[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.41476536 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

The king has no sons. His oldest daughter has just told him that she's fallen in love with her female bodyguard. What does he do?

>> No.41476574

Depends on his disposition. Personally I would want her to be happy and allow it to happen.

>> No.41476580

"You're still having a kid. I was in the same situation. Why the fuck do you think I keep that chef around? It certainly isn't his cooking!"

>> No.41476581

He impregnates his daughter himself, haven't you seen Game of Thrones?

>> No.41476593

Turkey baster and the king's jizz.

Best solution.

>> No.41476594

kill his useless and clearly retarded daughter
father a son

>> No.41476598


I have a soft spot for the "too understanding parent" in stories.

>> No.41476606

I tell OP to fuck off to /pol/.

>> No.41476610



Who's next in line?
What's the king/kingdom's stance on homosexuality?
What do the local laws of succession say?
Which of the local Barons/Dukes/Neighbouring Kings etc have been pushing their offspring forward as potential husbands, and what do they think of the situation?

Not enough info anon.

Personally I'd marry her off to someone politically expedient, and let her take the bodyguard/girlfriend with her. As long as the marriage is advantageous to the realm, and the succession is secured, fuck it.

>> No.41476619

His cooking has to be a big part of it, because it certainly isn't his looks.

>> No.41476633

Make another kid.

>> No.41476639


Nah, I've heard a few of the kitchen maids talking. Apparently he's hung like a horse.

>> No.41476650

you don't have to be straight to make children, now marry and fuck the Count next door, and keep your bodyguard on the side.

>> No.41476668


Use your fucking imagination for once, /tg/. Do you really need the thread to say:
>The king has no sons. His oldest daughter has just told him that she's fallen in love with her female bodyguard. The king is violently homophobic and obsessed with having an heir. What does he do?

>> No.41476671

Sides, unless you're marrying her off to Duke Skullfucker of Asshole Mountain he's probably not gonna care if she's sleeping with her female bodyguard. Its no threat to his line, and in a way is actually kind of security; less need to worry that his wife is taking lovers that could get her pregnant with a bastard if you know she's taking lovers that can't.

>> No.41476673

A horse might be an understatement. There's a reason why he imports those pricy throne pillows.

>> No.41476674

Kill the bodyguard secretly, marry the daughter off.

>> No.41476677

The court wizard gives the female bodyguard a magical penis. Or he gives the princess a magical penis, I guess either would be fine.

>> No.41476688

>Personally I'd marry her off to someone politically expedient, and let her take the bodyguard/girlfriend with her. As long as the marriage is advantageous to the realm, and the succession is secured, fuck it.

This. Do you think royalty marry and have kids with who they love ever? Regardless of gender/sexuality. It really doesnt matter if the lover is male or female, its not the person she is marrying and having legitimate offspring with.

>> No.41476704

its a boring as fuck conversation. I dunno he kills everyone or he doesn't, fuck off and make a good topic.

>> No.41476711

How would
>Kill the bodyguard secretly, marry the daughter off.
Achieve any better result then
>marry the daughter off.

>> No.41476712


Well, then, kill the King and declare a republic, obviously.

Again, son, this ain't /pol/.

>> No.41476723

Rape daughter.

>> No.41476726

If it was just about the kid the king could adopt one.

There's also the political marriage at stake here.

Love? Irrelevant.

>> No.41476728

Clearly the only answer is to hire a dragon to kidnap them and put out a call for adventurers with the reward being your daughter's hand in marriage. So either:

A) A male adventurer does it, securing the realm's succession. And you can "regretfully" explain that it was the only way they could be sure someone would save them. Or

B) The Female Bodyguard does it and you honour the deal. You look strong and uncompromising about deals you make and get around most issues if people don't think lesbians are awesome in the kingdom, plus your daughter thinks you're a cool dad.Or

C) The dragon marries your daughter instead and you get a half-dragon successor. Which is not that bad to be honest.

>> No.41476736

This. Having a daughter take over the throne is the same thing as giving your entire kingdom to a different families' bloodline.

Don't be a pussy king. Get yourself a harem from the local daughters and the first one to pop out a son becomes queen.

>> No.41476750


Thats neat and all, and satisfies modernist values but if you let that shit fly in a hereditary monarchy there will probably be a civil war that kills thousands upon thousands of people.

She will do her duty and marry the politically optimal match i have chosen for her. She can lie back and think of england. Whether she gets to keep fugging her bodyguard on the side is between her and her husband.

>> No.41476754

But not if she ends up marrying the bodyguard yeah?

>> No.41476755

Make a quest about it on /tg/ that goes on for literally hundreds of installments.

>> No.41476757

Yeah. Pretty much every monarch has a lover on the side, and pretty much everyone ignores it so long as they have kids. It's basically a family tradition.

>> No.41476765

If the kingdom is accepting of homosexuality:
Insist the two have somebody genetically suitable inseminate, but they can raise the child as their own. Give my blessing that the child is legitimate.

If the kingdom is intolerant of homosexuality:
The bodyguard can only ever be a lover at most. She needs to marry somebody suitable (but ideally not overly jealous).

>> No.41476792

1. Shuts you the fuck up.
2. Bodyguard stops trying to steal away the easily manipulated girl that was placed under her protection
3. Punish the bodygaurd for overstepping her rank
4. Kills a homosexual

Nothing but positives.

>> No.41476814

If the kingdom is accepting of homosexuality:
Insist the two have somebody genetically suitable inseminate, but they can raise the child as their own. Give my blessing that the child is legitimate.

>Letting the princess marry a lowborn, ever

Sexuality is completely beside the point here. She is not marrying her bodyguard, she is royalty, she doesn't get to choose this shit.

>> No.41476836

You mean for two women to control the throne together as wedded couple? Or to simply get married and retire to an obscure village with a small fortune?

I assume you mean the latter, because for the royal bloodline to be ruled in a perverse way by two women would make the kingdom the laughing stock of the world.

>> No.41476843

She gets to eat shit and marry for politics like everyone else.

Also, the scenario doesn't even make sense, the modern western concept of "TRU WUB" is fairly recent.

>> No.41476847


This would probably depend on the succession laws and opinions of the realm. It's entirely possible you'd have a kindom that believes that women can carry on a lineage just as well as men. Or at the very least, in circumstances such as these. There are plenty of societies on earth that people used their mother's lineage.

It probably also depends on how popular the king is, and how much authority he has. If he's on the tail end of like 40 years of very popular rule, he could probably go "this bitch is legally my son. Her children are my dynasty." You might still get some instability afterwards, but at least then your daughter has a legitimate stance when she tries to enforce that.

>> No.41476882

Either really. The first would be pretty amusing.

>> No.41476898


>Also, the scenario doesn't even make sense, the modern western concept of "TRU WUB" is fairly recent.

Don't be retarded, people have married for love for a long time. It just wasn't the primary motive for marriage, at least among nobles. That doesn't mean it didn't happen either, nor that some people didn't want to marry someone they weren't interested in. Of course in many cases they could be forced by what was politically expedient/what their family said, but still.
Do you seriously think the emotion of "I really like this person and want to spend the rest of my life with them" or at the very least "I'm not even attracted to your gender why would I want to marry you?" was just invented some day?

>> No.41476909

Tell her to lie back and think of England, and keep her bodyguard as a concubine.

>> No.41476916

>everyone look how edgy I am

>> No.41476917

King Dad didn't get a choice. No, he married who his parents told him to marry and had woman he actually enjoyed being with on the side. It's what royalty does. Like father like daughter.

>> No.41476923

See if the Kings brother has any non-faggot offspring to take the throne.

>> No.41476935

That sure is a meaningful question with a single correct answer OP.
Very related to traditional games as well.

>> No.41476942

I guess he just kills both.
Then hunts down the witch and kills her too.

>> No.41476950

Continue to make babies with the queen, disregard what the princess wants and marry her for political maneuvering. Not like a female bodyguard is going to produce any children with the daughter so its harmless, and once I marry her off its some prince's problem now.

>> No.41476957

Well, I assume he get's the court wizard to whip up a baby-making potion for his daughter. But if this is a low-to-no magic setting, then probably figure out some way to marry her off to he best suitor with the bodyguard in tow. That squirrely prince who was caught with the stableboy might do since he obviously won't be too into it, but at least he might get her to pop out a child or two.

>> No.41476959

>look how much of a faggot I am

Please refer to point numero uno.

>> No.41476961

You would still be forfeiting the dynasty away. Any man that would marry her would assume power for the benefit of his children and that would be that.

You would go down in history as a forgotten family that gave up their power and glory and condemned whoever is left to squalor or on the run.

>> No.41476966

Start preparing for the inevitably succession war between your daughter and your brothers oldest son.

>> No.41476974


Presumably, in order to prevent future drama with either the suitor or the bodyguard.
The suitor could get pissed that his new wife is keeping a lover on the side. Not everyone is always "Sick bro lesbians!"
The bodyguard could get pissed that she had her lover taken from her and given to somebody else. They could elope. She could kill you or the suitor.

I'd say killing the bodyguard would politically not be the dumbest move, though it'd obviously alienate your daughter as well if she found out, so it'd depend on how ruthless you were as a king.

>> No.41476984

>ahuehue lesbian princess wut do
It wasn't interesting the first time, why do you think repeated threads would endear us to the concept?

Kill yourself.

>> No.41476986

>he get's the court wizard to whip up a baby-making potion for his daughter
>not making the court wizard give the bodyguard a penis
Do you even magic realm?

>> No.41476992

We both know you're shitposting. Why even do it?

>> No.41476994

Hang on, what kind of succession do we have?
Since you refer to the "oldest" daughter I'm assuming primogeniture? In which case there is not a lot we can do since the royal family will be up in arms about you fucking with succession by executing them so blatantly, homosexual or not.

Just to tell them to marry politically and keep the bodyguard as a lover.

>> No.41476999

Or this: >>41476966

>> No.41477006

Aren't you just making up rules and applying them to someone else's setting?

>> No.41477008

>The king has no sons. His oldest daughter has just told him that she's fallen in love with her female bodyguard. What does he do?
>The king has no sons.

The rest is immaterial. Dude has already fucked up his ONLY job.

how the shit is he reigning and old enough that his oldest daughter is "in love" without having at least an heir and a spare proper?

