(Social, fem) "The Princess's hand for.. wait, that won't work.."

[Sith_Happens]

Why would the king be concerned with marrying his son off to an Adventurer in a matrilinear inheritance scheme, but be just fine with marrying his daughter off to an adventurer in a Patrilinear inheritance scheme?

Good point. The "standard hero reward" does usually assume that marrying the princess puts the hero in line for the throne. Which... I don't think is automatically the case in a patrilineal kingdom, though someone else probably knows better than me.

It should also be noted that matrilineal vs. patrilineal is not an either-or. Gender-blind primogeniture is also a thing.

[Icewraith]

Why would the king be concerned with marrying his son off to an Adventurer in a matrilinear inheritance scheme, but be just fine with marrying his daughter off to an adventurer in a Patrilinear inheritance scheme?

I don't think he covered that actually, he's addressing the "only sons" cases. A truly matrilinear inheritance scheme and a truly patrilinear inheritance scheme both have the same issues if the ruler produces no daughters or sons, respectively. i.e. The adventurer that marries into such a situation with the design of eventually becoming the ruler is better off just taking over the throne by force and establishing a new dynasty.

In a matrilinear inheritance scheme, if the king/queen produce any female heirs, the adventurer/son pair get skipped in the line of succession if I understand things right (alternatively the line passes to the matron's closest female relative). In a patrilinear scheme, a daughter/adventurer pair would be skipped if the royal couple produces a male heir.

I think we're considering a patrilinear inheritance scheme or a birth order inheritance scheme since in the example the king is calling the shots.

[Mr Beer]

Then some adventurers go out into the woods to kill the dragon. You figure "yeah, okay, my daughter for defeating the dragon, since let's face it, if they get mad anyone who can take down THAT thing can probably solo my castle anyways. This way I at least get to retire with my wife first, and it more or less stays in the family".
Then some lady in fancy armor that's probably worth more than every piece of siege available to you by itself comes wandering back carrying a dragons head in a cart and a rune covered glowing sword thing by her side, and you realize she probably isn't going to be interested in your lazy kid son, and most likely the princess won't be that appealing either..

They all should have discussed the reward pre-dragonkill. If the king's intention was to offer marriage into his royal family, I don't see how this changes anything. Royal marriages are not about finding the love of one's life, they are about immense power and prestige.

If for someone reason Lady Dragonslayer declines the offer, well its time to talk. The king is do doubt a seasoned diplomat, even if he's no longer up to personal dragonkilling he can still dicker with the best of them. I'm sure they can come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

The scenario is presented with the implication 'well she doesn't want your crappy offer and she's super dangerous!". But there is nothing to indicate why this should be the case. The brave hero has undertaken an heroic task and the king can present the traditional reward. So where's the problem?

[Icewraith]

They all should have discussed the reward pre-dragonkill. If the king's intention was to offer marriage into his royal family, I don't see how this changes anything. Royal marriages are not about finding the love of one's life, they are about immense power and prestige.

If for someone reason Lady Dragonslayer declines the offer, well its time to talk. The king is do doubt a seasoned diplomat, even if he's no longer up to personal dragonkilling he can still dicker with the best of them. I'm sure they can come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

The scenario is presented with the implication 'well she doesn't want your crappy offer and she's super dangerous!". But there is nothing to indicate why this should be the case. The brave hero has undertaken an heroic task and the king can present the traditional reward. So where's the problem?

No, because the point of offering your daughter's hand in marriage or half your kingdom for dragonslaying is that word gets out, the idea is to motivate sufficiently skilled people to handle your dragon problem, and it's traditional. I think we're dealing more with a kingdom where this is the established rate and the situation comes up, not calling the validity of the situation into quesiton.

[Segev]

I don't think the lady dragonslayer is any more likely to be offended, if she doesn't want to get married, by the offer of the prince's hand, than is the male dragonslayer when offered the princess's hand (if he doesn't want to get married). Given the traditional nature of the offer, it would likely be refused as politely as possible, rather than any sort of cause for offense.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think the lady dragonslayer is any more likely to be offended, if she doesn't want to get married, by the offer of the prince's hand, than is the male dragonslayer when offered the princess's hand (if he doesn't want to get married). Given the traditional nature of the offer, it would likely be refused as politely as possible, rather than any sort of cause for offense.

