I've jus t a question because perhaps I forget it, but where did the King Eodred have been buried?
A possibilty is in the Gray but in the Gold Ward it is for nobility not the roality, and the gratr tomb is for military leaders or most decorated military, so? Of course the king lead the Korvosa guard but I am not sure that it's the best place for him?
What do you think about that?
Tnahks!
I really don't know, but it is quite certain, that he is not buried, where he should be. Queen Ileosa poisoned the king, so he is probably burnt, in order to destroy evidence and then his ash is probably hidden away somewhere so that no one can resurrect the king or question him by speak with dead.
But still an interesting question...
Royals are usually entombed in a vault completely separate from everyone else. In Europe, this might be a vault in a royal palace or a separate cathedral. Therefore, I suggest Eodred is interred somewhere beneath Castle Korvosa.
As the previous poster suggested, it is possible that after Ileosa consolidates her power something may happen to the body. But just remember that Eodred actually didn't know anything when he died, not even that he was poisoned. So spells like Speak to the Dead are useless. Furthermore, I don't think forensics are so advanced as to be able to figure out how he really died even if disinterred.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
King Eodred II's body is...
...in a crypt under Castle Korvosa. The PCs are unlikely to be able to get to it until Pathfinder 12, which has guidelines about what to do if they discover it. (Short Version: speak with dead doesn't help much since he didn't realize he was being poisoned, and he can't be brought back to life because he's already been judged by Pharasma, AKA, he doesn't want to come back to life.)
King Eodred II's body is...
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks Jacobs! it explain a lot of thing and in my way to present the thing to my PC who investigate on the King's death, I know what to tell us! Thanks a lot!
|
Creative Director
|
Thanks Jacobs! it explain a lot of thing and in my way to present the thing to my PC who investigate on the King's death, I know what to tell us! Thanks a lot!King Eodred II's body is...
** spoiler omitted **
No prob!
Again, while knowledge that monarchs are buried in crypts under the castle is more or less common knowledge... what happened to Eodred and whether or not he's actually IN his crypt under the castle isn't something anyone can really hope to resolve until the last adventure. Ileosa doesn't let just anyone into the Castle these days, after all...
Where can I find the long version which explains why the king has not been resurrected, just after his death?King Eodred II's body is...
** spoiler omitted **
Primarily because everyone thought he died of old age or an incurable disease. In neither case would a raise dead do anything besides being a waste of gold.
Where can I find the long version which explains why the king has not been resurrected, just after his death?King Eodred II's body is...
** spoiler omitted **
Primarily because everyone thought he died of old age or an incurable disease. In neither case would a raise dead do anything besides being a waste of gold.
But..
shortly after his death someone is convicted of murdering him- thus not old age or something that cant be 'cured'- surely once this is found to be the case there are questions to be asked about him being raised from the dead
Ah that was the flaw in Ileosas plan...once she had accused Trinia and the players had discovered the truth things were going to fall apart for her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But..
I think the assumption in general is that the options of raise dead / resurrection aren’t often used by those not of the adventuring persuasion. “An untimely death” is a well used plot device, and it simply doesn’t work (or detracts from the story) if you have to think up blocks for the different ways the victim could have been brought back. If you need an explanation because your players won’t let it go, you can use one of the ones James provided. Alternatively, you could simply say that it’s local tradition among the monarchs of Korvosa that they get one shot at life to make their mark, and no one would follow a monarch who had to be brought back for a second go at it. Can create all sorts of taboos against it for the royals.
|
I think the assumption in general is that the options of raise dead / resurrection aren’t often used by those not of the adventuring persuasion. “An untimely death” is a well used plot device, and it simply doesn’t work (or detracts from the story) if you have to think up blocks for the different ways the victim could have been brought back. If you need an explanation because your players won’t let it go, you can use one of the ones James provided. Alternatively, you could simply say that it’s local tradition among the monarchs of Korvosa that they get one shot at life to make their mark, and no one would follow a monarch who had to be brought back for a second go at it. Can create all sorts of taboos against it for the royals.
But..
And, what about body decomposition?
I wouldn't want to return to my body now that it had been entombed for quite some time. . ..
(Short Version: speak with dead doesn't help much since he didn't realize he was being poisoned, and he can't be brought back to life because he's already been judged by Pharasma, AKA, he doesn't want to come back to life.)
Seriously, why wouldn't he want to come back to life? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, before he was sick his life was great and he was still fairly young (50?).
It's a bad plot device, but it's maybe the only explanation we have.
Other Objections to Raise Dead
"It's too expensive": A city like Korvosa would have the funds to attempt a raise dead or resurrection, he's King after all. If a 3rd level PC can afford it, a King can afford it!
"They think he died of old age": From what I can remember, he was still fairly young, 50, so old age wouldn't even apply yet. Plus they later think he was murdered and Trinia was accused! So surely they should try in this case.
"He died of an incurable disease": No such thing and if it existed, it would attract a LOT of attention and would be cause for concern. Plus, they think the King was murdered, which is why Trinia goes to trial. Murder = maybe you should try to rez him now?
So it's just a bad plot device and a weak part of the campaign that unfortunately comes up early.
My best explanation is that the poison the Red Mantis use actually prevents his resurrection (similar to being killed by the Assassin ability True Death), and the clerics mistakenly thought the King either didn't want to come back or couldn't.
