Ileosa's backstory


Curse of the Crimson Throne


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So after the PC's kill Gaedren Lamm, they emerge onto riots in the streets of Korvosa. Various people yell things about Ileosa being a usurper, or various other things. The Guide to Korvosa mentions her as someone who has mentioned Korvosa being a "backwater-burg" and hating its inhabitants.
SO, the PCs have likely lived in the city for long enough to know that she hates the place. How much dislike for the city have you had her show publicly? I don't want people to immediately suspect her from the first adventure.
I'm listening to the audio drama now, and it has a little more detail about her thanking the PCs. I intend to run this AP as a podcast, so I want to have dramatic and impactful scenes.

What have you GMs done in your games?

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I haven't run it yet, but it's my next campaign and I've been planning for it heavily. With that said, I think it's ok if the PCs are suspicious of her.

She's sort of a long-view bad guy in the sense that the characters should realize early on the she's probably corrupt. They should want her deposed and working slowly toward that goal, while dealing with the various crises Korvosa faces, is the point of the campaign. What the characters aren't supposed to know is the exact nature of her corruption or how powerful it has made her so quickly. That's the mystery of the campaign.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Campaign journal with an alternate take on Ileosa


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It all depends on how well you know your players and what type of game will you run for them.

To explain - my players are good at making a well rounded party, so for me its a challenge to provide them... Challenge. They can overcome with ease a lot of things that are thrown at them. And considering the part, that as GM, I expanded the adventure with modules, PFS scenarios and ton of rules from other paizo material, they, at the moment, being 9th level with 1 mythic tier, can quite possible kill Ileosa without the magic sword from Scarwall. And this is while they are in the middle of 3th story arch.

If I had run AP close to what’s written, they would totally plan to do this. Maybe at her coronation, helping Endrin in his assassination attempt. This, of course, would have derailed AP heavily, and as much as I like to give players space to make their own choices, I want to stick to the story.

Therefore, I used the story - tuned down Ileosa as the Big Bad from start. Made her more "common" and all her actions hidden/done in the background. Yes, she was known to make unappropriated statements, but nothing unexpected from a spoiled young noble from Cheliax. And mostly, they were done in the circle of local aristocrats (which weren't better then her, from simple folk perspective). Only once her temper got out of control, when she lost her brooch while visiting one of the city orphanages (I started my run of AP before the Updated Edition, with its explanation how Lamm got the brooch). Then, when she got under influence of Kazavon, she became more clever and apt in doing things for the long run, besides getting massive ambitions.
To solidify her rule after Eodreds death, Ileosa needs some calamities as a scapegoat motive to act with "extraordinary power" (Palpatine-style), keep other city factions busy and take out those who can pose a threat to her.

And while she did this staying in the shadows, party had to deal with other villains, that I showed to be the ones who did all the bad things and were behind them (Reinard, Andaisin, etc). Ileosas actions in public were always explained as reactionary ones, born from necessity. With seneschal just missing and all the plague epidemic, she is regent and not Neolandus heir Endrin (because he must keep the city law and order).
She created Greay Maidens (in the first arch) as a force to rely on, because Sable Marines answer to seneschal only (in this case Endrin, who doesn't like her much) and City Guard can be vetoed by Great Families and/or Archbanker of Abadar. This organizations cannot be trusted by her, to defend her if someone like Arkonas would try a coup.
I introduced Reinard, Togomor and others in first arch, just to throw more suspects in the future. Kressida wasn't 100% suspicious only about Ileosa. Queen and her allies did a great job to make Neolandus disappearance look convenient.
When Endrin tries his assassination, Ileosas wrath is expected. Without facts, PCs and their allies suspicions are just that.
Even till now, without Neolandus, party thinks Ileosa is just possessed by a devil and Togomor is the wizard behind the curtain. Kressida thinks even simpler - that with all that happened, Ileosa just went full Cheliax-Thrune mode.

