Dynastic Splits

[wolfgag]

Alternatively titled "Houses Going Their Own Way (HGTOW)"

We know that members of a house will have the ability to create their own house through a cadet branch decision. What I want to know is if house heads of those cadet branches will be able to break their house away from the dynasty and form their own dynasty?

I only ask because in some of my campaigns I had younger sons of my earlier charactersgo on to have their own heirs and the main line would by the end be separated from the decendants of those sons by hundreds of years. In one particular campaign I didn't bother to give them a separate dynasty or anything because it didn't make much difference (they were mostly just counts) and I liked to keep track of them. But I realised with dynastic legacies and actual powers of the dynasty head and house heads it might not make much sense that these relatives would identify as part of the same dynasty despite having common descent from my original ducal character, and consequently accept the authority of the dynasty head to intervene in their family affairs.

So is it possible for house heads to break their house away from the dynasty? Also how does it work in the script? Does a character have a line saying house=2827282 and then the house entry defines which dynasty it belongs to or does each character define both a house and a dynasty? Can houses be assigned to other dynasties despite no common descent?

 

[Karlington]

Alternatively titled "Houses Going Their Own Way (HGTOW)"

We know that members of a house will have the ability to create their own house through a cadet branch decision. What I want to know is if house heads of those cadet branches will be able to break their house away from the dynasty and form their own dynasty?

I only ask because in some of my campaigns I had younger sons of my earlier charactersgo on to have their own heirs and the main line would by the end be separated from the decendants of those sons by hundreds of years. In one particular campaign I didn't bother to give them a separate dynasty or anything because it didn't make much difference (they were mostly just counts) and I liked to keep track of them. But I realised with dynastic legacies and actual powers of the dynasty head and house heads it might not make much sense that these relatives would identify as part of the same dynasty despite having common descent from my original ducal character, and consequently accept the authority of the dynasty head to intervene in their family affairs.

So is it possible for house heads to break their house away from the dynasty? Also how does it work in the script? Does a character have a line saying house=2827282 and then the house entry defines which dynasty it belongs to or does each character define both a house and a dynasty? Can houses be assigned to other dynasties despite no common descent?

From what I understand you cannot form new dynasties, but if a house grows strong enough it can overtake the original house and become the new main house, with the head of it becoming the new dynast.

YMMV, but I actually prefer this solution because of the potential goal it sets up for us.

 

[Meezermouzer]

From what I understand you cannot form new dynasties, but if a house grows strong enough it can overtake the original house and become the new main house, with the head of it becoming the new dynast.

YMMV, but I actually prefer this solution because of the potential goal it sets up for us.

I concur. I'm pretty sure a cadet branch can't break away and form their own independent dynasty. Since dynasties are based off a common ancestor(s), would be kinda like pretending you aren't related anymore. Ignoring history--when has anyone every done that. Which I guess would be a good roleplaying mechanic if you really hated your relatives or something . I think the assumption is old dynasties typically have a lot of splendor/legacies and descendants would be clamoring to prove their lineage, or want to stay a part of it; the trade-off being that they might have to tolerate intervention in the short-term. Would you accept some family meddling for dynasty perks? But yeah, I like how PDX implemented dynasty houses and the House Head with the highest military strength becomes the Dynasty Head. Although I think a few more factors should play into it. But definitely gives you something to shoot for.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I concur. I'm pretty sure a cadet branch can't break away and form their own independent dynasty. Since dynasties are based off a common ancestor(s), would be kinda like pretending you aren't related anymore. Ignoring history--when has anyone every done that. Which I guess would be a good roleplaying mechanic if you really hated your relatives or something . I think the assumption is old dynasties typically have a lot of splendor/legacies and descendants would be clamoring to prove their lineage, or want to stay a part of it; the trade-off being that they might have to tolerate intervention in the short-term. Would you accept some family meddling for dynasty perks? But yeah, I like how PDX implemented dynasty houses and the House Head with the highest military strength becomes the Dynasty Head. Although I think a few more factors should play into it. But definitely gives you something to shoot for.

Perhaps in a later stage they'll tweak the conditions to be more than just military, and add some other weights to it.