Depends. The hero's immature 12 year old player might declare that his PC attempts to kill the king on the spot for not offering any good loot.

[Angelalex242]

If the player is 12, we're probably not offering the hero a spouse. Offering a spouse is for those of at least high school age. Ya know, old enough to ask 'well, is she hot?'

Or 'is he a stud?' in this case.

[Sith_Happens]

If the player is 12, we're probably not offering the hero a spouse. Offering a spouse is for those of at least high school age. Ya know, old enough to ask 'well, is she hot?'

Or 'is he a stud?' in this case.

"Marrying the prince(ss)" is a fantasy that transcends age.

[Mr Beer]

No, because the point of offering your daughter's hand in marriage or half your kingdom for dragonslaying is that word gets out, the idea is to motivate sufficiently skilled people to handle your dragon problem, and it's traditional. I think we're dealing more with a kingdom where this is the established rate and the situation comes up, not calling the validity of the situation into quesiton.

Then Lady Dragonslayer knows the going rate and is presumably happy with the bargain, making the implied problem even less likely.

[The Random NPC]

Matrilinearity and matriarchy are not synonymous terms.
Also, the "requires a child of marriageable age" is not a concern. Betrothals could last for years and years. The prince could barely be out of his diapers by the time said dragon-slaying occurs, and it wouldn't matter to a medieval king.

Alright, I don't really know the difference between the two then. Would you mind explaining it?

[Hyena]

Matriarchy is how society works, matrilinearity is how inheritance works.

On topic, I second the option "Offer the prince anyway". It's how things are traditionally done.

[Angelalex242]

King:Here's my son. All yours. While you're at it, could you make a man out of him? I've been trying for the last 23 yeas and got nowhere. But I have confidence you can do better!

Lady Dragonslayer: Make a man out of...HIM? The CR of that encounter's a whole lot higher then the Dragon was. I could get 10 more dragons killed before I was done making a man out of HIM.

King: Well, I guess it's a worthy challenge then! Think of all the Roleplay XP you'll get!

[The Random NPC]

Matriarchy is how society works, matrilinearity is how inheritance works.

On topic, I second the option "Offer the prince anyway". It's how things are traditionally done.

I still don't quite understand, in a matrilinear patriarchy, what does the first born prince get? Just the title of king and the rest gets divided up to the sisters?
EDIT: So based on random wiki articles and Yahoo answers, matrilinear simply means you trace your lineage from your mothers, while a matriarchy means inheritance is passed on from the mother to (generally) the daughter. So in a matrilinear patriarchy, the first born prince would become the king as everyone understands it (land, title, inheritance, etc.), but would get his last name (and be considered part of the house of) his mother. So it seems matrilinearity or patrilinearity doesn't much affect the king's decision. Is that about right?

[Hyena]

Okay, here's the deal.

In monarchies, there are three types of gender succession laws - agnatic (favours males), enatic (favours females) and cognatic (doesn't care). With agnatic succession, titles pass to the oldest son - unless there are no sons to inherit, in which case a daughter can inherit. Enatic is the opposite - the oldest daughter inherits, unless none are eligible (for example, they don't exist, or the only daughter is a bastard, or she took the vows). With cognatic, the firstborn inherits the titles, no matter the gender.
What the other children get, depends - they might take lesser parts of land and become the vassals of the firsborn, they might take lesser parts of land and become independent or they might get nothing except some gold and a fancy title.
Or maybe screw the gender laws - maybe, the kindgom's monarchy is elective, and nobles (with the ruler getting a say) decide who becomes the heir.

The point is, it's perfectly possible for a man to rule with matrilinear succession. His wife will most likely be a princess from foreign kindgom - and therefore, she has no mandate to rule this kingdom and has no say in political matters. Opposite is true - if the queen rules, her husband's kingly authority is pretty much a joke.

[Dhavaer]

I still don't quite understand, in a matrilinear patriarchy, what does the first born prince get? Just the title of king and the rest gets divided up to the sisters?

Everything. Matrilinearity isn't about who gets what, but who they get it from: the mother. So the first born prince inherits from his mother the queen, but can't pass it down to his children. Instead, it would go to his next eldest sibling. If the next eldest sibling is a sister, the next in line would be her children, else it would go on to the next sibling from him.