TL;DR - introduce everyone that matter earlier, make Ileosa appear as something common, rationalize through NPC-allies of the party her actions. Make her seen not as the source, but as a reactionary force. Let people compare her with Queen Domina, Eodreds mother, who was ruthless, but efficient ruler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our GM made Ileosa be a less obvious villain and made us wonder if she was a real villain from the beginning or if she had fallen into corruption later.
He gave us mixed feelings, she was a bit snobbish but she also treated us PCs well the first time we met her and she looked sincerely grateful for recovering her jewel.
I liked how he portrayed her because we couldn't tell how much she was a villain and how much a victim.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I always had a problem with how fast and how badly the city reacted to the king’s death.

Spoiler:
Eodred’s flesh wasn’t even cold – heck, it was still warm – and the citizens were already rising up against Ileosa. So, in the 30 or so minutes that the PCs were in Lamm’s fishery, news of the king’s death had spread all over the city AND it already had the people rise against the one who would probably take his place. That is an extremely fast reaction!

This must mean one of two things: either Eodred was a dictator who suppressed his people and now that he was gone the people finally saw an opportunity for change OR Ileosa was so immensely hated that even the thought of her taking the throne sent the people into a frenzy. In Korvosa as I perceived it, neither of these was the case.

So I decided to take a different approach and stretch the timeline between Lamm’s demise and the king’s death. (I actually took two weeks to set up some important foreshadowing first of ‘inspired artists’ who suddenly lost their muse and committed suicide, but that is beside the point.) I inserted a sidequest that took the PCs away from the city for a week. While they were out, the king died. News of the monarch’s death slowly spread across the city and – since Eodred was rather popular – the people’s first reaction was one of sadness. Over the next couple of days, however, people started worrying about the future. Who would take the king’s place? He had died without producing an heir. With no members of the Arabasti line left in Korvosa, the throne would go to his wife, queen Ileosa. Korvosans regarded her as parasite, a pretty, young foreign girl who had seduced the old king for his wealth, so she could live a pampered life of luxury. This had made her somewhat disliked, people saw her an airheaded beauty, some even called her as a sl*t or a wh*re, and most thought her incompetent of leadership, though no one really hated her. People were simply afraid that she would not be fit to rule and a certain manipulator behind the scenes – Glorio Arkona – fueled these concerns through a network of instigators, which led to riots a couple of days later, when the PCs returned to the city.

This means that in my campaign Eodred was a rather well-liked ruler, but Korvosans had no love (nor hate) for his wife. Through the manipulations of Arkona people actually started rebelling. Originally, the noble from Old Korvosa had hoped that these riots would simply lead to the people demanding another monarch, if not from the Arabasti line, then from another noble house. At that moment, he would present himself as the perfect candidate. Things turned out differently, though, and Ileosa proved a very competent, albeit utterly evil queen. So Arkona’s attempt to have her removed from power early on failed, but he continued to oppose her when he learned that she was evil, cruel and self-serving, ending up on the same side as the PCs, but with a different agenda (seize the throne for himself).

If you want to find out in greater detail what changes I made, you can check my journal on these boards. You are also welcome on my deviantart page for pictures from our campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^

Suddenly I'm tempted to make a variant of this scenario in which:
Arkona or a close associate is actually the mastermind of the Kitsune Town Criers' Company, which was just waiting to pounce on such an opportunity . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've actually incorporated this into my plans for my next session. One of the players is going to have a talk with Ileosa about Trinia Sabor, who was captured last session. Like some others, I've reworked Ileosa to be a lot more subtle, and this is an opportunity to showcase that. She'll actively reference the provincial attitude she once had, but explain that her husband's death forced her to look at the city in a new light, and now regrets her previous statements regarding its citizens.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MrVergee wrote:

Well, I always had a problem with how fast and how badly the city reacted to the king’s death.

** spoiler omitted **...

This makes me wonder if

Spoiler:
I should give my PCs a contract to help out in Bloodsworn Vale (from Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale , then have the king die while theyre out there.

-Skeld


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can always switch from the fast XP track to the medium track and put in more adventuring!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I told my PCs that she was disliked and unpopular, but I wanted to kind of hide how evil she really is for as long as possible.