Well, setting that aside, assuming female heirs are possible in this setting
>oldest daughter
the scandal of a princess and her bodyguard marrying is not insubtantial, but can be overcome. Depending on how we handle it, either she'll eventually ascend, die a "virgin queen" and the kingdom will pass to her younger sister and/or her children, the previous queen's nephews.

good job, captain edgy. Now your daughter hates you and will extract revenge. History has shown having your heirs truly hate you is a terrible idea for your legacy.
And you aren't "punishing" someone if you have them quietly killed. The whole point of punishment is to prevent it from being done again. If there's no example set, if it isn't public knowledge that this is what happens, you're wasting everyone's time.

>> No.41477016

You do realize that his statement "women can carry on a lineage just as well as men" would imply that any marriage would be matrilineal, right?

It's uncommon but not unheard of even here on earth, so I don't know why you discarded the possibility out of hand here.

>> No.41477017

Well if you put it that way it just sounds like another thinly veiled social justice thread on /tg/ like the recent ones we had about rape.

Looking at those threads, the ones that still plague /v/ and the miserable status quo that hangs over /co/, "depends" going in directions other than that is nothing but a good thing.

>> No.41477024

Two queens. Who cares.

>> No.41477027

What does that have to do with anything?

>> No.41477030

The King impregnates the bodyguard, problem solved

>> No.41477034

Never said how the potion would work, m8

>> No.41477040

At the very least he'd kill the bodyguard, though he'd probably also wind up killing his daughter once she got all saucy after the death of her fucktoy.

Largely, since the idea of homosexuality didn't even exist until about a hundred and fifty years ago, he'd be laughing at the delusions of his daughter while she burned.

>> No.41477058

You were the first one to shitpost.

>> No.41477064

Okay the gay marriage but demand she take some male concubine for the purpose of procreation. If she wants to be Queen she's got to take the duties of such, which includes mothering an heir.

>> No.41477073

I'm not talking about rules and laws. I'm talking about instinct and the concept of inheritance.

>> No.41477077

This literally only applies if your fantasy realm has historic christianity as its religion and not a pantheon of fantasy gods like 99% of the games. And even then you are completely wrong if you think this always happened in history and royalty didnt have gay lovers on the side all the time.

>> No.41477079


Again, that's just assuming that the family name 100% had to pass down via the male like in European monarchies. If we're talking only about like, the English monarchy, sure. Fantasy realms have a little more leeway, and it's not like there isn't historical precedent in real life for this sort of thing. It's really dependent on the culture.

The male assuming power isn't a guarantee either. There have been several cases of authorative female monarchs subjugating their husbands and ruling in their own right, especially if they were the child of the previous king.

Catherine the Great springs to mind. She was Romanov, her child was Romanov. There were certainly disagreements over legitimacy, but all it takes is a monarch to assert themselves and tell those naysayers to shut the fuck up.

Basically, if you raise your daughter to be a good ruler, and... Really, a ruthless one wouldn't hurt, since people will not roll over easy for a woman, she can carry on your dynasty no problem.

>> No.41477087

Nothing. We're an elective monarchy anyways.

>> No.41477092

Exile the bodygaurd, re-educate the Princess, and everyone lives happily ever after.

>> No.41477093

That's not true (I doubt I'm the person you think I am), but even if it were, so what? That doesn't change the fact that you're acting like an edgy faggot for no good reason.

>> No.41477095


Have the bodyguard executed and the oldest daughter sent to join a monastery as a nun. Make your closest male relative or the son you never had the heir.

>> No.41477102

Marry her of to the king of Aragon. Create Spain.

>> No.41477111


>would endear us to the concept?

Why don't you speak for yourself, seeing as you're the only one in this thread whining like a big fucking baby about it?

>> No.41477121

Scour the brothels for one of the many bastard sons you spawned there. Legitimize one. Sorted.

>> No.41477123

The concept of inheritance IS a matter of law and culture. Instinct has nothing to do with it.

>> No.41477129

Actually, the English Monarchy is a bad example, as the House of Windsor has decreed that any children of the monarch will be of Windsor, no matter which side of the marriage the monarch is from.

Its why Elisabeth II passed on her family name to her children instead of her husband's.

>> No.41477132

Beat me to it.

>> No.41477146

Oh look this same thread again.

>> No.41477154

>It's uncommon
That's why. Someone with a more common method will be right there waiting to grab whatever power he can. Whether by intimidation, or murder, or pure charisma, he'll make sure that everyone will understand that he is the countries' number one man and his children are the new royal bloodline.

>> No.41477156

You mean the majority of religions and cultures in the world, you revisionist libtard. Almost every religion and culture, pagan and otherwise, found a reason to condemn homosexuality and one time or another.

And, yes, they had gay lovers, but they were not "gay," in the sense that they didn't consider themselves the have an innate, immutable sexual orientation, just a sexual preference or fetish. One they engaged in while simultaneously having sex with their wives.

>> No.41477164


I probably shouldn't have used that as an example given that it still exists in this day and age, but I meant it more historically, such as with Elizabeth I and Victoria.

But that said, there you go, the English monarchy is actually a good example of a nation just going "fuck your dynastic tradition"

>> No.41477177

This guy knows how to play the game of fucking thrones right there.

>> No.41477193

Take the princess on a desert horse trip, and explain to her the importance of self-sacrifice for the greater good if her people, and the concept of the Socratic Virtues.

Pic related, it helps to have a Paladin do it for you.

>> No.41477198

I bet the king would kill OP.

>> No.41477203


>will be

Can be.
Yes, anon, there's the possibility of a usurper. Always. Son or daughter. Young or old. Somebody can intimidate, murder, or politic his way to the throne. Pretenders are as old as monarchies.
That doesn't mean a competent daughter can't hold her shit down, and there are various examples of this in history.

>> No.41477214

>even though it worked in real life it won't work this time because I say so

>> No.41477217

You can say that, but I would say that it was around before laws were made concerning it. Marriage is more dictated by instinct, but only later were laws made for it.

>> No.41477220


>Do you seriously think the emotion of "I really like this person and want to spend the rest of my life with them" or at the very least "I'm not even attracted to your gender why would I want to marry you?" was just invented some day?

Obviously not.

But the Western conceptualization that places that feeling as something really super important that one should fight for at all costs IS really recent.

>> No.41477231

>oldest daughter
Disown her and try again.

If you said only daughter it'd be a different story.

>> No.41477236

Hastily try to update succession laws but then realize I've already done this during my current character's lifetime, so I'm SOL for now. Try to find someone with some decent claims I can matrillinially marry her to who has the Lust trait to offset the -30 to fertility that the Homosexuality trait incurs on my heiress.

>> No.41477242

>the modern western concept of "TRU WUB" is fairly recent.
That's not true. There are a billion medieval poems about it.

>> No.41477247

Considering I have a daughter about that old, there's already going to be a Queen when I pass on. Or are you trying to suggest a Queen ruling is somehow a bad thing?

>> No.41477254

Get alchemists and wizzards, merry off the princess and send her bodyguard with her. Make magical penis and fill it with the husbands spunk. Get the bodyguard to make sweet sweet strapon love to the princes and knock her up. You now have a hair to the throne, the princess is happy, all you have to do is get the husband and good side bitch. Problem solved

>> No.41477256

Not only are you making shit up, but it's gotten so vague and subjective that it doesn't even support your original point.

>> No.41477262

He'd launch a crusade against the barbarians who've clearly influenced his daughter, piling up their corpses before her door until she realized the error of her ways.

There would probably be a sign on top of the mound that would read "Ya dumb cunt."

>> No.41477265

> oldest daughter
So he has other daughters?

Regardless, if we're doing traditional monarchy, she probably gets arrange married to some guy as a political bargaining chip, which was just what you did with princesses back then. Love has nothing to do with it.

The best outcome is that she's allowed to keep her bodyguard with her throughout.

>> No.41477268


>France has declared war.
>There are dangerous plots in our country.

>> No.41477273

She could hold it down, yes. But give it time.

Same thing here.

>> No.41477282

>But the Western conceptualization that places that feeling as something really super important that one should fight for at all costs IS really recent.
Whether that is true or not, how is it relevant? It still makes sense for the princess to fancy her female bodyguard. It makes sense for her to be unwilling to give her up, 'true love' or not. It makes sense for the king to seriously consider this matter.

>> No.41477294

Daughter can keep bodyguard but has to get a husband too. Her first son by husband becomes next king.

>> No.41477299

All about cucking ;^)

>> No.41477302

Find a noble who can fuck her straight.

Shouldn't be difficult, what with actually having a penis and all.

>> No.41477305

So despite the fact that it has a historical precedent you're going to claim it wouldn't work just because?

>> No.41477307


>> No.41477308

Are we still talking about passing on the lineage? because there are cultures where marriages are matrilineal in general, and of this is true in the setting in question, there is no real problem in this regard.

>> No.41477314

>barbarians who've clearly influenced his daughter
Why not start with the most obvious proponents of the gay agenda?

>> No.41477319

>the king is found hanged in his quarters
>his suicide note declares the kingdom a republic
I wish it was /pol/; their conspiracy theories make a more coherent and immersive setting than your tardery does.

>> No.41477339

My point was that instinct drives men to grab power when they can. Instinct also drives men to provide for their children.

There you have it. It's only a matter of time before the old bloodline is forgotten and power is gradually stripped from the cousins and distant relatives and given to the new line. Especially if he sleeps around.

>> No.41477359

>oh look, this retarded thread again

Fuck off, OP.

>> No.41477377

Well, if this is my D&D world, then adoption is considered legally the same thing as having a kid and doesn't break the line of secession; and also homosexuality isn't a moral issue and never has been.

He's less likely to be concerned with the bodyguard's gender as much as he is her social standing. Please tell me she's at least a knight or something?

>> No.41477387

>pro gay
pick one,
unless you are talking about reformed Judaism, Orthodox is just as anti gay as most christian are.

>> No.41477391

But there are matrilineal societies in the real world. They're generally not matriarchal, and men are fully capable of grabbing power and providing for their children in them.

>> No.41477399

That's interesting, anon. I didn't know that. Where are these cultures now?

>> No.41477411

the fuck i'd know, ask the GM !

>> No.41477415


Sack the kingdom. Raze it to the ground and start over.

>> No.41477417

Find a pro-gay news article and look at the surname of the author.

80% of the time it's a kike name. Not even trying to /pol/, but it's long been known that they Jews support things in other communities that are taboo in their own. Look at FEMEN.

>> No.41477433

Tell the king to keep knocking up the queen (or an appropriate surrogate in the event that the Queen can't have kids anymore, ala Abraham) until a boy happens. If we're going by our bog-standard European monarchy-expy, you need at least one male heir, and preferably one more as back up incase the first one bites it after getting his incest-blood everywhere. Hopefully the king has made good friends with the prevalent religious authority, a nice public ritual legitimizing the potential bastard would be helpful.