What I'm more expecting though, rather than trying to break away entirely, is junior cadet lines seeking to encourage the senior ones to die out.

 

[wolfgag]

Since dynasties are based off a common ancestor(s), would be kinda like pretending you aren't related anymore. Ignoring history--when has anyone every done that. Which I guess would be a good roleplaying mechanic if you really hated your relatives or something . I think the assumption is old dynasties typically have a lot of splendor/legacies and descendants would be clamoring to prove their lineage, or want to stay a part of it; the trade-off being that they might have to tolerate intervention in the short-term. Would you accept some family meddling for dynasty perks?

I agree with you to an extent, there's nothing wrong with how it works currently. I'm excited for it, I never thought we would get an integrated cadet branch system.

However I think that some families, despite having traceable common descent, simply don't see each other as being members of the same kin-group because they're so distant and don't see that common descent as relevant to their relations with each other, if they're even aware of it. Yet the system would force these families to compete for headship, the right to decide these perks and make use of dynastic powers.

Wanting to prove membership in an old, powerful, and established dynasty is great and makes sense, especially when the common ancestor is famous. But what if that ancestor is some nobody count of nowhere? What if his descendants only became notable -- as powerful dukes, kings, or emperors -- generations later? What if the branches are separated by 10+ generations, hundreds of members in between, and barely even remember their common origins? Plus, like you said, if they hate each other so much.

I wouldn't want splits to happen all the time, or for there to be some hard cap on how many cadet branches you can have, or to punish people for expanding despite maintaining links with all branches. That would suck. But splits can happen. Remember dynasty heads have special powers and responsibilities and I think sometimes it doesn't make sense to "compete" for that, but rather to just break away and start fresh, saying "we may come from the same roots, But we are not one of you."

I guess we'll find out Paradox's approach when we see how they organised some widespread families like the Obertenghi-Este-Welf connected families, and the relatives of Muhammad because under the principle of common descent defining dynasties they should form single mega-dynasties. If they don't then I think that will validate my viewpoint.

Its only a tangent but there's a theory by some genealogist (Christian Settipani?) that the Plantagenets and their parent houses the Angevins and Rorgonids were actually male line relatives of the Robertians, who in turn were descended in the male line from the Merovingians through a son of Charibert I of Paris(?). If true, then under this logic the Angevins should be a mere house of the Robertine dynasty. They must have forgotten this connection during the intervening 500 years (approx 15 generations) because no one seems to mention it except this one expert. It's possible to forget connections like this over hundreds of years.

The descendants of the Hashimids in CK2 in 769 included the Umayyads, Fatimids, Idrisids, Abbasids, and Amrids (maybe more? I can't remember). I presume there are even more in later start dates. It will be interesting to see how those are handled.

 

[Atalvyr]

I guess it depends on how much power the house head holds over the cadet branches. I would hate for the Emperor of Spain to be beholden to the HREmperor just because the latter is house head of the "parent" dynasty. Have they said if the hook house heads have on members extends to cadet dynasties as well?

 

[Tuo]

I guess it depends on how much power the house head holds over the cadet branches. I would hate for the Emperor of Spain to be beholden to the HREmperor just because the latter is house head of the "parent" dynasty. Have they said if the hook house heads have on members extends to cadet dynasties as well?

House head powers only apply to house members, not to members of other houses within the same dynasty (even if the house head is also the dynast). Splitting off from the main house to form a cadet branch is a way of reducing the influence of the former house head on your family.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

@wolfgag

I've not read into that theory but I have to say it sounds rather spurious purely from the point of view that had the Angevins been descended from the Robertians they'd have known about it and boasted of it.

 

[Karlington]

I guess it depends on how much power the house head holds over the cadet branches. I would hate for the Emperor of Spain to be beholden to the HREmperor just because the latter is house head of the "parent" dynasty. Have they said if the hook house heads have on members extends to cadet dynasties as well?

House head powers only apply to house members, not to members of other houses within the same dynasty (even if the house head is also the dynast). Splitting off from the main house to form a cadet branch is a way of reducing the influence of the former house head on your family.

If I'm not mistaken the dynast's (house head of the main house) powers extend to the whole dynasty, not just his own house. That is one of the benefits of being the dynast.