[Hyena]

...or I might have posted a rant about the wrong subject after misunderstanding the topic of discussion. It happens.

[The Random NPC]

Ok, I think I get it now, and I think I misunderstood Frozen_Feet's question. Based on my current understanding, the reason the king is screwed in a matrilinear monarchy is that there's a good chance that female adventure can't expect to receive much, unless the son is an only child. Even then there could be cousins the would inherit over her, and so there is more incentive for the adventure to simply overthrow the current monarchy.

[Rion]

Ok, I think I get it now, and I think I misunderstood Frozen_Feet's question. Based on my current understanding, the reason the king is screwed in a matrilinear monarchy is that there's a good chance that female adventure can't expect to receive much, unless the son is an only child. Even then there could be cousins the would inherit over her, and so there is more incentive for the adventure to simply overthrow the current monarchy.

On the other hand, that would make the "Adoption option" far more attractive for the adventurer, and if the king doesn't care too much for leaving the kingdom in the hands of incompetent children, it would also be a more attractive option for him.

[Hyena]

Is adoption even a thing? I mean, I guess he could knight her or make her into countess (duchess, baroness, whatever), but I don't think he is just able to invite random people into his family. Royal blood is an important thing.

[Jay R]

Then some lady in fancy armor that's probably worth more than every piece of siege available to you by itself comes wandering back carrying a dragons head in a cart and a rune covered glowing sword thing by her side, and you realize she probably isn't going to be interested in your lazy kid son, and most likely the princess won't be that appealing either.

As long as you're bringing modern ideas into a medieval climate to watch them clash, why are you assuming that the princess won't be that appealing?

Also, don't hand your daughter over to any murderhobo who can gank a dragon. Offer a knighthood and a plot of land or something like that. This way, the hero has to swear loyalty to you to claim the reward, and isn't banging your daughter.

You are trying to manipulate a medieval idea without its medieval purposes. Of course the king wants to marry his daughter to the person who can best protect the realm. All marriages are intended to preserve or extend the family holdings. If the hero is the one person who can protect the realm, then he's the best possible person to ally the royal family to with a marriage.

Why would the king be concerned with marrying his son off to an Adventurer in a matrilinear inheritance scheme, but be just fine with marrying his daughter off to an adventurer in a Patrilinear inheritance scheme?

Because the goal of an inheritance scheme is to produce heirs, to continue the family line. For that purpose, the female needs to stay at home safe for months at a time. (I'm not defending the medieval approach here; I'm merely citing it.) At best, she would have to become a part-time adventurer.

[Frozen_Feet]

If it's matrilinear, why wouldn't the queen be making this decision?

As noted, inheritance by female line is not the same as rule by (a) female(s). The assumption here is that because the King is described as being the one with the decision, he is the Reigning King for whatever reasons. This can imply a patriarchy, but it could imply a hundred other things too. By contrast, the line of succession could be anything.

Why would the king be concerned with marrying his son off to an Adventurer in a matrilinear inheritance scheme, but be just fine with marrying his daughter off to an adventurer in a Patrilinear inheritance scheme?

The reason why patrilinear successions are fine with marrying off excess daughters, and matrilinear successions are fine with marrying off excess sons, is because those excess children are of little value. Nothing of import is usually passed down to them. Basically, in a patrilinear succession, a daughter marrying a commoner becomes a commoner, and can be ignored for purposes of inheritance. In a matrilinear succession, a son marrying a commoner becomes one etc.

In a matrilinear succession, there's a Problem: you are trying to reward a woman. If your son was politically important or otherwise able by his own right, instead of just due to being your son, then it might work, but he's practically valueless in this scenario. Just marrying your son doesn't give the woman anything. You also can't "keep things in the family" because, barring adoption, the hero woman is obviously not of your family, instead representing a completely different lineage. So makinger her either the Reigning Queen or Queen Consort would mean basically ditching one dynasty and replacing it with a new one. By contrast, in a patrilinear succession marrying her (to you or your son) would be taking her to your family and making her part of your dynasty.

In general, the question of partilinearity versus matrilinearity poses an interesting question about the standard hero reward. The reward can work in either contexts, but the implications are wildly different.