So in the pre-campaign introductions, I made sure to talk about how she got blamed for everything King Eodred did. Just a poor misunderstood foreign girl who keeps getting scapegoated by all those manipulative, conniving nobles. Kind of a Marie Antoinette situation.

And I hate to brag but my players just lapped it up. When they visited the throne room, I played the sympathy card pretty hard. She'd just lost her beloved husband, she's all alone with no allies, just trying to maintain some law and order while the city riots around her. I thought I was overacting but the players loved her at the beginning.

Spoiler:
They even just flat-out refused to believe that the Queen was behind the Blood Veil, even though she was the one who brought in Dr. Davaulus and his Physicians, and even after Lady Andaisin explicitly told them what was up. They kept whatever doubts they had to themselves until her "encounter" with Commandant Endrin.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

My group met her last week and I think it went extremely well (although they were baffled and intimidated to be shown through to see the queen at level 2)... until one of them asked to roll sense motive.

Like an idiot I thought it would be fun to roll her bluff in Roll 20 where everyone could see. So when they saw her bluff modifier they immediately got suspicious.

I tried to write it off as a joke but I don't think they bought it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a number of alternative takes upon Queen Ileosa (mine is even more extreme than others presented here) but the central question which the authors of the AP do not explain or even attempt is perhaps the most obvious:

Under what legal theory of succession does Queen Ileosa have *any* lawful claim to the Crimson Throne at all?

Ileosa is merely the wife of a dead King. Under the rules of primogeniture, she has no claim to the Crimson Throne on her own; none whatsoever. She might have a claim to the Throne as Regent if she and Eodred had a child, but there is no child. In medieval times, Regency periods were often the times where Queen Mothers held power or shared it with a Regency council. But they never held it in their own name, they held it in the name of the King's heir who was not yet of age to be crowned.

Even if a female child inherits in accordance with her order of birth in a modified primogeniture, Ileosa still has no claim to the Throne. A marriage does not make you heir to the Throne. A Monarch inherits through bloodline, not marriage; a dowager queen is not a real Queen. That's why they are referred to as dowagers in the first place.

That is why marriages create alliances between families. To marry another gives them no claim to your family's property or titles after death. Instead, it gives each family a shared interest in ensuring that the children of that union are successful. Ideally, those heirs will combine both families property to leverage and focus that power.

Think it through. If a marriage gave one a claim to title and property by right of survivorship after death, no noble would ever risk getting married. It's an invitation to immediately be killed by your spouse; it's a death sentence. That's why Medieval Europe didn't recognize a succession through right of marriage. The children inherited lands and titles, spouses did not.

Put simply, the lawful claims by the Peers to a right to the Throne, and especially that of the Ornelos and Jeggarre families, are greater than any daughter of the far off Arvanxi family.

Indeed, the principal claimant to the throne by Arabasti blood-right would appear to be Venster. While said to be a bastard, there is no pure blood Arabasti with a better claim. The throne should be his.

Ileosa is not of Arabasti blood and a mere marriage does not grant any right to the Crimson Throne on its own under any legal tradition. While neither Pathfinder nor Golarion is explicitly based upon the real world laws of our own world, the legal assumptions that prevail throughout Golarion ARE almost invariably rooted in our own historical laws - and that's an undeniable fact.

There is no real world precedent for this at all. And that's not a legal technicality we can just hand waive -- that's true for a damned good reason and those damned good reasons don't just vanish in a fantasy world populated by humans. The damned good reason is because it inevitably leads not to marriage alliances, but to regicide and murder. ALL THE TIME. No way does a legal tradition like that work.

So, if Ileosa is plainly a usurper, this would explain, at the least, why the negative reaction to her claim to rule is so swift. She really is a usurper. The Throne belongs to Venster. The problem is that a Tiefling spawn of a Malebranche of Hell is not acceptable to the Peers, so they support Ileosa's claim, even though they know it is unlawful. If they do not support her, it means civil war.

If you stop and think about it, the alternative plot lines that emerge and flow from the setup to Curse of the Crimson Throne from among the Peers and their reaction to Ileosa's claim are really FAR richer than the story we are offered in the AP itself, as written.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is Venster's existence even common knowledge?