The other house heads are, as stated, limited in jurisdiction to their own house.

 

[Tuo]

If I'm not mistaken the dynast's (house head of the main house) powers extend to the whole dynasty, not just his own house. That is one of the benefits of being the dynast.

The other house heads are, as stated, limited in jurisdiction to their own house.

I am fairly certain you're mistaken.

So, what is a House?
Each Dynasty will have a Founding House (usually of the same name as the Dynasty), which is the first House of that Dynasty. As the game progresses, ruling Dynasty members that are distant by blood to the current House Head (more on this below) may choose to create a Cadet Branch - effectively creating a new House under the Dynasty. Creating a Cadet Branch makes the character creating it House Head (with the most powerful House Head becoming Dynast), and by extension free from the direct influence of their old House Head.

Splitting off from the main house frees you from the influence of the house head. If the dynast retained direct influence over the split off house in the powers of a house head, that would quite defeat the point of splitting off in the first place.

Now, what is a House Head or a Dynast?
Within a House there is always a leader, a House Head, that wields power over the rest of the members. A House Head has the power to legitimize bastards, call House members to war, and demand that they adhere to their Faith (refusal to convert will result in them creating a new Cadet Branch). The House Head also has inherent leverage on all House members born after they were made head, by virtue of getting a Hook on them (more on Hooks in another DD). They also gain passive prestige based upon the number of members in their House. House leadership follows the succession of the House Head, so that if you’re the leader of your House you will most likely keep that title on succession.

The Dynast, on the other hand, wields significantly more power than a House Head - with their power encompassing the members of all Houses of the entire Dynasty! The Dynast is always the most powerful House Head of a Dynasty, with leadership being updated on the death of the old Dynast. In addition to everything the House Head can do, the Dynast can also Disinherit/Restore Inheritance, Denounce/Forgive members of the Dynasty (which affects opinion in a major way), personally Claim titles held by Dynasty members, and make Dynasty members end wars they have against each other. All of these powers work against every member of the Dynasty, not just the House they’re a part of. The Dynast also gains prestige for every living member of the Dynasty. Being the Dynast is very powerful indeed, but you have to carefully weigh the powers against other benefits, as they cost Renown.

House head powers and Dynast powers are two different sets of powers, and while a dynast is always a house head, the dynast is a house head only to their own house, and the powers of that role only apply to that house. On the other hand, the specific set of powers as the dynast can be used on any member of the dynasty - but these are two different sets of powers.

 

[Atalvyr]

Hmm. Looking over the powers of the dynast I think that there should be a way for a cadet house to cut ties completely with their parent dynasty. If a cadet house splits off in 900 to rule Spain, I would hate for the dynast of their dynasty sitting on the HRE throne in 1300 being able to disinherit the Spanish heir.

I think a cadet house cutting ties after a certain amount of time or after attaining a certain level of power would be realistic.

 

[Skales]

I concur. I'm pretty sure a cadet branch can't break away and form their own independent dynasty. Since dynasties are based off a common ancestor(s), would be kinda like pretending you aren't related anymore. Ignoring history--when has anyone ever done that

Quite often actually, first of all, not everyone was obsessed with tracking lineage, in fact, especially early on, many people were not. Giving headache to modern historians. Plus it was often beneficial to fake heritage, or stress a different part of your heritage.

 

[Battlex]

Hmm. Looking over the powers of the dynast I think that there should be a way for a cadet house to cut ties completely with their parent dynasty. If a cadet house splits off in 900 to rule Spain, I would hate for the dynast of their dynasty sitting on the HRE throne in 1300 being able to disinherit the Spanish heir.

I think a cadet house cutting ties after a certain amount of time or after attaining a certain level of power would be realistic.

You could help dethrone the HREmperor so you are dynast head, but we don't have full word on how "disinherit" actually works.

They made add decisions down the line for the formation of famous dynasties, like von Hapsburg from the Etuschens or whatever, that was added in holy fury

 

[wolfgag]

@wolfgag

I've not read into that theory but I have to say it sounds rather spurious purely from the point of view that had the Angevins been descended from the Robertians they'd have known about it and boasted of it.