In a patrilinear succession, hand of a Princess would be a token gesture of reward. It's basically "here's a potential wife for you" and little more. It works if you assume the heroic man is after sex or wants children of his own... and eventually, every man does, because in patrilinear succession you need children to pass down your wealth and status, and you need women to have them. This would be the default in a classic Oppressive Patriarchy (tm) where women are considered "property".

In a matrilinear succession, the Princess is a valuable asset, and you don't want to marry her off to just any dude. But what do you know - a heroic man just slew a dragon and proved to be the most badass guy in the neighbourhood! Clearly, he's Prince or King material, wouldn't you say? In a matrilinear succession, the social status or origin of a man don't matter much, but his abilities do. The Heroic Quest (tm) and all assorted hoops are selection pressures to find the best possible spouse for the Princess, and consequently the best possible continuer of your family line.

As a sidenote: why, in many myths and tales, the heroic farmboy is secretly long lost heir of the Kingdom? Because if he isn't, he has no legitimacy for the throne in a patrilinear succession. If a commoner would really claim the throne and marry a Princess, he would be considered an usurper and an illegitimate ruler.

If the heroic farmboy or other murderhobo isn't secretly an heir to anything, and it's the act of marrying the Princess that grants him half the Kingdom, then that's a sign of matrilinear succession, or at least a cognatic one (assuming the Princess is firstborn child of the Royal Family).

Both models do exist in myth and folklore. Chivalry tended to be extremely gynocentric and a lot of stories center around the Princess selecting the rightful ruler by being so in luuuv with his noble soul. And stuff.

[LibraryOgre]

King:Here's my son. All yours. While you're at it, could you make a man out of him? I've been trying for the last 23 yeas and got nowhere. But I have confidence you can do better!

Lady Dragonslayer: Make a man out of...HIM? The CR of that encounter's a whole lot higher then the Dragon was. I could get 10 more dragons killed before I was done making a man out of HIM.

King: Well, I guess it's a worthy challenge then! Think of all the Roleplay XP you'll get!

Let's get down to business
To improve your son!
Why's he such a wastrel
What have you done?
He's the saddest prince I've ever met
But you can bet before we're through
Mister, I'll make a him a man
for you!

[Frozen_Feet]

Speaking of ugly Princesses, they have the much of the same issues as your waste-of-space son has. Namely... why should the Big Damn Hero settle for her, when he probably has half the country's ladies swooning for him? In any case where the only thing your offspring has going for them is "s/he technically falls within your sexual preferences", your bargaining chips are not very good. Even if the marriage is accepted (because it has something else riding on it, probably), your child is likely to get neglected in favor of some more attractive lover.

[JusticeZero]

In the described case, the major issue is that in a lot of earlier civilizations that are good models for campaigns, an issue that comes up is "You can have the throne.... if you can keep it." Ligitimacy will include a significant helping of proving the ability to smack the heck out of the other contenders powerbase if they get uppity. This isn't the only thing that matters, but it's a real concern. gender and birth order must be secondary to the goal of making sure that the kingdom won't become a pile of rubble shortly after the coronation. Tradition is open to changing and reinterpretation to fit whatever situation arises, something that people forget. And large swathes of history did not feature the more modern layers of middle management nobility to placate.

[Ettina]

Good point. The "standard hero reward" does usually assume that marrying the princess puts the hero in line for the throne. Which... I don't think is automatically the case in a patrilineal kingdom, though someone else probably knows better than me.

I thought in the usual trope the king had no sons. Which means his son-in-law would get the throne, because his daughter is his only heir and married women are expected to be ruled by their husbands.

If he did have sons, his son-in-law wouldn't get the kingdom, but he would have close ties with the kingdom and a reasonable expectation that said kingdom would ally with him and offer him aid if he needed it.

The usual situation is the son-in-law ruling his own country (or at least a duchy or something), and the marriage would mean the two countries are close allies and declaring war on one means declaring war on the other. If the son-in-law was a duke or something rather than a king, he might have to deal with divided loyalties (his own king vs his wife's father) but most of the time that wouldn't come up, and if it did he'd side with whoever was stronger. (Incidentally, there were also some dukes who swore fealty to two different kings, which put them in a similar situation.) Even though it meant divided loyalties, a king would usually be happy to have their duke marrying a princess, because her father (and later her brother) would be expected to aid their kingdom in order to aid the duke.