On the issue of the daughter, inform her of the royal family's duties to the realm and to the general aristocracy. Hopefully she can meet a suitor that can stem her unusual preferences, but royal concubines aren't entirely unheard of. At least a bodyguard has a good reason to be close to her, and people are generally less opposed to female-female couplings than to male-male.

There shouldn't be any need to hurt family, the worst possible casualty being a bodyguard.

>> No.41477434

>also homosexuality isn't a moral issue and never has been.

I guess your setting is retarded and also doesn't find any fault with other sexual transgressions like incest and bestiality.

You SJW's have the shittiest world-crafting skills.

>> No.41477440

The 'instinct' part has nothing to do with your point, in that it doesn't preclude concepts like the female successor having all legal and social rights.

The "diffusion of bloodline" part is technically true over a long enough period of time, but that's always been the case no matter who takes the throne.

>> No.41477455

He doesn't give a fuck and marries her away to a prince of some country or whatever. She can fuck around on the side if she wants, what matters is political alliances.

>> No.41477459

>I'm lonely, please pay attention to me

>> No.41477469


Speak with the couple, get their approval for a plan.

Arrange a political marriage for her with a weak-willed son of a neighboring lord. Insist that they move into your castle, as you are king. On the wedding night, keep the bodyguard lover in the chambers where the post-ceremony bedding is set to happen. When the newly married couple arrive, have the bodyguard chain my new son-in-law to the wall, force him to watch his lovely wife get homo-fucked by her obviously dominant bodyguard lover.

Rinse and repeat for a few months until his spirit is completely broken and he's nothing but a pathetic, obsessively masturbating wreck. Simulate pregnancy (just various levels of belly-swelling with cushions for public appearances). It becomes common knowledge that the princess is with child.

When the due date comes around, abduct an orphan baby boy that no one will miss. Then, when the queen goes into "labor", take my son-in-law out on a celebratory hunting trip, and arrange an accident. He dies, but his blood lives on in his "son". Tragic, but necessary.

Raise the boy to believe he was the natural get of our daughter and his deceased dad, sculpt him with great temperance into the ideal ruler.

Daughter doesn't have to fuck a man she's disgusted by, we get the best possible heir, and our family remains in power. Lesbian powercouple even gets an adopted son to raise.

Family is everything, blood means nothing. Get on my scheming level, bitches. When the history books are written about our family's glorious reign, none will be the wiser, and we will be immortalized.

>> No.41477480

Becomes a lich, rules forever.

>> No.41477483

>Tap symbol

What ?

>> No.41477496

>128 replies
>ctrl + f "futa"
>0 results

For shame.

Clearly the bodyguard is a dickgirl. And they lived happily ever after.

>> No.41477502

Lay off the NTR doujins you faggot cuck, they're rotting your brain.

>> No.41477504

>all that bullshit in the name of MUH PUREST LUV

>> No.41477505

>I force my political agendas into my settings, regardless of how stupid, unrealistic, and fundamentally retarded they are to the point where even fire-breathing dragons make more sense

Cry elsewhere. /pol/ is just down the hall.

>> No.41477506

Well, that's just his own mistake for not betrothing her to a suitable potantial husband the moment she came of age. This man must be an amateur at kinging.

Well, I suppose his brother is the rightful heir, anyway. Let's hope he's better at this.

>> No.41477526

Use daughter as a sacrifice to become a lich.

>> No.41477528


She isn't.


That's why the king puts out a call for a wizard most irresponsible.

>> No.41477531

You have me at a disadvantage. I don't know of any place that was a matriarchy save for one place near the himalayan mountains where women would take multiple husbands and reverse the roles of man and wife completely. But I've only heard of that, not studied it.

In Sri Lanka, I heard that women would marry multiple cousins or brothers, but that was partly so because the kings had enormous harems. But that's only what I heard again.

Maybe America, where women can sleep with men, cut them loose and make them work-slaves for the next 18 years all the while they teach their daughters how to work the system over for their benefit.

>> No.41477532

Lesbians and gays don't exist in my setting, so this isn't a problem.

>> No.41477539

Still a commoner.

No self-respecting dynasty should be tarnished by an heir of low birth!

>> No.41477555

Instinct has everything to do with everything, anon. Even making laws is instinct.

>> No.41477582

Historically, what dynasties have done better in that they last several generations. Male exclusive inheritance of titles, land, and other property or more inclusive inheritance where women could inherit their father's titles, and property?

>> No.41477585

>being a cuck who ends his own bloodline
>not having the adopted fake son be one of your own biological bastard children
>not taking the worthless son in law, the bodydyke, your faggot of a daughter and the maid you dicked all on the hunting trip and getting them all killed to cover it up
>not raising the "grandson" as the next ruler

>> No.41477586

For all we know, the bodyguard is of a lesser house.

>> No.41477587

>still at it

>> No.41477617

Honestly, this.

The king would probably laugh at the girl's puppy love infatuation, but this "love" wouldn't last once the bodyguard just tells the girl that she's just being silly.

Zero drama, Zero bullshit.

>> No.41477636

>still not in /pol/

Do you need directions?

>> No.41477640

Women don't go on hunting trips you fool!

>> No.41477655

What are falcons for?

>> No.41477658

seeing as this kingdom operates on an early roman empire-style adoptive succession, she can just adopt her most badass general/politician as heir, so nobody needs to give a fuck

>> No.41477661

I said matrilineal, not matriarchal. There are some African cultures, at least, where lineage is passed through the mother and husband joins his wife's family, or tribe or village or whatever. Again, these societies generally aren't matriarchal in the least. Just matrilineal.

>> No.41477668

They're for hunting, what does that have to do with women?

>> No.41477671


You said no sons, bastards aren't sons, they aren't even people until you recognize them.

>> No.41477682

>Ctrl+f seduction
>No results

Anons, do you even Crusade? It is simple, allow the marriage, and legitimize any bastards with the best traits. Either legitimize as the current king, or later as the queen pic related, the vassals, and the pope, never stop

But seriously, >>41476633 >>41476757 >>41476726 all have the right idea, if the kingdom is agnatic-cognatic primogeniture and you want to keep the throne in your house, legitimize a bastard.

>> No.41477697

The king is a lich and therefore does not care for sucession laws.

>> No.41477701

Not only is that total opinion, but it misses the point, which was that your claims about instinct don't support your argument.

Your wording is confused, but if you're asking for examples of monarchies where a female inherited the throne without the sky crashing down, England's Elizabeth comes to mind.

>> No.41477703


>> No.41477717


If this is D&D, a decently built bard will be able to seduce the princess no matter how much of a turbodyke she is. It's just a few penalties to a roll, right?

>> No.41477727

>needing to seduce in the first place

>> No.41477731

I'd seek help from a sorcerer to invent some religious reason for the bodyguard to have to stay away. She's a reincarnated prophet that has to live in the far-away temple or something like that.

Then I'd find my daughter a male partner who looks like a girl, some pretty-but-dim elf from the sticks that can be easily lead and doesn't talk much. I'd cook up some nonsense quest to make that partner a great hero and therefore acceptable to the court as the new prince consort. Tricky, but it's been done before.

>> No.41477736

Yeah, this. "Boo-hoo, I want to marry someone I love" Well suck it up, princess, you're inheriting an entire fucking society. Get a husband, have kids, fuck your bodyguard on the side.

>> No.41477740

linked to the wrong one, dang

>> No.41477741

Necrocracy truly is the most stable form of government ever invented.

>> No.41477762

Alright. It looks like you proved me wrong. We had all better reconsider our fantasy realm games with an old European-esque flavor because you proved in your post in great detail how little, obscure tribes outside major civilization can live by taking on the maiden name of the mother.

>> No.41477763

>marrying an elf

>> No.41477775

The whole kingdom should just become liches. It would be the end of all turmoil.

>> No.41477779

This is why male primogeniture is retarded. Either go full primogeniture and avoid shit like this or just bite the bullet and ditch the monarchy altogether.

>> No.41477805

>total opinion
I don't care to go into detail about how everything humans do is driven by instinct. I welcome your argument otherwise.

>> No.41477807

But the king has a daughter so he can't be a lich. Liches can't get boners.

>> No.41477811

>Princess changes laws to marry bodyguard
>Rules for a short 2 years
>Questions of an heir arise
>Brutal war of succession takes place
>Tens of thousands die as kingdom devolves into a bloody civil war
>Entire nation weakened
>Surrounding powers invade
>Kingdom spends decades as the brutalised whipping boy puppet state of an evil empire

But at least the princess found her true love.

>> No.41477813

b-but muh "instincts" over vague shit like power, and names.

>> No.41477820

The princess is clearly a malfunctioning flesh golem.

>> No.41477827

Under rated post.
This solves all the problems.

>> No.41477838

Have the female bodyguard quietly dealt with. Plant evidence that suggests said bodyguard was an assassin all along, hoping to take me out so a succession crisis would erupt.

Consider taking concubines, or impregnating my daughter myself if need be with the hopes of siring a male heir.

>> No.41477842

Wow, that sounds like a really exciting and imaginative campaign. Adhering to vague concepts of European-esque flavor is the best, especially when they come from people who don't actually know much about European history.

>> No.41477845

Take her to the lab and take her apart until you can work out what went wrong

>> No.41477848

That's assuming no magic and the fact she could just get knocked up by her male cousin to have an heir.

>> No.41477851

The king gives a call to his old buddy.

>> No.41477853

Not every kingdom is grimdark, anon.
Maybe she and her bodyguard adopt.
Maybe she nominates a successor.
Maybe she magics up a pregnancy.

>> No.41477857

>implying my kingdom isn't Agnatic Gavelkind

Why do you think I've been raising my nephew.

>> No.41477859

And that's why you're here on /tg/, right?

>> No.41477867

The female bodyguard is now a palace concubine and the king dicks her until she only has cocks on the mind. If she bears a son then the princess has a little brother that will be groomed as future king since she couldn't stop to think about her duty.

>> No.41477868

Thanks for breaking the lineage.

As above.

>magics up

>> No.41477870

>marry her off to a man anyways
>it should be easy to find an excellent husband now that watching hot girl-on-girl action and MFF threesomes are on the table

>> No.41477872

Is that the new go-to troll image?
It seems to have popped up a lot lately.

