing any existing heirs but would provide a clear line of succession for families where the only children are daughters.
Does the adventure path explicitly state that the new rule would be inheritance strictly by birth order? I seem to recall reading about older sons being passed over for younger sons who were more in favor with their fathers, so there does seem to be some flexibility in choice of heir from among the old ruler's children.
I hadn't noticed this; I'd presumed that it was just the emperor that was subject to primogeniture. I would agree that presence of so many female NPC's with noble titles constitutes a rather blatant plot hole if the law applied to all titles, barring some kind of loophole.
Note that there is an intermediate step between male only succession and full equality of succession. Many real world nations have male preference succession, which means that the heir apparent would be the eldest male child, with the eldest daughter inheriting only if there are no sons.
We know this is not the case in Taldor, as otherwise Eutropia would not need a change of the law since there was no other heir apparent at the adventure's outset.
Spoiler:The AP goes on to say that "the senate recognizes Princess Eutropia Stavian I as the new heir to the Primogen Crown" but doesn't mention that as requiring a vote.
The adventure is internally consistent on this point, as everyone implicitly agrees that the repeal of primogeniture would mean that Eutropia would become heir apparent. The vote to repeal primogeniture is as much a vote of confidence in Eutropia as successor. No one seems to disagree that this is the implication.
Maybe they’re widows who are holding titles that belonged to their husbands (perhaps childless, perhaps as regents for minor children)? That’s a lot of widows with no or young children, but if the nobility takes an active part in the military, it could happen (or if they just marry a lot of scheming wives, as did Eodred Arabasti). It seems unlikely for such a patriarchal society to let widows regularly assume their husbands’ title, but it could just be some odd fluke of Taldan history or culture, and Ileosa does provide an example of a widow reigning as queen despite only having a right to the title through her dead husband (granted an example from the far side of Avistan, but it could point to some ancient Taldan tradition carried over by the Chelaxians). Many of the first women in the US Senate were the same: Hattie Caraway (Arkansas, 1932) and Rose Long (Louisiana, 1936) were initially appointed to the Senate to finish out the terms of their dead husbands (Caraway later won re-election in her own right), so the idea isn’t even completely foreign here in the real world. This would also work if Grand Dukes are appointed, by the same mechanism: women appointed to finish their husband’s term (or serve for some limited interim period) before the seat is granted to a new House.
Given that the AP is about the inheritance of the Grand Prince and how that role can’t be inherited by a woman, the status of inheritance for Grand Duchies is irrelevant: even if we’re never told the rules for inheriting a Grand Duchy, we know that a woman can’t inherit the title of Grand Prince, and that’s the core conflict which is kicking things off.
I am curious if there is an answer to this too. I had noticed the high number of Grand Duchesses while reading the Taldor campaign book as it felt odd for how the culture had been described.
Maybe it reflects the balance of power after the AP finishes?
Book 2 mentions a female NPC inherited and ** spoiler omitted **
This really doesn't make any sense.
I'm guessing the players guide was a typo, or it slipped past the editors.
Taldan Promgentiture seems to have originally barred women from inheriting entirely, but has evolved over the centuries to allow lands and titles to pass to female hands under certain circumstances, with the Taldan Crown being a major exception. This is nearly a direct quote from Birthright Betrayed, btw.
It's unfortunate that so many different sources give us conflicting information, but its the nature of the beast with Golarian by now. With the upcoming lore update, we'll hopefully be all on the same page again.
It could be that different sources within Taldor itself would give you conflicting information. (Reportedly, White Wolf used to love to do this with the Old World of Darkness.)
It could be that different sources within Taldor itself would give you conflicting information. (Reportedly, White Wolf used to love to do this with the Old World of Darkness.)
If I'm buying a sourcebook for a country, I want to know how things are in that country, not how they are perceived to be by some sources and then contradicted by the lore in an adventure I also bought.
Not strictly an official source, but on Know Direction: Adventurous Crystal Frasier (as GM for this AP) indicated that the primogeniture rule being voted on is for the seat of emperor.
I expect she knows. She developed the AP.
I reread the adventure background of Crownfall and it does explicitly state about primogeniture:
"The law states that royal power can pass only to a male heir"
Well then, I'm thoroughly confused.
Also, I find concerning that this thread has been open longer than two weeks and we have no Paizo response.
The Grand Prince appoints the Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses, IMO, based on the following:
"Grand Duke: Rules a prefecture and answers directly
to the grand prince; because this is one of the few titles
strictly defined by the land it is tied to, Taldor is limited
to 62 grand dukes: 12 who wield real power (sometimes
referred to as grand high dukes) and 50 lesser grand
dukes (unofficially referred to as nominal grand dukes)."
The Grand Prince appoints the Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses, IMO.