Steel_Wind wrote:

There are a number of alternative takes upon Queen Ileosa (mine is even more extreme than others presented here) but the central question which the authors of the AP do not explain or even attempt is perhaps the most obvious:

Under what legal theory of succession does Queen Ileosa have *any* lawful claim to the Crimson Throne at all?

Ileosa is merely the wife of a dead King. Under the rules of primogeniture, she has no claim to the Crimson Throne on her own; none whatsoever. She might have a claim to the Throne as Regent if she and Eodred had a child, but there is no child. In medieval times, Regency periods were often the times where Queen Mothers held power or shared it with a Regency council. But they never held it in their own name, they held it in the name of the King's heir who was not yet of age to be crowned.

Even if a female child inherits in accordance with her order of birth in a modified primogeniture, Ileosa still has no claim to the Throne. A marriage does not make you heir to the Throne. A Monarch inherits through bloodline, not marriage; a dowager queen is not a real Queen. That's why they are referred to as dowagers in the first place.

That is why marriages create alliances between families. To marry another gives them no claim to your family's property or titles after death. Instead, it gives each family a shared interest in ensuring that the children of that union are successful. Ideally, those heirs will combine both families property to leverage and focus that power.

Think it through. If a marriage gave one a claim to title and property by right of survivorship after death, no noble would ever risk getting married. It's an invitation to immediately be killed by your spouse; it's a death sentence. That's why Medieval Europe didn't recognize a succession through right of marriage. The children inherited lands and titles, spouses did not.

Put simply, the lawful claims by the Peers to a right to the Throne,...

The problem is that you are attempting to force Earth rules of succession on Golarion. In all likelihood, due to Golarion being an entirely different planet with an entirely different history than ours, their succession rules are different than ours. Hell, you could just say that Korvosa, being a backwards former colony of Cheliax led it to develop a different tradition regarding succession compared to the rest of the world, if Golarion's legal systems matching up on a 1:1 basis is that important to you, but on the whole it easier to just say "Korvosa's system is different than Earth's, that is why nobody is calling her a usurper".

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, do not assume that earth traditions are accurate for Golarion. In Korvosa, if a king or queen dies, the surviving king or queen has the lawful claim to the throne. This is, in fact, relatively standard for most monarchies in Golarion. Regardless of whether there's a child or not, and regardless of who was King or Queen first.

I suppose I should have made that clear, but that was such a primal underlying assumption that the entire AP is based on I thought it was obvious.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I assume all that stuff is laid out in Korvosa's long, elaborate charter that is never expounded upon suck that I can make up whatever I want.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Yeah, do not assume that earth traditions are accurate for Golarion. In Korvosa, if a king or queen dies, the surviving king or queen has the lawful claim to the throne. This is, in fact, relatively standard for most monarchies in Golarion. Regardless of whether there's a child or not, and regardless of who was King or Queen first.

I suppose I should have made that clear, but that was such a primal underlying assumption that the entire AP is based on I thought it was obvious.

I basically assumed that was how it was. The AP doesn't mention anything about pursuing rightful heirs to the throne. It's just not part of the story because she's aggressively ridding the city of undesirables.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malefactor wrote:
The problem is that you are attempting to force Earth rules of succession on Golarion. In all likelihood, due to Golarion being an entirely different planet with an entirely different history than ours, their succession rules are different than ours.

It's not about legal traditions, it's about the enduring reason for them that arises out of human nature.

If spouses inherit land and titles, then getting married is an invitation to be murdered by your spouse. It must be utterly commonplace in Golarion if that is the law of succession. The only test that determines if you can get away with it or not relies upon naked power.

The constant that remains in a fantasy game world is the enduring quality of human nature. That doesn't change. That's what makes these characters appear recognizable to us.

So that's the problem I have with a spouse inheriting land and titles. That doesn't work for me at a logic level. A feudal society, or at least one based upon rule by noble blood derived from a monarchy doesn't work under that assumption as it inevitably collapses under regicide and murder.