>> No.41477876

The original point was to respond to the guy who seemed to be under the false impression that the male desire to grab power and provide for one's offspring would make matrilineal succession somehow untenable on the long run. Existence of matrilineal societies, even if they are obscure, proves this way of thinking wrong. There is also a huge difference between a fantasy realm with old European-esque flavor and a fantasy realm that's just old Europe, only with magic and stuff. Former is cool but does not have to be exactly like medieval Europe. Latter is generally the worst kind of unimaginative garbage, though some games, like Ars Magica, do it very well.

>> No.41477878

>Sexuality is completely beside the point here. She is not marrying her bodyguard, she is royalty, she doesn't get to choose this shit.

Exactly. There's absolutely nothing in this scenario that wouldn't be also true if she were straight and loved her male bodyguard. I'm glad that virtually everyone in the thread gets this key point.

Actually, the fact that she's a lesbian makes things much easier. There's no question of paternity when she has kids, and less likelihood of her taking a male lover. Such a lover can stay physically close to her charge in situations where a male bodyguard or purely platonic relationship wouldn't permit. There's a chance for some fun threesomes. If she's NOT interested in sex with men, then I'd have a license to have my own little harem. And frankly, married to a princess who's lost her heart to an expendable commoner, I'd be pleased since it represents potential leverage if she tries to play political games against me.

Only two things I'd be worried about: 1) if there was a breakup, the bodyguard's closeness makes her a potential spy or assassin. That's true of a bodyguard romance regardless of her sex. 2) What if she's unwilling to consummate the marriage regularly enough that I could count on fathering a couple sons? Both seem manageable risks to me.

In many historical eras, this isn't even a scandal.

tl;dr: So long as she does her duty to her husband and the Throne, I'm fine w/ it. Slightly better situation than if she'd had a male commoner as her lover.

>> No.41477890

We had this thread last week. And the week before. The answer is still political marriage.

>> No.41477894


Give both of them potions of change sexuality, to bissexual. Then give some very happy duke a harem.

>> No.41477895

>Thanks for breaking the lineage
Who gives a shit about that?

>> No.41477912

We're actually appointed by a god. When you break our bloodline you take away our right to rule. Oh noes

>> No.41477916

Okay, totally off topic, but does anyone else find it really refreshing to see a lesbian couple getting married and they're both in wedding dresses?

>> No.41477925

It seems obvious to me that humans often do things that are not driven by instinct, in some cases even contrary to it, and that there are contradictions in instinct as well. But you're the one who is claiming that inheritance laws are totally driven by instinct and that they can be directly attributed to specific instincts which somehow invalidate the concept of female rulers, so you're the one who should be providing evidence to support your argument, not me.

>> No.41477931

Enjoy your civil war faggot

>> No.41477935

ITT: people who could never rule effectively due to 'morals' and 'human rights' and 'equality'.


Not at all. Same ol shit.

>> No.41477938

>Not liking women in suits
Get off /tg/ you have shit taste.

>> No.41477942

If the god really cared about that, than he wouldn't have given our beloved princess a thirst for clams, now would he?

>> No.41477945

That sounds needlessly complicated and drastic.

>> No.41477949

Betting 50 bucks it's just a stock pic.

I don't know if you're criticizing the post that agrees with yours, but if you are, good job being a moron.

>> No.41477957

That's stupid. The dukes are clearly all fops since they weren't chosen to as the betrothed of the princess in the first place.
Clearly the king has to start all over towards making a proper heir to the throne. Your urge to erp is getting in the way of good kingdom management.

>> No.41477964

Yeah. I hate how normally one always has to be the 'guy' and one the 'girl'. I'd like to see more double dresses/double suits. I'd like to see one in kilts.

>> No.41477968

The Sun God and the Goddess of Love don't always agree.

Ask uncle freddy, he was supposed to be the hero of light but his thirst for cocks got to him.

It was a joke. 10/10 though

>> No.41477969

There may be the point that It is a Agnatic-cognatic or a cognatic dynasty not a Agnatic one, so in essence the daughter will be the Queen, but her husband will never be King.

Her son will be, if she has one.

That means she could just get pregnant if daddy loves her enough to disregard this eccentricity and the kingdom can survive without the massive boost of a political marriage in diplomacy.

True, but in a fantasy kingdom they could just shrug it off if they are powerful and wealthy enough in comparison to their neighbors.

>> No.41477971

No really. Nor drastic. In fact it seems to be the most logical (albeit, immoral and depraved) option out there.

>> No.41477982

>gods never test their followers

>> No.41477984

>muh grimdark
>muh politiks
Stop sucking GRRM's dick for a minute and try some different sort of fantasy, faggots.

>> No.41477996

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>> No.41477999


>letting someone lowborn guard you heir
>not handing the job out to minor nobles so you don't have to give them actual concessions

>> No.41478004


In a world of magic, who needs to pray the gay away, when you can summon a sidhe sorcerer and they can fey the gay away for pay?

I still think it's safer to keep her lesbian, with a commoner lover under my control, so long as she does her duty for the Throne and lets me father children on her. No questionable paternity, she has an extra-motivated guardian, unlikely that I'll be cuckolded by a male, and if I pick up a few mistresses, she'll celebrate.

So long as she mothers my heirs to the thrones and stays relatively discrete, who cares? Marrying for love among royalty happens, but it's not terribly smart.

>> No.41478006

Explain the situation to the Goddess of Love and ask her to become our patroness. Tell her it'll piss off the Sun God and watch our kingdom's population boom.

>> No.41478008

Okay then.

The princess bodyguard is cursed to become a frog and the princess is turned into an old hag.
Now they need to find true mutual love, with a man, or the curse won't be broken.

>> No.41478013

Many of the laws we adhere to and live today seem to defy instinct. This is because we've replaced the desires of instinct with the love of money and the economies that promote it. But even the love for money is instinctual at an individual level. You could say that it is instinct for us to force others to ignore their instincts. I maintain that everything is dictated one way or another by instinct.

>> No.41478024

Obviously the work of an agent of Carmilla. Call the in the Palal guards to make all liquid within the castle holy water at once!

>> No.41478032

>fantasy D&D
>acting like lines of succession, marriages and nobility would still function in a way specific to (some regions of) medieval europe

>> No.41478033

If you're an edgy teenager I guess.

>> No.41478035

See, that is nonsensical, but at least it's interesting.

>> No.41478036

King of San Francisco spotted

>> No.41478037

What DOESN'T he do?

>> No.41478038

You're here because you enjoy that shit, or because you're here to show us all what a bunch of morons we are.

>> No.41478052

Have the princess cursed to take the form of a hawk by day, and the bodyguard cursed to take the form of a wolf by night.

>> No.41478053


>> No.41478058

Fuse the bodyguard and princess into one girl and then marry her off to someone.

>> No.41478059


I didn't hire the court wizard to bake cakes and juggle, anon. I've always suspected this day would come, and plans have been made.

Pah, getting caught in the "no heirs by my lesbian daughter" trap and getting desperate. What is this, amateur hour?

>> No.41478060

Not that guy, but I enjoy some parts of medieval fantasy, not all of them, and most importantly not when it is the only thing used with no variations whatsoever.

>> No.41478062

At that point your definition of instinct is so all-encompassing that it becomes trivial, at least in the context of this discussion.

>> No.41478067

His portrayal in Sandman was very touching

>> No.41478080

But since they are both lesbians, wouldn't that make a super lesbian?

>> No.41478084


Some girls look good in a tux, some don't. A friend got married recently-- she'd been a very publicly out and proud lesbian and then after college quietly went straight again and married a man.

Her ex-gf was the maid of honor and I'm pretty sure was more than a little resentful about the whole thing. She wore a tux and looked pretty bad in it, but she was pretty and had a nice body. A better tux might have looked better but she'd have been epic in a bridesmaid's dress.

And since she wasn't the only lesbian at the wedding, she might have hooked up instead of sitting awkwardly through the reception. I supposed I'd have been pissed, too.

>> No.41478090

How is the OP /pol/?

Two negatives become a positive.

>> No.41478103

>a lesbian with the power to turn other women gay by touch
>aka a conventional lesbian

>> No.41478113

>try some different sort of fantasy
SJW wish fullfillment fantasy?

>> No.41478121

It's funny because there's even less lesbians than there are homoboys.

>> No.41478125

I enjoy fantasy games. I don't think that slavishly following poorly conceived concepts of what "generic fantasy society" should be is interesting to play in or good world building.

>> No.41478128

OP is not /pol/ but threads like this have a habit of attracting /pol/posters. In fact that might have been part of OP's plan.

>> No.41478140

She gets married to a man for political reasons.

The bodyguard might be kept as her mistress.

>> No.41478146

Nah, I just don't want lezzie nonsense mixed up in my royal family and will be as much of a complete tardmonster as I need to be to make sure it never comes to light and to justify why I had to kill someone who would otherwise have been innocent of crime.

Also: faggot

>> No.41478149

Fair enough, but it will win out in the end.

>> No.41478165

>In a world of magic, who needs to pray the gay away, when you can summon a sidhe sorcerer and they can fey the gay away for pay?
I have nothing to contribute but I found this sentence delightful. Thought you should know.

>> No.41478169

Actually, adoption could work if it works like it did in Roman society.

>> No.41478173

It already "won out", because as you define it every action taken is driven by one instinct or another.

>> No.41478187

That's Emperor to you.

>> No.41478192


Well, in a world of magic you objectively could pray the gay away.

Also, wouldn't adding fey to the equation make the gay worse? (Hurr hurr)

Though, given the world includes magic the problems of reproduction might not be as much a deal as they are with us. Magic IVF?

>> No.41478193

I don't understand how you think that isn't edgy nonsense. Unless you're just pretending to be stupid, but why would you waste your time and energy on something like that?

>> No.41478198

Okay. Now let me ask, if someone has an opinion that is less progressive on how things should be dealt with, but doesn't not actually go off topic... should they be shunned?

Your answer to this defines wheter you harbor a good debating enviroment or a bad one.

>> No.41478203

So basically the existence of your royal family hinges on the chance of no homosexuals ever being born into it.
Boy does that sound like a good strategy.

>> No.41478213

I thought of that too, but I was going off medieval europe.
If it's like Rome, then it's a pretty good option.

>> No.41478217

If I was the King I would tell her that she can fuck whatever woman she wants once she produces an heir and I'd find her a husband who will agree to marry her under the condition that she can lez out all she wants after popping out a son.

>> No.41478219

I don't give a fuck, I'm just here to shitpost.

>> No.41478222

Depends on the system.

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarch, then there is no such thing as institutional political dynasties and all this is moot.