Often, but not always the case:
"The grand duchess,
Vivexis Darahan (LN female middle-aged human
fighter 8) served four tours of duty on the ramparts of
Vigil. The youngest of 12 children, Vivexis never expected
to inherit Whitemarch..." (p.38)
Vivexis did indeed inherit, though admittedly only as a last resort.
Personally, my plan is to say that women can inherit the position of Grand Duke but only with the approval of the Emperor (or maybe the senate I guess).
The fact that Grand Dukes answer directly to the Grand Prince indicates that there is a feudal hierarchy in Taldor, but nothing about inheritance. The very next paragraph tells us that dukes serve grand dukes, ie they swear fealty not to the Grand Prince, but to the next rank above them in the feudal chain.
There are several clear references to the position of grand duke being hereditary in Taldor, the First Empire, including the above one quoted by GM of Blinding Light. See also the situation in Krearis (p. 20), where the mixed race marriage of the current Grand Duke will not be producing any children and this is causing questions over the inheritance. However it is quite clear the Grand Prince (at least the current one) regularly intervenes and appoints his own choices.
The whole politics of, and inheritance in, Taldor is a big mess. There are too many clear examples of woman inheriting titles for the Players Guide statement not to be an error. Don't get me started on how the Grand Duke (or is it Emperor?) has absolute power and can tell the Senate to go jump (with the inclusion of how high).
If I ever run the AP I will wait until the whole thing is out, rewrite a lot of the background rules, probably using the French system of nobility pre 1789, and retain all of the really good stuff seen so far. Its a real disappointment that there's something rotten in the design of Taldor, in addition to its state.
The Grand Prince appoints the Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses, IMO.Often, but not always the case:
"The grand duchess,
Vivexis Darahan (LN female middle-aged human
fighter 8) served four tours of duty on the ramparts of
Vigil. The youngest of 12 children, Vivexis never expected
to inherit Whitemarch..." (p.38)Vivexis did indeed inherit, though admittedly only as a last resort.
Personally, my plan is to say that women can inherit the position of Grand Duke but only with the approval of the Emperor (or maybe the senate I guess).
I'm sure there was a ceremony at some point where the Grand Prince showed up and made her Grand Duke. You just don't wake up Grand Duke on account that daddy Grand Duke died, especially when in her case she was abroad. Grand Dukes and Duchesses answer directly to the Grand Prince. The Crown wanted a Darahan in charge down there. She got recalled and properly 'promoted' in that hot seat of hers, IMO. :)
(However this is Taldor, and the exceptions are probably as numerous as the myriad of titles that exist out there...)
Its a real disappointment that there's something rotten in the design of Taldor, in addition to its state.
You literally just stated the reason why the PCs decide to get involved in supporting Eutropia. The fact that the Empire is rotting and crumbling is not news. Taldor is composed of many prefectures, each of which will have their own local laws and variances. The Crown holds things together, but money and goods mostly flow up to Oppara, and the reason there hasn't been a revolution yet is that SOME of the nobles give back to the people in terms of infrastructure, jobs, opportunities, etc. and also because the commoners of Talor LOVE their Royals and are generally impressed by the nobility and proud of them.
Inheritance is not a huge plot point in the AP compared to the plot point of a woman being able to become the Queen/Grand Princess/Empress of Taldor.
I'm running it the AP right now and enjoying it immensely. Your concerns don't seem to be shared by my players. For instance, of them just 'befriended' Malphene Trant in a scene reminiscent of the Lethal Weapon 3 'comparing battle scars' scene. :P
I'm frequently a fan of unreliable narrators in setting books (Fading Suns does a good job with it IMO), but the subject matter is relevant. A political game set in the modern US for example shouldn't be arguing about how many states there are or how long a Senator's term is. {. . .}
The way things are going here, in just a few years, you might not need a game for that . . . .
Even if sexism was extremely prevalent, a noble family with no male heir would probably move heaven and earth to get the emperor to appoint one of their women to the title on their patriarch’s death. Keeps the wealth and power within the family and her son can then inherit.
Personally, my answer to the thread title would be a complicated, Byzantine process where the senate and emperor each have a say. That makes it political and politics can throw up all kinds of outcomes.
No grand dukes are insignificant. Those appointments would always involve political conniving.
|
If you invent one as a GM you run the risk of making an unreleased volume of the AP unusable if Paizo introduces a contradictory one as a plot element in book 5.
This is pretty much precisely why my table's DMs (myself included) don't advocate playing or strictly plotting APs before all six volumes are out. On the one hand, I can totally see your argument; it's a pain on the wallet if things don't align with your goals or intentions (or heck, you just plain don't like it). On the other, Paizo's content is easily salvageable/workable in my experience—and queries regarding the construction of a complex, intricate system of aristocracy worthy of Taldor could later be raised here for feedback from those who are already familiar with the relevant modules come Book 6.
