D&D General Follow on from the last thread about a roll that resulted in The Earls Vassals refusing to let his daughter marry his liege's son

[Immeril]

A follow on to the last thread

Rolls on a related table show that 1 of The 6 Barons that A Vassal to The Earl decided to refuse to let his daughter marry his Liege's son and heir and instead upheld the marriage to the son on 1 of his Liege's other Vassals

Idiot. I mean he may not like his liege he was foolish enough to let his hate for his liege override the fact that within 2 generations(his daughters generations and his daughters children generation), his family wouldn't be A Vassals to The Earl or Earless that rules the area, rather the head of the family would be The Earl or Earless that rules the area

Other rolls showed that his dislike was sort of justified due to the fact that 17 years ago his entire family has been executed for treason, but he was spared because he was able to prove his innocence

The reason he hates his liege is because his youngest sister was the only other innocent member of a family that had 22 members yet she was executed because even though she was also innocent unlike him she couldn't prove it

As a DM, why don't you simply deviate from your roll if you're not satisfied with the result?

 

[A2Z]

Sorry, my last engagement here and then I am out.

You have told me before that you are English @JMISBEST, so I am calling you on it. Look up your own national history, a female earl is not an earless. She is a Countess. Earl evolved from the old Anglo-Saxon usage, but after 1066 and the Norman Conquest the terms of nobility were lined up with continental practice. Earl and Count are equavelent ranks if you look up English vs. French or German practice.

Earl was retained as a title in England, due to being embedded in the culture, but Countess was the title to be given to an Earl's wife. Equally, it would be given to females appointed to what would normally be an earldom (except that never happened until modern times due to sexism in the system).

Cheers

I would argue in an egalitarian culture, where women can hold titles in the same manner as the men, there would be no reason for gendered titles to develop. An earl is an earl no matter if it's a man or woman.

 

[Weiley31]

What about the Generaless?

 

[Mirtek]

A Earl and A Earless are 99.9% identical, t

The 1% being the missing ears?

 

[ilgatto]

The 1% being the missing ears?

Must... not... laugh...
Must... not...
Dammit

 

[Bill Zebub]

When is OP going to have a Dali-esque dream about OGL 1.1? I want to read THAT thread.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would argue in an egalitarian culture, where women can hold titles in the same manner as the men, there would be no reason for gendered titles to develop. An earl is an earl no matter if it's a man or woman.

I believe the gender-neutral term is “URL”. I see it used all the time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What about the Generaless?

Traditionally, the Generaless is with the Generalissimo.

And the Generalissimo is still dead.