>> No.41478226

Arranges an "accident" for the bodyguard and marries the daughter off to whatever suitable noble is hanging around and MAKE SURE she gets knocked up ASAP.

>> No.41478227

Even posting about hypothetical lesbian succession crises on a Malaysian finger puppetry imageboard?

>> No.41478233

anon, you're the cancer

>> No.41478245

say that to my face fucker not online then see what happens

>> No.41478249


Well for starters, let's get some spies to find out who this female bodyguard is. If she's in any way dangerous to my realm we have her executed in a way that seems like an 'accident'.

If she's worthy, I'd give my daughter permission to discreetly pursue her relationship with her. It must never be open.

I can marry off my other daughters to produce a heir or, if necessary, I could sequester a small harem of beautiful girls from the surrounding villages for enjoyment purposes and to get a son.

>> No.41478254

Homossexuals can still have pretend families and get kids.

>> No.41478258


Not necessarily. You can only marry your daughter off once. While the dukes wait for the king to decide and vie with one another for his favor, the king can collect favors and bide his time. So unless you NEED someone, it might be smarter to keep your options open.

Which is another advantage of a female commoner lover. What's the odds that she'd still be a virgin if she were straight? Here she won't MIND being on display but not having officially sanctioned romance.

Another advantage: if she'd been straight, she might have put up a fight against a politically advantageous marriage to an old or ugly man, to hold out for a man she'd be attracted to and romantically involved with.


Maybe. I suppose. Even then most of this shit applies to an official Royal Consort even if she reigns as Queen with a husband but no King. Political marriages aren't just about securing stability and power within your realm. It's also about strengthening your realm with and against other nations in the region. Or connecting yourself to other institutions like the Church (depending on the religion and setting, of course).

Fun fact: people in arranged marriages have lower mate satisfaction up front, but much higher satisfaction from five years on than people in love matches.

>> No.41478262

That's fine. But for me, I mostly enjoy the "generic fantasy society" even if I didn't take a class on it.

>> No.41478266

>implying I'm the king and not the "king"

>> No.41478274

Not that guy, but here's my take on it: not necessarily unless they go full edgy idiot like >>41476792
Also if he gets called out on it he has to suck it up, just like I will suck it up when I get invariably called a SJW.

>> No.41478275

Love has nothing to do with who she marries and has children with.
She can fuck whatever wench she wants but she is going to produce a heir with someone that benefits the crown.
Nobles be noblin'

>> No.41478296

Depends on the laws of succession

>> No.41478299

>Well for starters, let's get some spies to find out who this female bodyguard is.
wtf does the king have alzheimers? why would you need spies to figure that out?

>> No.41478300

Members of royal families are obligated to enter into royal marriages and produce royal babies and all members of those families should expect nothing less.

>> No.41478302

The one that will win will be the greater. That's why I'm saying it won't last.

>> No.41478306

Oh so it's a constitutional monarchy then.

I'd find it more polite if both sides didn't go into name calling as an argument.
I do see your point though.

>> No.41478310


Thank you for taking it as intended. :)

>> No.41478324

Marry her off to the guard and let her pick a guy who can knock her up to continue the royal lineage. Recognize the father as a significant person with no personal claim to the throne, nor will any of his other children have a personal claim. Pass a couple reforms as needed. Problem solved.

>> No.41478325

Like I said, reformed Judaism is probably the only group of Jews that support gay marriage, ask an extremely orthodoxbjew, and chances are they'll give you the same responed as a Baptist minister would.

>older daughter
tell her to get her ass to the local nunnery and repent for her sins, and see if one of my other daughters are up to.

>> No.41478337

I would too, but they never do, especially not on 4chan and especially with such scrumptious /pol/ack bait being dangled around.

>> No.41478345

Non practicing jews, brah.

Source: I only date jews.

>> No.41478364

It hinges on homosexuals in royal families to fucking deal with it. Plenty of people are unhappy; just be glad that your problems are cerebral and you're not lying in bed expelling blood from all of your orifices as your wife and daughters whore themselves in the next room to try to make enough money to keep you alive and food on the table.

>> No.41478372

I don't think it's edgy. Extreme and not at all forgiving, certainly. If there was edge there would be torture/rape and all horseshit I wouldn't have time for.

Ah, I never said that. There will be homosexuals born, as, well, they exit. They would just not be allowed to be that way and I would do everything in my power to make sure they wouldn't get outed and that they would never be...'morally compromised' with deviant behavior. Says the guy who would have someone blameless of treason framed

>> No.41478393

Can't say it's only one side that ever starts.
In a lot of threads people just go jumping to calling you /pol/ for no reason, like one guy who called me as such for calling him racist for his hate rant, and I'm not even white I was just appalled at someone thinking hate is justified against any one group.

Now I'll go back to sucking cocks, tata

>> No.41478424

Free will and consequences

>> No.41478432

More than her baubles and her doll am I a plaything for Mnasidika. For hours on end, unspeaking, like a child, she amuses herself with all my body's charms. She undoes my hair and does it up again according to her fancy, sometimes knotting it beneath my chin like some heavy cloth, or twisting it into a knot behind my neck, or plaiting it until its very end. She looks with wonder at the color of my lashes, or on the bending of my elbow-joint. Sometimes she places me on hands and knees: and then (it is one of her games), she slips her little head underneath, and plays the trembling kid at nursing time beneath its mother's belly.

>> No.41478434

There are way too many factors that depend on the magic/tech level of the setting as well as the culture of the setting. Without specifics we're just left with a mass of shitposting that is this thread.

>> No.41478437

Hating on one particular demographic is entirely justifiable, contextually.

>> No.41478441

>calling someone /pol/ for accusing someone else of racism
How does that even work?

>> No.41478451

OP is /pol/ because that's where retarded, circular political debate goes.

>> No.41478460


>wtf does the king have alzheimers? why would you need spies to figure that out?

I mean try to figure out her motives.

How do we know the female bodyguard isn't just some manipulator who wooed my daughter for a chance at power? The bodyguard is (obviously) skilled at arms- could there be a plot to get close to me and assassinate me? Maybe the bodyguard has secret ambitions of empire.

I wouldn't act to support my daughters love until I knew I was safe.

>> No.41478487

You really should have figured that shit out before you hired her, your highness.

>> No.41478513

But in this case, you're taking a conception you have of what that means and applying it where it isn't necessary or accurate. I'm not saying that everything has to be completely accurate, but there should be a good reason for decisions you make, and in this case you don't have one.

>> No.41478516

Get the cleric over to cure her of gayness.

>> No.41478518

Better late than never.

>> No.41478536 [SPOILER] 

>uses this spell

>> No.41478538

That's like saying that you don't think internal combustion should work so cars won't last. Clearly it can work.

>> No.41478543

>generic fantasy world
>line of royalty exists
>divine mandate tied to bloodline
>thinking marriage and succession wouldn't be extremely important
>if not even more important than in history
>hurr it's fantasy so history has no relevance

>> No.41478576


>Hired a female bodyguard

One of my stupid fuckin' advisors or the daughter must have hired her, I know that men are more able to fight and serve in a combat role than women are. I try to get bodyguards who are actually able to protect me the best.

>> No.41478584

Unless she's a wizard, no one fucks with a wizard.

>> No.41478595


Actually, they're real families, just pretend romances. That's the point. The only thing missing from a marriage to this princess is love, which is by far the least important to the Realm.

Incidentally, this opens the door to arranging a marriage to a gay nobleman. A lavender marriage is an old tradition that didn't start with hollywood. The only problem would be getting BOTH of them to do their duty and conceive an heir.

Incidentally, there's no reason the princess can't use an occasional love potion on herself to ensure she's suitably enthusiastic when her husband requires her. He might even be aware of the situation, and in some settings it might be done ritually/religiously anyway.

The more I think about this, the more this seems like a strong plus from a political standpoint.

>> No.41478598

Women can't be wizards. Only witches, sorceresses and other craven hags.

>> No.41478620

It'd be cheap, too; Remove Disease is only a 3rd-level spell.

Go for the best of both worlds and get a eunuch or two. All of the protection, none of the potential for hanky-panky.

>> No.41478623

Wanna source that buddy?

>> No.41478624

>His oldest daughter has just told him that she's fallen in love with her female bodyguard.
>His oldest daughter has just told him that she's fallen in love with her bodyguard
Same difference. She has no business cavorting with commoners. At least this union has no chance of producing bastards, but she still needs to get over it.

>> No.41478656


Which in a fantasy setting with magic is a perfectly rational and viable choice.

OTOH, now I'm thinking a smart king would ensure that his daughters ARE lesbian, at least prior to marriage. There's a ton of advantages to it.

>> No.41478662

You really can't map medieval England to your standard D&D world.

If divine mandate is tied to bloodline in D&D, it's probably a family of high level clerics and/or literal half-celestials and you aren't going to do shit by bitching about how the princess had her hand in another girl anyway.

>> No.41478667

>A friend got married recently-- she'd been a very publicly out and proud lesbian and then after college quietly went straight again and married a man.

That's always hilarious.

>Her ex-gf was the maid of honor and I'm pretty sure was more than a little resentful about the whole thing.

That's kinda fucked up.

Really though, a woman isn't going to look good in a tux unless it's properly fitted for her.

>> No.41478668

"I'm a ruthless pragmatist who kills when it's expedient" is edgy as fuck. It's also stupid as fuck. For one thing, getting rid of the bodyguard by assigning her to someone far away is a much more efficient and effective way of getting rid of her than killing her. Likewise, keeping the bodyguard around with the understand that your daughter is still expected to marry and produce an heir is also more effective and efficient. If you did decide that killing was the best option for some reason, you don't need to plant evidence or invent some conspiracy, you just declare her a traitor and that's that. And that's not even getting into your overreaction to gays in the family (royalty got away with much more ridiculous shit than that).
The whole thing just sounds like "my badass OC king teleports behind her and slices off her head".

>> No.41478713

Fuck primogeniture. I give her a duchy and then formally remove her from the succession, then adopt a worthy man whom I trust to the position. preferably someone I've already been grooming for command. like, do you even Five Good Emperors?

>> No.41478730


Presumably he got her a female bodyguard to avoid her falling in love and marrying a common man. Or worse, getting preggers from him out of wedlock or adulterously.

These are kingdom-shaking events. Far better to pair her with a girl she almost certainly won't be attracted to and who can disguise herself as a servant.

The fact that his daughter is eating fish tacos with the help is no big deal at all.

>> No.41478731

I've been explaining my reasons throughout this thread. If you're mad at my sarcasm, I apologize and welcome you to start making games with those matrilineal families in Africa that you mentioned earlier.