To address the topic's title directly, I'm just yapping from Taldor, The First Empire here but...
Taldor employs myriad noble titles; the crown awards them as political favors, and many titles have long since become essentially useless, collected purely for prestige among the aristocracy {...}
Grand Duke: Rules a prefecture and answers directly to the Grand Prince {...}
Seems to sort of imply that the majority of titles, including Grand Duke, are bestowed upon individuals by the Crown/Grand Prince either by direct appointment or proxy, which are then hereditary inherited. Sure, it doesn't say that outright, but given that Stavian III has dropped at least one traditionally royal Barony at the near drop of a hat (Oppara/Vinmark, for those of you playing at home), I'd not say that titles are necessarily always given in a particular manner, or with every possible legal process intact. This isn't Cheliax after all; just keep the Bankers and Taxmasters from looking too hard—and if all that fails, since when has the Grand Prince required permission to do anything anyway? His word is essentially law.
• The authors wanted to leave an open canvas for DMs to paint whatever level of complexity/corruption they deem fit for purpose (the "Preferential Politics" option)
• They felt page-space was better spent on whatever the AP chapters entail rather than derailing to discuss a detailed system that, while absolutely appropriate to the setting, may not necessarily be important to every player/DM/the overarching AP itself—especially when it's fighting for room with things such as the Cult of Personality system—and flat out may not even be accurate in context due to the gordian knot of contradictory rules we're told the Taldane Nobility regularly operates under (the "How much flattened tree space did you say we had?" option)
• Some mongrel mix of both. (the "Yeah Sure Probably Maybe" option)
...Why something of that sort couldn't have just been said somewhere, I haven't the foggiest idea (or maybe it does and I'm just not privy to that information as a prospective player at my table [though I get the feeling that's not the case]). I understand the folks over on Paizo's editorial payroll are busy as heck (and I commend their efforts nonetheless!), but the general misalignment between Taldor's companion material and War for the Crown feels like there's things that should've been picked up somewhere in review. For the record: I can work with retcons or changes in narrative direction without much issue, but Two Months between T:tFE and WftC? I'm sensing some consumer whiplash.
Of course this isn't the first time I've thought this about a hobby/topic I'm passionate about (heck, widespread and consistent lore is my DMing aesthetic) but here we are.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Personally, my answer to the thread title would be a complicated, Byzantine process where the senate and emperor each have a say. That makes it political and politics can throw up all kinds of outcomes.A complicated Byzantine process that isn't mentioned in print.
If you invent one as a GM you run the risk of making an unreleased volume of the AP unusable if Paizo introduces a contradictory one as a plot element in book 5.
I avoid this issue by not running an Ap until it’s completely finished. I use the map folios, the pawns and any campaign setting supplements (which sometimes come out during an APs run).
So I’d only make something up if it wasn’t answered in the AP.
Appointment by the emperor is an option but it has two problems (either of which are sufficient to make me avoid it). Both are spoilered because they're plot points in the AP.
I have a rebuttal for your first spoiler regarding Stavian's motivation:
He doesn't want to kill Eutropia because she's a woman. He wants to kill her because he thinks she's undermining his throne and trying to usurp him. "...he now sees her campaigning to repeal primogeniture as an attempt on his throne. Betrayed by family and nobility alike, Stavian III believes he has been backed into a corner, seeing drastic action as the only means of avoiding a nationwide coup by those plotting against him."
I don't see where you're getting this misogynistic reading of Stavian's character from. Certainly not in regards to his daughter.
Spoiler for Stavian III's motives:
His line there says more about the state of women in Taldor in a general way than it does about Stavian's character.
Stavian's an equal opportunity madman. He's not murdering anyone because of their gender. He's murdering them because he's insane.
If the writers really wanted him to be misogynistic there's much more they could've added to indicate that fact.
More Stavian III motivation spoilers:
Is it in the PFS scenarios? Because I haven't read those.
Spoiler
Might be time to lose the spoiler tags if we're no longer discussing spoiler-specific material.
The AP is about social intrigue, spying, politics, etc. It just happens to be that one of the political aspects is gender/egalitarian reforms. The villains of the piece are traditionalists with their own sordid problems (insanity, warmongering, sexism, power-hungry, and so on), but the AP was never sold as the "fight against misogyny AP", and it confuses me to see people continue to claim it as such.
Yes, if that's the interpretation you want to take because it works best for your group of players, then that's fantastic. But I don't think it's the wide-spread interpretation that the AP presents.
Second, Pythareus is an interesting character. I wonder how his love of tradtion intersects with the fact that Eutropia didn't want to be married to him.
Like, Martials are awesome, in their own spheres and against other martials. Everyone can think of the time that well-played fighter or barbarian was the one that saved the day. A well played martial can even beat a caster at times. But they're still martials and most players simply accept that casters are more versatile, however true it might be in the individual character's case.