You would marry your enemies, not your allies, in such a society.

I accept that James Jacobs has a different view. Nevertheless, my difficulty remains, just the same.


James Jacobs wrote:

Yeah, do not assume that earth traditions are accurate for Golarion. In Korvosa, if a king or queen dies, the surviving king or queen has the lawful claim to the throne. This is, in fact, relatively standard for most monarchies in Golarion. Regardless of whether there's a child or not, and regardless of who was King or Queen first.

I suppose I should have made that clear, but that was such a primal underlying assumption that the entire AP is based on I thought it was obvious.

Huzzah! Well said, Directosaur!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steel_Wind wrote:
...getting married is an invitation to be murdered by your spouse.

Yes. Yes, it is.

-Skeld


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
...getting married is an invitation to be murdered by your spouse.

Yes. Yes, it is.

-Skeld

Which is why every rich person in recent history who got married was subsequently murdered by their spouse. Oh wait...

On one hand, claiming the throne by virtue of marriage is not how we did things... But as a general rule our own history is one riddled with bigotry and discrimination that isn't necessarily going to be emulated in fantasy simply because "that's how it was back then". The reasons why spouses won't murder their partners for their lands is exactly the same reason why people don't do it these days: Because you get caught and, punished, and wind up with nothing.

Golarion cannot function like medieval Europe, because medieval Europe doesn't have magic (and dragons, and undead etc etc), and Golarion does. Ileosa had to be possessed by a draconic herald of Zon Kuthon to grow the overwhelming gall to actually try to off her husband and claim the throne, and she does so by basically being a murderous, scheming vengeful megalomaniac, who is supported by agents of hell, and others with something to gain from.her rise to power. On her own she would have had her head on a pike in a matter of days or weeks.

Yes. It's odd. No, it isn't unworkable.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
...getting married is an invitation to be murdered by your spouse.

Yes. Yes, it is.

-Skeld

He said, jokingly.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Is Venster's existence even common knowledge?

It is known by those in power, but may have been forgotten by the common people.

I had understood that Domina initially tried to welch on her agreement to conceive a tiefling with Malacoda and that was one of the reasons that the Asmodeans were able to sacrifice the virgins to the Eryines in dedication to the new foundation for the temple.

Then her people rebel, she has to do an about face, has most of the virgins resurrected, etc.. Venster is conceived and later born.

I'm not sure where I read this. I have tried to find the passage that supports it and while that seems a reasonable flow of events, I am not sure it is canon.

The implications of a tiefling bastard to the Chelaxian nobility would seem to disqualify them from consideration as they seem to be persona non grata through the Empire. Their circumstances in Korvosa do not seem to be much improved and what few there are seem to be mostly confined to life in the cloister of the Academae.

Liberty's Edge

Raynulf wrote:


Which is why every rich person in recent history who got married was subsequently murdered by their spouse. Oh wait...

On one hand, claiming the throne by virtue of marriage is not how we did things... But as a general rule our own history is one riddled with bigotry and discrimination that isn't necessarily going to be emulated in fantasy simply because "that's how it was back then". The reasons why spouses won't murder their partners for their lands is exactly the same reason why people don't do it these days: Because you get caught and, punished, and wind up with nothing.

I'll respond to this and then leave it alone, because I expect that this exact thinking has a great deal to do with this idea: that somehow the rule against a spouse inheriting land and titles was born of sexism - and Golarion isn't sexist.

I think that is superficial and overly simplistic, though I expect that made it appear initially attractive from a social progressive perspective.

The reason why it is dangerous to found a system of GOVERNMENT, (not the mere inheritance of wealth that you point to) but actual transmission of political power based upon succession via marriage is because the people who inherit by operation of law then control **everything** by default, before the crime is proved. It's not just about who gets the gold. It's about who gets the army and who doesn't merely "control the courts" -- they ARE the court.

It means that you get away with it based upon naked power. So yes, it really is an invitation to murder. Hereditary government works because of family alliances and their interest in ensuring their offspring succeed. This fundamentally alters that assumption.