>> No.41478747

Shit, just get them both magic rings that make them straight. Or just zap them both with an enchantment; it's not like royal families would be short on the necessary money and if it was the right spell their natures would be fundamentally altered and I can hardly see any resultant ill-will as long as you make sure to off any jilted lovers. Or just zap them too if you feel obliged.

>> No.41478784

>The fact that his daughter is eating fish tacos with the help is no big deal at all.
It sure as shit is if the wrong person finds out and with all of the gossipy attendants flitting in and out of royal quarters I would be shocked if it stayed under wraps for more than a few weeks once one person cottoned on.

>> No.41478805

>The only problem would be getting BOTH of them to do their duty and conceive an heir.

Easy. Princess bulldyke lays on her back and gets her gal pal to drop the pussy on her face while the Duke of Gaytown kneels between her legs and gets nailed from behind by his boytoy. When he's ready to squirt he slides into her pussy, ejaculates, and you're done.

>> No.41478815

Let them marry and fuck the female bodyguard for a son.

>> No.41478828

I'm not that person, and you're being stupid. A society doesn't have to be matrilineal to have occasional female regents, and examples of this occurring without society crumbling are easy enough to find. Your argument is based on the idea that it never happens in what you call European-esque settings, and that's just incorrect.

>> No.41478849

Why wasn't history more pragmatic and just go full primogeniture? I mean sure male primogeniture led to some very interesting situations like Edward III's claim to the French throne leading to a huge war, but it just seems like the simplest way to determine a sovereign than the alternative. The king had no sons, well we'll pick from his brothers, uncles, cousins, horses and I guess his daughter if we can't find a willing Horse King.

>> No.41478865

Let's discuss the "And I use magic!" solution.

Wizards in general, are a bunch of fickle assholes who like to serve their own interests and whose main motivator is gaining more magical power.

I'm guessing a kingdom with the means OP suggested might have some low level mages in its employ, maybe even a mid level court wizard or whatever, but I don't see why a high level mage would swear itself to a kingdom like that.

To make someone go from gay to straight would be a wish or miracle spell I think. Remove disease etc. is only meant to cure shit like the flu, not people's sexual preferences. To cure it with magic you'd basically have to invite a high level mage to dabble around in your kingdoms affairs, who knows how that would end.

So magic probably isn't a solution.

>> No.41478866

If you live in a world where that sort of thing is possible, why not just skip the middleman and use magic to get her pregnant? What difference does it make whether she's gay or straight at that point?

>> No.41478870

>he doesn't want his daughter being a lezzie, therefore he is edgy when he has her lezzie lover killed and framed to give himself the outward appearance of being just


>> No.41478880

Kills female bodyguard.
Force daughter into political marriage.
Told her new husbands to made baby after baby with her.

The usual stuff I mean.

>> No.41478905

Even when you try to rephrase it to make it sound better it's still edgy.

>> No.41478911

>What difference does it make whether she's gay or straight at that point?
Fewer vectors of attack for your enemies.

>> No.41478947

It worked for Arthur.
Well, not really, but that wasn't exactly because of the magic aspect.

>> No.41478972

>>A friend got married recently-- she'd been a very publicly out and proud lesbian and then after college quietly went straight again and married a man.
>That's always hilarious.

Not if you're one of her girlfriends. Finding out that someone you cared about was using you as a political statement is probably heartbreaking. You throw your heart away in a relationship, only to find out that someone you care about was faking or deluding themselves all along.

>> No.41478981

"You're a princess, you have to take a political marriage and beget heirs. As royalty however, you are permitted concubines; I don't give a shit. Do you think I liked the bitch that was your mother before I finally caved and started doping her with the #9?"

>> No.41478989

I'm stupid? You're the one who is stupid!

I was saying that it won't last. And it doesn't last. You're the one who seems the be agreeing with me saying, "occasional female regents." Neither was I saying that society would collapse.

>> No.41478993

Remove disease works on any illness.

>Remove disease cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from. The spell also kills parasites, including green slime and others. Certain special diseases may not be countered by this spell or may be countered only by a caster of a certain level or higher.

Since it's special, it might require a higher level caster, but it's still easy enough.

And, if you're still trying to press the issue, Greater restoration cures all forms of insanity, so it would handle gayness quite easily.

>> No.41479017

Well, think about it- if I exile either the bodyguard or my daughter, she'll hate me. If I arbitrarily declare treason without proof I'll be seen as a tyrant, if I have the bodyguard quietly killed after my daughter came out to me she'll become suspicious and (once again) might come to hate me. If I let them just keep doing their lezzie thing then I'll be seen as the head of a decadent royal house. If she and her lover have a falling out, then she can blackmail us.

You keep saying edgy. It really isn't. It's keeping in mind what the rest of the kingdom would think and if it would leave an opening for other parties to exploit.

And yes, what the rest of the kingdom thinks does matter. A lot.

>> No.41479022

Someone should cast greater restoration on this thread.

>> No.41479027

But in a world where sexuality can be changed with magic+money, why would that even be a vector of attack? Why would anyone care as long as a legitimate heir was produced? If you think the heir would be seen as non-legitimate, why not? There are normal rules based on historical societies, but clearly something with that level of magic would have a different approach.

>> No.41479038

King is now chosen like Doge of Venice.
Happy end.

>> No.41479042

>thinking lesbians actually care about the people they have sex with

Oh, sweet summer child, they knew what they wanted and they got it. College experimentation pussy isn't a shock or secret to lesbians.

>> No.41479051

Nothing lasts in that sense, so how is that relevant?

>> No.41479070

It's virt, he's autistic, ignore him

>> No.41479072


>> No.41479087

One will last past one or two generations. The other will last a lot longer.

>> No.41479109

>But in a world where sexuality can be changed with magic+money, why would that even be a vector of attack? Why would anyone care as long as a legitimate heir was produced? If you think the heir would be seen as non-legitimate, why not? There are normal rules based on historical societies, but clearly something with that level of magic would have a different approach.

Commoners would probably mutter considerably, assuming that the necessary magic is expensive and/or rare. It could easily be framed as royal debauchery.

>> No.41479113

>Well, think about it
None of that is true unless you're completely incompetent or invent a scenario specifically to make it true.
>You keep saying edgy. It really isn't
It really is. It's in keeping with what someone who read parts of The Prince but didn't fully understand it would imagine good rulership was. It's the typical grimdark pragmatist bullshit that edgy people think is reasonable.

>> No.41479149


That depends on if or how much gay is frowned upon. Fucking around with the servants is an ancient tradition. In most cultures it would barely merit notice so long as paternity wasn't in doubt.


Ahh, the Margaery Tyrell approach. Whatever works, right?


Baleful Polymorph is a 5th level spell. You can't tell me that changing someone's sex preferences is harder than changing them into a frog. Charm Person is a 1st level spell, and drastically changes loyalties and motivations. This should be comparatively easy.

A single mid-level courtier would suffice for a change sexual preference spell, especially if it was a temporary measure meant to make a night w/ husband and wife more palatable. A king with no magical support isn't likely to remain king for long anyway.

A cleric might well have such a spell, and churches nearly always have some kind of strong connection to the political institutions of a country.

What you're raising are issues I'd only raise if as GM I was insistent on making this a major plot point and looking for excuses to close off alternatives.

>> No.41479151

>Not if you're one of her girlfriends. Finding out that someone you cared about was using you as a political statement is probably heartbreaking. You throw your heart away in a relationship, only to find out that someone you care about was faking or deluding themselves all along.
LUGs are a common as fuck phenomenon. Sure, it's not always nice but there is a reason lesbians above 28 tend to be paranoid as all hell and borderline /a/ like in their refusal to not shame "impure" women.

>> No.41479157

"What's this? Disputed succession? Sodomite whores? I WILL SAVE THIS LAND FOR FALLING!" - every neighboring lord with more than ten armed peasants, likely a few of kings vassals, leaders of bigger bands of hobos...

>> No.41479158

Why kill the bodyguard though, she's harmless to the princess and kingdom since it's not like she can get her pregnant. Its killing for the sake of killing, that's pretty edgy.

>> No.41479165

That's something you've made up, but it's not supported by history. Royal lineages with male rulers have failed, and royal lineages with female rulers have prospered. There's no basis for you to claim that the line would fail.

>> No.41479175

>Hire assassins to work their magic on the bodyguard while everyone thinks they were after the princess
>Marry her off to some aristocrat

I would do the exact same thing if that was a male bodyguard/that was a prince with a female bodyguard/that was a prince with male bodyguard.

>> No.41479181

What if he just had the eldest daughter renounce her claim to the throne and let (one of) her younger sister(s) do the whole 'fuck a dude, continue the bloodline' thing? This must be at least one younger sister if she is the eldest daughter and there are no sons.

>> No.41479206

But why? You're assuming that being gay would be seen as evil or disgusting. Why are you making that assumption when you've already supposed a world where magic makes it irrelevant (if expensive)?

>> No.41479214

Or just as a thing nobles do but commoners don't.

>> No.41479223

>None of that is true unless you're completely incompetent or invent a scenario specifically to make it true.

No scenario was given outside of 'Princess comes out', so I said "Well huh, what would it be like back then, and what would I have to do to make shit work and cover my ass?"

Obviously, if we're talking a scenario in a world where that stuff if fine and dandy, and no, I wouldn't have to go through all that.

>but didn't fully understand it would imagine good rulership was

Er, rephrase? Because that is almost ESL-ish

>> No.41479226

>a prince with a female bodyguard
Why not let prince keep family bodyguard on side?

>> No.41479300


>Greater restoration cures all forms of insanity

Greater restoration is a spell mainly used to counter bad spells by wizards and supernatural abilities monsters use, stuff like negative levels.

It'll cure if someone is driven stark raving mad by an evil wizard, but I don't think it changes personality traits. So like, if someone is a really gloomy pessimistic type, they'd still be a bummer no matter how many times you cast greater restoration on them.

I also really contest the claim that homosexuality is a "disease" or form of "insanity".


>You can't tell me that changing someone's sex preferences is harder than changing them into a frog.

I'd argue that changing someones sexual preference permanently should be as difficult as permanently changing someones alignment without them wanting you to. Its changing someones mental nature, a lot harder than polymorphing them yes.

I would agree that some sort of temporary "charm" spell could be used to arouse the daughter/get her to fuck a man against her will.