Plus, if something goes wrong and all the sons die without heirs, the son-in-law could end up on the throne. Or his sons might.

[Pilum]

Speaking of ugly Princesses, they have the much of the same issues as your waste-of-space son has. Namely... why should the Big Damn Hero settle for her, when he probably has half the country's ladies swooning for him?

Because, to quote Python, Princess Prize has huuuuge.... tracts of land?

Traditionally the legends offering this have her as the kings only child so it's (almost) instant elevation to the throne. And even if there's a son ahead of her in the succession, the dowry she's coming with will be phenomenal - especially if the king is trying to get a mighty warrior on board.

Still applies with the heroine/son approach. Yes, she'll be expected to spit out an heir, but she'll be the one wearing the trousers and everyone will know it. And it's no more trail rations, no more bedrolls, no more "random hero". You're nobility now. You're a somebody. You win.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I thought in the usual trope the king had no sons. Which means his son-in-law would get the throne, because his daughter is his only heir and married women are expected to be ruled by their husbands.

If he did have sons, his son-in-law wouldn't get the kingdom, but he would have close ties with the kingdom and a reasonable expectation that said kingdom would ally with him and offer him aid if he needed it.

That is in fact the usual trope.

I'd actually think that in a world that follows the conventions of D&D that the elder or favored gender heir would probably abdicate in favor of the sibling with the adventurer SO, just to avoid all the sundry challenges and assasination plots. Also, the will of the people has to come into it at some point. If we fast forward ten years and every few months an issue is brought to the king that he then needs to run to his sister-in-law to solve, there won't be much faith in him for very long. Soon people will start bringing their concerns directly to her. . .

[tomandtish]

So you're the King of a small warlordy kingdom, and you have trouble with a dragon or whatever that your army just isn't up to dealing with. Years ago, you would have grabbed your friends and gone to battle, but these days, your joints creak, you can barely swing your mighty greatsword anymore, and you just aren't feeling all that powerful. Your kids? Freaking lazy accountants who barely know which end of the sword is the stabby one.. They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.
Then some adventurers go out into the woods to kill the dragon. You figure "yeah, okay, my daughter for defeating the dragon, since let's face it, if they get mad anyone who can take down THAT thing can probably solo my castle anyways. This way I at least get to retire with my wife first, and it more or less stays in the family".
Then some lady in fancy armor that's probably worth more than every piece of siege available to you by itself comes wandering back carrying a dragons head in a cart and a rune covered glowing sword thing by her side, and you realize she probably isn't going to be interested in your lazy kid son, and most likely the princess won't be that appealing either..

What to do at this stage?

You could take an example from Lawrence Watt-Evans' novel "With a Single Spell". Our hero participates in slaying a dragon and with the hand of one of several princesses as part of a reward. Then discovers that the reward is all or nothing. He HAS to take the hand of the princess if he wants any part of the reward. And begins to realize just what sort of trouble he's in.

So maybe change things just enough that the King is trying to get rid of this daughter in a way that doesn't make him look like a kin slayer. "The hero who slays the Dragon get 10,000 gp and the hand of my daughter". "Oh no. If you want the 10,000 gp, you have to take my daughter as well. That's why it says AND, not OR". "Why no, I don't believe hero is defined as male anywhere in our kingdom's laws, and it does say the Princess can marry any hero who performs a suitable deed". (Stealing this bit from Xanth where it was pointed out at one time that "King" was never specifically defined as male, so you had King Iris and King Irene). "Failing to accept your King's gratitude could be construed as an insult. You don't want to commit lese majeste, do you?"

[Sith_Happens]

Even if the marriage is accepted (because it has something else riding on it, probably), your child is likely to get neglected in favor of some more attractive lover.

From what I understand, this outcome was historically considered pretty commonplace.

[Angelalex242]

Let's get down to business
To improve your son!
Why's he such a wastrel
What have you done?
He's the saddest prince I've ever met
But you can bet before we're through
Mister, I'll make a him a man
for you!

LOOOOOOOL!

Okay, that RP needs to happen now. Badass chick, wimpy dude...and she actually SUCCEEDS at making a man out of him!