It may appear to be superficially "not sexist", but I think if you look at it a little deeper, it doesn't make sense for a whole lot of other reasons. And women are just as likely to be the victim of this legal regime as they are its benefactors.

Anyway, it appears I have a very different view of the workability of this social and legal premise. I am not all persuaded and it appears that you are equally not persuaded of the contrary view.

We shall agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that.


Steel_Wind wrote:


I'll respond to this and then leave it alone, because I expect that this exact thinking has a great deal to do with this idea: that somehow the rule against a spouse inheriting land and titles was born of sexism - and Golarion isn't sexist.

On one hand, that is not actually the reasoning I presented, but given that it was a tangent mentioned in the same post, I appreciate why it came across that way. Dangers of posting by phone.

Steel_Wind wrote:


The reason why it is dangerous to found a system of GOVERNMENT, (not the mere inheritance of wealth that you point to) but actual transmission of political power based upon succession via marriage is because the people who inherit by operation of law then control **everything** by default, before the crime is proved. It's not just about who gets the gold. It's about who gets the army and who doesn't merely "control the courts" -- they ARE the court.

It means that you get away with it based upon naked power. So yes, it really is an invitation to murder. Hereditary government works because of family alliances and their interest in ensuring their offspring succeed. This fundamentally alters that assumption.

Ah... No.

A common misconception is that the king/queen wields supreme power and is answerable only to god, and decides matters of life and death on a whim. This is not the case outside of bad Hollywood movies.

A monarch is usually "first among equals" with th other nobles (called the "peerage" for a reason), and while they are accepted as the leader of the group, they cannot command them to do something they don't want to do. The royal court exists not so people can suck up to the monarch, but because the monarch must negotiate with the other nobility to enact their will. It isn't cut-and-dry absolute power, it is instead... Very political.

Even in most fantasy (with varying depictions of feudal society), being "king" doesn't make you above the law, especially not if a crime has been committed against nobility. So if your spouse (and former monarch) dies under mysterious circumstances, there is NO WAY the nobility will accept you stepping in and deciding your own innocence. Ileosa pulled it off due to a) making it look like natural causes and b) outside assistance.

Otherwise you need to contend with
1) Family of your spouse, who may suspect you and wish to see justice done, and likely command the loyalty of "your" troops more than you do.
2) Other nobles, who command their own knights and armies.
3) In Golarion, other interested groups, such as the church of Abadar, who has more authority over the Korvosan Guard than the Queen...

So... No. Inheritance by marriage isn't grounds for one person to lead a coup; because it takes a LOT of support to claim and hold ground, and without it, the victory will be brief indeed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
There is no real world precedent for this at all.

*cough*

Jagiellonian dynasty started with Władysław II Jagiełło (duke Yogaila of neighboring Lithuania before his baptism and the union with Poland) inheriting crown of Kingdom Of Poland from his wife, Jadwiga, King Of Poland, with approval of the most influential lords of the Lesser Poland (and help of a few new privileges for the nobility).

Before her premature death shortly after childbirth (the child died at the same time), Jadwiga was the reigning king of Poland. It's important to note, though, that according to the union signed, Władysław was crowned as her co-ruler and actively ruled along her before her death. Still, his legal authority was based on the marriage and had to be re-affirmed after Jadwiga's death and opposed by lords of Greater Poland.

There were cadet branches of earlier Piast dynasty still existing at that time in Silesia, Pomerania, and Mazovia (Mazovian prince was favored pick of the Greater Poland nobility) but they were already overlooked when it came to succession after Casimir III Of Poland.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another case of royal spouse inheriting the throne: Sigismund inherited the throne of Hungary from his wife Mary, Jadwiga's older sister, after she died in premature birth caused by fall from horse. Unlike in Władysław/Jadwiga joint rulership, Sigismund was de facto the main ruler during their marriage, with Mary having much less influence over government.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Home. Toddler distracted. Posting!

The titular "Curse" of the crimson throne relates to the fact that none of the monarchs of Korvosa have sired offspring while they sat on the throne; successors were either born before they took the throne, or were siblings, cousins etc. By the time Eodred took to the throne, there just aren't very many Korvosa Arabasti's around.