>> No.41479306

"Remove Gayness" is probably a cantrip, considering that spells have their power generally determined by their impact on combat and adventuring, just like how items have their prices based on how much an adventurer wants it (the 'gold rush' system of economics where a shovel would sell for $100).

Remove Gayness is probably the easiest spell in the world to cast, so much so that homosexuality wouldn't ever be an issue in a fantasy setting.

>> No.41479314

>royal lineages with female rulers have prospered

You can't just end it like that, anon. You have to teach me if I'm wrong.

>> No.41479320

Sorry, 'Princess comes out and king has no son'

Yes, then you'd have to worry and figure out how to keep both family and realm together.

>> No.41479333

>I also really contest the claim that homosexuality is a "disease" or form of "insanity".

That's you and your disease talking. Sounds like you need a bit of Remove Disease cast on yourself.

>> No.41479339

>what would it be like back then
Back when?
In any case, I don't think there was any period of time where what you described would be the most effective means of dealing with the situation.

>Because that is almost ESL-ish
I'll break it into segments of meaning for you.
>what someone who read parts of The Prince
>but didn't fully understand it
>would imagine good rulership was

>> No.41479363

Seems like a waste of money and bodyguards for no good reason.

>> No.41479365


>That's you and your disease talking. Sounds like you need a bit of Remove Disease cast on yourself.

I'm a straight man. Please explain it to me, you have my guarantee I'm not homosexual.

>> No.41479387

He passes her over in favor of his next eldest child, which I assume is also a daughter. Eldest daughter is shunted off to a quiet retirement to run some very minor estate.

>> No.41479396

>she gets pregnant
>some time passes
>prince dies
>she comes back with her child and proclaims it's the rightul heir to the throne, plunging the realm into a civil war

Apart from that, I'M the king. As long as I live, my children are MY asset, nothing more. I won't tolerate such outright insubordination.

>> No.41479401

Since when is being gay a personality trait? I thought homosexuals were fervently striving to impose the idea that being gay didn't actually affect their personality?

Either way, it's mental illness, so remove disease should be able to handle it just as easily as it makes a person with a fever stop seeing pink dinosaurs.

>> No.41479419

>But why? You're assuming that being gay would be seen as evil or disgusting.
Historically that's been a pretty unilateral response towards homosexuality (particularly male homosexuality) and there's strong evidence that revulsion towards homosexual behaviors has a biological basis.

>Why are you making that assumption when you've already supposed a world where magic makes it irrelevant (if expensive)?
Because the common people don't have the options of the nobility - I'd probably be pretty damn bitter if the king could afford to zap his kid heterosexual and get an heir while I'm stuck with mine being a flaming homosexual and making me a target of ridicule.

>I also really contest the claim that homosexuality is a "disease" or form of "insanity".
Oh come on; it was only removed from the DSM because of political lobbying.

>> No.41479430

It's a personality trait at least to the same extent as any other sexual preference is.

>> No.41479431

>College experimentation pussy isn't a shock or secret to lesbians.

When someone is curious and says so, that's one thing. When they trumpet their new orientation to the world and fall deeply madly in love with you, then 4yr syndrome just makes it worse. Even if you're with a genuine, honest-to-gygax lesbian you've got to be wondering if she's going to turn straight and lose interest in you. Yeah it's fine if you're cruising for sex, but many lesbians want more.

With all the guys on /tg/ who get friendzoned, you'd think this would be one place where people would get how destructive and painful this is.

>> No.41479438

Ok. You're still getting married. You can keep the bodyguard as a consort though.

No one said you were expected to love your spouse. Just look at me and your mum.

>> No.41479474

The solution to that is to just not take anything a woman says seriously.

>> No.41479481

There's little sympathy for lesbians here, especially if they want sympathy for "falling in love" with a woman.

It's not like they can't still be friends and love each other, it just means they won't have sex.

>> No.41479491

>Back when?

> I don't think there was any period of time where what you described would be the most effective means of dealing with the situation.

srsly, bro? Literally only child is gay and unlike to reproduce without creepy incest or force-marrage shit going on. Of course there'd be giant cover-ups and framing, depending on what period it would be.

>I'll break it into segments of meaning for you.
Ah, it looked run-on sentence-y to me, probably why I derped so hard.

>> No.41479502


Vastly over-played. Medieval cultures varied in their attitudes towards sex.

Hell, even the biblical Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy.

>> No.41479504

Sympathizing with the homosexual is just a milder form of the same disease.

Please see your local cleric.

>> No.41479522

Elizabeth of Tudor would be an obvious one.

>> No.41479523

Oh, I'm SURE you could find a wizard to do it for free. Suddenly your daughter is straight... and madly in love with the wizard

>> No.41479526

>you can have my virginal daughters, just spare these travelers

And, that's the last straw that led to God smiting both cities.

>> No.41479528

>Hell, even the biblical Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy.

That's a hotly debated topic, anything from Sodomy to Idolatry to Bestiality or even just being shitty people.

>> No.41479543

This. Sodom was actually destroyed because the people were breaking tradition in not honoring the protection a man was granting to guests.

>> No.41479564

see >>41479528

>> No.41479583


>> No.41479618

Meh, I stand with the "they were assholes" side.

>> No.41479634

Historically people couldn't magically change sexuality. Also that's not actually true, there were often cases where it was seen as, if not necessarily normal, acceptable to do in your own privacy.
>there's strong evidence that revulsion towards homosexual behaviors has a biological basis
Now you're just bullshitting.
>Because the common people don't have the options of the nobility
But that's true anyway, even if they couldn't dictate sexual orientation with magic there are tons of things the king can do that peasants can't. And it still assumes that people hate gays without really explaining why they would.

>it was only removed from the DSM because of political lobbying
Not sure why you think that's relevant. DSM is an arbitrary invention of psychologists, it doesn't mean that something is objectively insanity (and the fact that things can be included or excluded from it due to social norms proves that).

>> No.41479651

>I speak for everyone

>> No.41479704

I was always lead to believe it was Idolatry, bestiality and general debauched sexual immorality.

But once again, other citations say it was actually X, Y or Z based upon X, Y or Z text.

>> No.41479710

>I'm a faggot

>> No.41479712

>Hell, even the biblical Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy.
It kind of was; the entire reason that the angels were down there in the first place was because God was getting ready to get his smite on and the mob was so crazy for some of that angel boypussy that they were willing to break any taboos to get it.

>> No.41479725


If your sexual orientation is in-born, then it's much more like a physical or supernatural trait that belongs on a template. In which case it's as easily morphed as any in-born characteristic.

Alignment is a purely personal choice and so harder to override. It can be changed non-magically by character decisions.

Attraction could be a combination of both, an emotional reaction that can be overridden by reason and personal choice, at least to a point. To me, that's more plausible, even though gay rights activists claim that "lifestyle choice" is a vicious lie with no scientific backing. Attractions can be overridden by a 1st level charm spell.

Either way you slice it, unless in your setting you decide to make sexual orientation something that puts it beyond all but the most powerful magic, it should be easily overridden temporarily and not hard to override permanently, especially with a willing subject.

>I would agree that some sort of temporary "charm" spell could be used to arouse the daughter/get her to fuck a man against her will.

It wouldn't necessarily be against her will. In fact, far more likely and more efficacious if she agrees to it. You drink your potion, the night with your husband is pleasant rather than traumatizing, and then go back to your lover. Done.

Hell, even christian medieval culture had courtly love. The idea that you love one person romantically but chastely, and have your official marriage that you consummate, is perfectly attested in history.

Plus the potion becomes a useful social fiction so her lover doesn't become jealous. "Darling, I truly love you, of course. That night of ecstasy with my husband was just the potion. I did my duty for the Kingdom, and it's a small price to pay so we can be together!"

>> No.41479766

>and there's strong evidence that revulsion towards homosexual behaviors has a biological basis.

Yeah... that being the cognitive dissonance between having gay feelings and being raised to believe God hates fags.

>> No.41479794

>Literally only child is gay
Literally incorrect, reread OP.
>unlike to reproduce without creepy incest or force-marrage shit going on
So what? Most royal marriages are political, and incest happened once in a while too. You'll find more precedent for both those things than killing lovers. That did happen too of course, but not usually because of the reasons you describe.
>Of course there'd be giant cover-ups and framing
Not really. Usually the regent just declares that so and so is a traitor or something and they're executed after a show trial. See Anne Boleyn for example.

>> No.41479825


Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

>> No.41479834


Thank you for responding. That's really interesting.

How about magic changing political beliefs?

Like let's say someone is a radical peasant who wants a democracy to be established, and the king captures him and wants to magic him up so that he becomes a faithful servant of the monarchy. How easy would it be to magic him up and permanently change his religious/social beliefs?

>> No.41479875

Not that guy, but given that we're moving from the unconscious mind to the conscious mind I'd say that the normal rules for brainwashing/compulsion/etc. would apply.

>> No.41479928

Depends on the system, doesn't it? In D&D, not easy. Most mind-altering magic is temporary and obvious. Something like Modify Memory could work, although you wouldn't be changing his beliefs as such, you would be changing his memories so that hopefully his beliefs change as well.

>> No.41479937

>Literally incorrect, reread OP.

*rereads OP*

*realization dawns*

I just butchered my oldest daughter's love and tarnished her reputation as a loyal bodyguard for nothing.

>tfw you are insane king who's so fucked up in the head that you forget you have other daughters

"I'd do it all again!"

Nice one, anon- I was under the impression that this whole time I had no other child, hence why I was being so adamant about "No! this has to be done like this!"

Cripes, if only one of my kids considered sexually immoral, well then off to the covenant she goes and no need for giant-ass conspiracy.

>> No.41479940


The last Tudor monarch. Elizabeth's crown went to her aunt's great-grandson, James, whose mother had been executed for attempting to assassinate Elizabeth.

That's a win for England: both were successful monarchs. But a big loss for the Tudors. And the switch to Catholicism of that succession caused James's son and the Realm no end of trouble. It would be easy to argue that Elizabeth could have saved England that by popping out a few sons.

(And yes yes I know there are personal and political reasons why she never married. Plus reason to speculate about her own orientation. I'm talking about the royal marriage as an act of statecraft here)

>> No.41479946

Except that only small, fragmented sects of Christianity believe that, and nothing even close to a major denomination.

Catholicism for one has always been a staunch defender of homosexuals, even if their philosophical understanding of love and human nature does not respect the notion that two people of the same gender should ever try to consumate their love through some form of mutual masturbation.

Catholics hate the sin, they never hate the sinner, and they do believe two men can love each other, just like a son can love their father or mother. That doesn't mean that sons should have sex with their or mothers, or that two men should mutually masturbate each other with their asses.