The Curse of the Crimson Throne Player's Guide says "Ileosa is barely a third the age of her husband." Acoording to Edge of Anarchy she married him in 4704 AR, at age 17. The adventue is set in 4708 AR, so she is 21 by then. That makes Eodred 64 at least at that time.
When a character reaches venerable age, secretly roll his maximum age and record the result, which the player does not know. A character who reaches his maximum age dies of old age sometime during the following year.
Venerable is 70 for humans, and you die from old age at 70+2d20.
So yeah, by the rules he can't die from old age like I said.
I'm leaning toward the opinion that not resurrecting the king is fairly normal.
I've always assumed that raising the dead is incredibly uncommon for the non-adventuring public, for a multitude of reasons. There are the obvious, like lack of funds, but there are societal norms and diety-specific rules that would likely come into play. People in Golarion aren't players with the Core Rulebook; there would likely be much superstition about these kinds of things. People who are mostly unfamiliar with magic would feel that raising the dead would taste a little too much like necromancy. Many dieties would likely say that the dead should stay dead. Others would say that if nobody was able to die, Golarion would become overpopulated. Not to mention, however you flavor having a negative level (considering there is no concept of "levels") would be likely traumatizing to the average person.
For the case of the King himself, I'd listen to James' post where he mentions that Pharasma has judged him. You have to think; after experiencing the afterlife, would many people want to come back? Sure, Eodred could come back to his mid-fifties body, harem of women, and immature trophy wife; but experiencing an entirely different plane of existence is likely mind-changing. I don't have any books that describe the planes in Pathfinder, I only remember snippets of 3.5 where you go to the outer plane closest aligned to yours, but if that's the same, Eodred is probably enjoying his time in that plane. I imagine most people would choose to stay in their place after death, only adventurers, who generally have to stay alive to save the world, would elect to be resurrected. Common folk who want to stay in the material plane that badly come back as ghosts, and since there's not a billion ghosts haunting around, it's a relatively safe assumption.
(Edited for profanity. I called Ileosa something the forums didn't like. The things my players call Ileosa would get me banned though.)
I imagine most people would choose to stay in their place after death, only adventurers, who generally have to stay alive to save the world, would elect to be resurrected.
Good point.
In most campaigns I run there is a large taboo against bringing kings back to life. Aside from them being happy in the afterlife, those who succeed them want their time to rule. Raising the dead may have led to wars of succession in the past between those who've both been legally crowned. "I'm still king!" vs. "Who knows what got brought back from the other side, I'm crowned now".
In this instance, Eodred's soul had no unfinished business and he thought he died of natural illness, well some kind of illness. Why return?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I guess everyone's thoughts on campaign worlds are different, and mine certainly are.
But yes, I guess I'll go with he doesn't want to come back.
My best explanation is that the poison the Red Mantis use actually prevents his resurrection (similar to being killed by the Assassin ability True Death), and the clerics mistakenly thought the King either didn't want to come back or couldn't.
This is what I'll be doing. Especially since I'll be running COTCT in my group's Kingmaker kingdom several centuries in the future after it ends; my group's already gone through a full cycle of Reinarnates for all the PCs but one (and we're less than halfway through), so a cultural taboo against raising the dead monarch simply won't make sense in hindsight when your founders did so left and right.
|
Per Golarion, you cannot Raise anyone who's been Judged by Pharasma. Period.
How long this takes varies between moments and centuries...and is entirely determined by Pharasma/The GM. So he got Judged real damn quick, as do many people, with only adventurers and people the GM decides are raisable taking longer. Problem solved.
Eodred is not resurrected because his wife Ileosa makes sure he isn't.
Furthermore, there are only two priests in town capable of resurrection, Keppira d'Bear of Pharasma and Darb Tuttle of Abadar.
Keppira d'Bear is not likely to suggest that the king be resurrected, because in her faith Pharasma decides over the dead, whether their death is just or not.
Darb Tuttle is the leader of the priests who failed to keep the king alive when he was in his sickbed. So for him it is clear, Eodred died of old age and those people cannot be resurrected.
Then there is the question of who gets to decide that the king should be resurrected. In truth, only two people can take this initiative: his wife or the seneschal. His wife obviously doesn't want to and where is that 'darn' Kalepopolis when you need him?
Eodred is not resurrected because his wife Ileosa makes sure he isn't.
Furthermore, there are only two priests in town capable of resurrection, Keppira d'Bear of Pharasma and Darb Tuttle of Abadar.
Keppira d'Bear is not likely to suggest that the king be resurrected, because in her faith Pharasma decides over the dead, whether their death is just or not.
Darb Tuttle is the leader of the priests who failed to keep the king alive when he was in his sickbed.
Right, and with only two NPCs in the city capable of properly resurrecting someone--with it being against the religion of one of them--that makes it really, really easy for a rich, charismatic queen to tell the one (possibly corrupt) cleric to just, y'know, not try to resurrect him. This could even be something the players notice and make them investigate for themselves, eventually suspecting Darb Tuttle of treason or working with the evil queen. Besides, Ileosa being possessed by an ancient and powerful spirit means she probably has access to or knowledge of some way of preventing a body from being resurrected.
Because magic, but also because Ileosa is the queen now and what she says goes.