I think the evidence was based on onomastics and control of certain territories, but it's been years since I found it. If it's true, though, then they must have forgotten it at some point.

Just checking on Wikipedia, Charibert King of Paris lived from around 517 to 567. The currently known Robertian ancestry goes back to a one Charibert of Hesbaye who lived around 555 to 636 and had a son named Robert who had a son named Lambert. Charibert of Paris has only one son listed on Wikipedia, Chrodebert, who died around 595. So the theory goes: the Chariberts are related somehow (grandson?). There was some connection between Neustria, Maine, Paris, and Hesbaye in there too but I don't remember.

It's well possible that when the Merovingians fell those descendants made an effort to forget and conceal their ancestry (if they remembered it at all) so they could maintain their links to the new Carolingian regime. If I could get my hands on the reconstructed genealogy I could say with more certainty but I think the Rorgonid connection to the Robertians was relatively early, while Hugh Capet only came to power in the 900s. So they too may have simply forgot their links to their cousins elsewhere in the Frankish kingdoms.

We only know this stuff now because I guess we have various bits and pieces scattered all over the place, charters, church records, etc. Stuff that may not have been readily available so people could just refresh their memory like "oh yeah, my 8th great grandfather Robert is the same Robert who is the ancestor of that other count over there."

I don't really take a position on the theory myself I just think it's interesting in general and here can illustrate how it's reasonable some people just forget, or make an effort to conceal, that they're related after a couple of centuries.

 

[Karlington]

Plus it was often beneficial to fake heritage, or stress a different part of your heritage.

If people are going to such extremes that they fake their heritage, then that's a pretty good indicator that heritage was very important.

 

[Skales]

If people are going to such extremes that they fake their heritage, then that's a pretty good indicator that heritage was very important.

'I have some distant relationship to Julius Ceasar, which means I'm pretty cool right?' and 'Oh, my dynasty originates from some random count somewhere, I suppose I'll let some other distant descendant of his disinherit my heir or something now...' Are two very different things.

 

[dasvira]

I believe that important characters VERY distantly related (like more than 20 generations) should be able to form their own dynasty (and copy the legacies). On top of my head I can think about a few historical examples in which spiting dynasty would make sense:


1) The Abbasids, Ummayads, Alauytes, Fatmids all descend from the Hashmites. (I would like to know how those muslims families will be handed and whether or not they will share a same dynasty)

2) Capetians: the Babenbergs of Austria should probably be of a different dynasty despite sharing a same agnatic ancestor, because they didn't really have anything to do with each other. The Portuguese royal house started as Capetian branch, but they had hardly anything to do with the kings of France at the end of the game and no one really speaks about the link between the portuguese and french royal houses today. For a comparison they are even more remotely connected than the house of Courtnay, who were themselves denied as a member of the Capetian dinasty (prince of the blood) by the kings of France in the 17th century, because they were too distantly related.

3) The sons of Ragnar: Ivar left descendants in Celtic Britain and Ireland; Bjorn founded the house of Munso who rulled sweden for a while; from Sigurd descent the Yelling dynasty which ruled Denmark for a long time.

4) There are some nobles in Celtic Britain and Ireland that trace their dynasty even before the fall of Rome, and many share an agnatic ancestor. It would be weird if all of them share the same dynasty because of a very remote connection.

5) Gengis Khan: Gengis left a TON of descendants noble house. While there was certainly a connection between them, since they all boasted being descendants of Gengis. I think it is arguable that they split over time and it would be a little weird having a same dynasty head for such a long lived and big dinasty.

 

[wolfgag]

I wouldn't copy legacies. It seems somehow unbalanced. The cost of getting an independent dynasty should be you start fresh. Maybe to offset that a bit you get some free renown to start off.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

@dasvira

It's the Frankish Babenbergs who are related to the Robertians. The Austrian Babenbergs were a cadet branch of the Luitpoldings.

 

[dasvira]

@dasvira

It's the Frankish Babenbergs who are related to the Robertians. The Austrian Babenbergs were a cadet branch of the Luitpoldings.

I had the impression this was the case before posting. However, I checked wiki and it link them as a cadet branch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertians ), but I guess Wikipedia is wrong.