>> No.41479997


For most of history, >>41479543 was the accepted interpretation. Yes there's theological debate now, but that's comparatively new. Violation of guest-right is a major deal in middle eastern cultures and especially in the Bible.

The Sodomites were destroyed for being like Walder Frey, not for being like Loras Tyrell. Which incidentally was partly GRRM's inspiration for the Rat Cook and guestright plots.

>> No.41480000

>Catholicism for one has always been a staunch defender of homosexuals
>Catholics hate the sin, they never hate the sinner

>> No.41480023

>Catholicism for one has always been a staunch defender of homosexuals

>> No.41480026

if it is a setting with magic, the king just plot to turn his daughter into a son, that way she/he still love the bodyguard, and the bodyguard has nothing to say to that...

Bonus : the child will be of royal blood

>> No.41480044

>letting your kid marry a commoner

You suck at being a king, anon.

>> No.41480069

It entirely failed due to the magic being used. The night of futa dickings alone resulted in the eventual collapse of the kingdom. Then there's the corruption of the purest knight and all sorts of other problems. It would have been easier to just say fuck you I'm the King.

>> No.41480109

>Catholicism for one has always been a staunch defender of homosexuals
I hope this is supposed to be a subtle paedophilia joke.

>> No.41480148

Yes. Exactly.

The Catholic church has, in the last two hundred years (ever since the rise of the concept of the homosexual), always taken the stance that people who identify themselves as homosexuals should not be persecuted.

Even before that, they only condemned sodomites, ie. active practitioners, and never people who simply thought themselves to have a preference for the same gender.

The LGBT groups that have some weird hate boner for the Catholic Church really can't debate against it on the grounds of philosophy or well-being, so they instead often choose to villify it and ascribe ideas to it that are not part of its dogma.

Strawmanning the church into "Hating gays" is just saying "Okay, all that stuff about the nature of love is just WAY over our heads and makes us feel bad."

>> No.41480168


I bet you think that the church was responsible for "Dark Ages" as well.

>> No.41480175

This stuff with the "everywhere magic" makes me think...

If we can turn the kinds daughter from gay to straight, turn the kings daughter into a man, etc.

Why don't we just turn the king immortal so we never have to deal with succession? Or mind control all the most influential subjects in the kingdom so they never rebel no matter what we do? Or genocidal kill everyone in the kingdom and turn them all into skellingtons and forever rule a kingdom made up of skellingtons?

Now we're thinking with magic.

>> No.41480181


And royal assassins need something to do even in times of peace.

>> No.41480190


This is a good start: >>41479875 in that we're talking about unconscious preference expressed as personal decisions.

I'd call an emotional sympathy for a different political system to be 1st level for a temporary effect (ie Charm Person) and 5th at most for a permanent change. 6th to permanently compel them (similar to a Geas / Quest).

Obviously they wouldn't accept this willingly, but if they did they could waive the save as usual. It could actually be a cool GM trick to find a plot to where a political agitator accepted such a spell willingly. Kind of like Shabbatai Tzvi.

As with a sexual orientation change, I'd be happy to allow a Restoration, Wish, or even potentially dispel magic to undo the mental change.

>> No.41480192

Not him but I take it you don't realize they've had gay marriage around for centuries?

>> No.41480213

No, that one is squarely on Islam.

>> No.41480238

Yeah yeah, we all know you were intellectual big shots a few hundred years ago. What have you accomplished lately?

Honestly you guys are worse than Muslims with their constant whining about muh golden age.

>> No.41480256


>> No.41480265

I certainly don't. Heck I'd blame that on The Huns after they wrecked Rome (or rather weakened Rome so bad that everything fell to shit)

If you say so. I mean, I don't believe you at all, but if you want to think like that, sure. If there was legal gay marriage, then why all the gay torture?

>> No.41480270


Yeah this doesn't pass the smell test, let alone the history test.

However, homosexuality is practiced nearly-openly in cultures that supposedly condemn it. Medieval christian culture has examples. Islam has always strictly forbidden it... and nevermind all the man/boy love poetry that came out of arabia for a thousand years, or for that matter still does in Afghanistan. In Judaism, gay men were strongly condemned but being lesbian was considered scandalous but not illegal due to the wording of the commandments involved.

These things don't just vary from religion/culture to religion/culture, they vary within times and places WITHIN a culture.

>> No.41480282

I guess I'm not seeing what you mean by lineage then, or why it's relevant, because as I see it the royal line continued well after Elizabeth.

>> No.41480299

>Muslims were around during the 5th century.

>> No.41480308

Thank you, anon
And you too, anon

>> No.41480328

It failed because of how she ruled and who she was ruling. She wouldn't have sired Mordred without the magic dick but it's not the dick's fault that things turned out poorly.

>> No.41480341


England still had monarchs, but they weren't Tudors. England before the Tudors had fought a long and vicious war over this very point.

Every monarch has a duty to his country but also to his family. The fact that another family takes over gracefully after you're gone is great for the country but you've failed your dynastic line.

And "continued well after Elizabeth" means James did well. His son Charles was overthrown and executed; England was then ruled by Cromwell and his roundheads until HE was overthrown. In yet another civil war.

>> No.41480346

>Disregards the fact that most maths and sciences were actually preserved under Muslim rule
>Algebra, Alcohol, Alchemy, and much of those other Al- groups were Arabic
Not saying the Muslims were terrible, but there is a reason so many monarchs from Charlemagne up had Arab scholarsadvisors

>> No.41480369

>Why don't we just turn the king immortal
This is usually either impossible or requires some significant/evil sacrifice to achieve.
As to the rest, varying degrees of evil. Maybe the king and everyone else involved is fine with that, but maybe not.

>> No.41480394

Not much of an argument really. More of a fantasy designed to excuse a silly decision.

>> No.41480428

>Yeah this doesn't pass the smell test
>my personal feelings test

>the history test

It passes the "history" test, if by history you mean something other than your bigotted and fabricated view built around seeking some sort of enemy to martial your cause around, because the Catholic Church has never been shy about saying "Look, stop trying to distract us from our charitable works and philosophical debates. No, we don't like sodomy, but that doesn't mean we hate 'homosexuals', just like how we don't hate any sinners, be they thieves or murderers. They're all welcome under our roof, but at the very least try to listen to WHY we don't like sodomy, since we have clear, rational explanations that you seem intent on refusing to hear."

>> No.41480435

It must suck, really. Having a whole setting with no fashion sense, that is.

>> No.41480448

>I don't believe you
>If there was legal gay marriage, then why all the gay torture
Because different cultures at different times and places had different ideas about what was acceptable or not. Even if there was no historical precedent to gay marriage at all that should be obvious.

>> No.41480456

Dude, Cromwell ruled until he died and was succeeded by his son. Hell, monarchs all over Europe sent their condolences. His son then gave up rule to a Dutch royal family.

>> No.41480492

But every family line in that sense lasts about that long. The argument that as soon as a woman is in charge the line is doomed makes no sense, even if you buy into the idea that a dynastic line is important which clearly not everyone does.

>> No.41480528

>still the largest charity in the world
>still finances scientific research, including research that has helped millions living in poverty
>still works towards peace and unity throughout the world, helping resolve diplomatic disputes and holding councils regularly

The Catholic Church is quite a positive force in the world, and has been for centuries.

But, no, It's ebul because muh gays.

>> No.41480533

The power of Google compels you.

>> No.41480856

You seem to be ignoring the big child-molesting elephant in the room.

>> No.41480877

People have been unfairly blaming things on the Catholic Church far beyond gay rights issues. The 'Dark Ages', pedophilia, megachurches, etc.

>> No.41480884

Ah see, nobody ever thinks about pre-Christian antiquity when people bring up the history of same-sex unions.
Not saying your argument doesn't stand: it does, but not many people seem to think about it ever being a thing back then

>> No.41480901


Mudslime here

I agree, and actually like Catholics, even if I disagree with them theologically.

>> No.41480932

What does love have to do with matters of succession? She's the heir, whomever she identifies as her heir will take the throne when she passes. If she doesn't want the throne, the king will hand it off to one of his most competent commanders or barons who'll become the new king and the daughter will have to move out and get a job.

>> No.41480949

See what I mean?
While child molestation is certainly a terrible thing and should be taken very seriously, especially when it comes from a position of trust such as the Church, the fact is that Catholic priests are LESS likely to be child molesters than the average person. And while it's true that their response to allegations has been overly defensive in the past, that doesn't excuse the overzealous response against them nor is it any worse than the response of most other institutions to similar allegations - in fact, it's been a significantly better response than organizations like the Presbyterian Church or the Boyscouts (which also have much worse records on things like gay rights, charity, and transparency).

>> No.41481201

Listen here, daughter. I prepared this chat in case I ever had a son, but here we are. Do you know what a "mistress" is?

>> No.41481443

Most people don't like lesbians. They're like that one shitbag you know who shit-talks you behind your back and spends all their time creeping on your girlfriend, except they'll shit-talk all men and hit on all straight girls, especially when they're drunk. Their success rate is irrelevant in the face of their relentless douchebaggery.

Men don't like lesbians, they like fake porn lesbians. Women don't like lesbians, because they don't like being creeped on by bulldykes.

>> No.41481464


Why can't the King just try to have a son?

Men can produce children into old age.

>> No.41481499

I've only known a couple of lesbians personally but I liked both of them. It seems to me like you're just making sweeping assumptions based on your personal experiences and issues.

>> No.41481657

I've known dozens of lesbians. I don't hate any of them Most of what you've said is complete bullshit. I don't think you're making up your assertions, but I think you're letting your experience with one lesbian color your opinion of all of them.

>> No.41481830


To be fair, you're far more likely to be molested by a relative or public school teacher in the United States than a catholic priest. Even adjusting for numbers.

>> No.41481892


I've known dozens of lesbians. Some I've liked a lot, some I've hated, some I've been indifferent to. The fact that they were lesbians was a mild joking plus ("I applaud your good taste!") A few hated men or were into stupid radical /pol/itics, most were just fine w/ us.

By "most people", you mean you and your dad's crusty sock.

>> No.41481962


Elizabeth left no heirs. Most monarchs do. Ensuring a peaceful transition of power to your offspring is one of the duties of a monarch. If you're going to have a monarchy at all, this is kind of the point.

I'm not the guy who was saying that having a woman in charge of the line dooms the line. I don't believe that at all-- there have been some very great and powerful ruling queens in history. But Elizabeth isn't a good example because she failed the continuity-of-rule test.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.