So with Eodred's apparent death to illness, the primary candidate (per Golarion tradition) was Ileosa... and while she's disliked for being a petulant brat by a lot of the population, that isn't as important as to whether the nobility of Korvosa object strongly enough to her claim as to openly challenge it. And generally, you have to really dislike someone to do so, because it usually winds up involving soldiers and a bunch of death. There also isn't really anyone else for the nobles to rally behind in her stead; as soon as you step down a level to talk about, say, Marcus Endrin, you lose any semblance of united front as several other nobles would be on equal footing and wanting the throne for themselves.

So, with no obvious foul play in the king's death, most of the nobility wouldn't want to disrupt the status quo with a succession war. Add to that, that Ileosa is young, beautiful, recently single, and her reputation as a self-centered and shallow twit will make many suspect they can manipulate her for their own gain. Indeed, she is exactly the kind of candidate that the more manipulative nobles would want on the throne... at least at first.

Bringing it to the table... there are several ways to go about it, depending on your group and tastes.

  • You can play it out as written, which has the subtlety of a brick, but is dramatic and easy to grok.
  • You can play her as being more sympathetic (at least early on), portraying her as being now somewhat isolated and with few friends... and nobles circling her like vultures looking to grow fat off the king's recent demise.
  • You can play her as being a vain, tempestuous and immature brat, who has the throne almost by default, as none of the nobles feel she is a legitimate threat to their interests, and so they jockey among themselves for who the next "real king/quene" is going to be; with Ileosa expected to simply cave in to their plots or wilt at the first demonstration of power.
  • You can play her as being conflicted and almost MPD; bouncing back and forth between terrified and overwhelmed, and radiantly arrogant and domineering. Going this route is harder, but foreshadows the eventual revelation of her possession by Kazavon. That being said, I much prefer Ileosa as the primary antagonist of the AP, rather than a damsel in distress. Because she's freaking glorious

That's my pre-kitchen-sentence 2c, anyway :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget that Korvosa's monarchy is quite young, having come about only after the death of Aroden. Living elves, gnomes, etc, could easily recall a time before the monarchy, and its installation. Those with the power to set one family on the throne have the power to set another in their place, so the nobles of Korvosa, in a way, very much have the power to give Ileosa legitimacy (or, at least as much legitimacy as the preceding dynasty they installed on the throne had).

We also don't know who Eodred had named as his heir. It's possible Ileosa had used her wiles and/or powers to talk him into making her his legal heir. Who else has he got, anyway? If Eodred had named her his heir, that's all the legitimacy she needs. Look at Rome: Emperor Claudius was convinced by his wife Agrippina to adopt her son Nero and name him heir. A few years later, Agrippina poisons him, and Nero inherits. Now, it's not a perfect analogy, Agrippina was Claudius' niece and Nero his great-nephew, so they were already members of the royal family, but it is a case of a spouse committing murder to get her line on the throne, and no one batted an eye because the Emperor had made Nero his legal heir.

Liberty's Edge

Ouachitonian wrote:

so the nobles of Korvosa, in a way, very much have the power to give Ileosa legitimacy;

We also don't know who Eodred had named as his heir. It's possible Ileosa had used her wiles and/or powers to talk him into making her his legal heir. If Eodred had named her his heir, that's all the legitimacy she needs.

I am in complete agreement with both of these points. A prevailing cultural and legal tradition that would result in systemic problems is one thing; a practical, "one-off" declaration is quite another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take was that the successor would be elected by the council lead by the seneschal. With Neolandus missing the election could not be held nor a replacement appointed. The nobles let the Queen continue to use the authority she had excersised whilst the King was ill whilst they jostled for position. The plague gave the Queen the excuse to cement her authority.

Sczarni

part of this is mitigated by the "cutscenes" that show how powerful she is. If the PCs take a long time planning on taking her out at her next public appearance, and then the cut-scene with the general happens... it makes them think twice.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Curse of the Crimson Throne / Ileosa's backstory All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Curse of the Crimson Throne