Purple Overkill's page

Blame D&D continuity. The energy damage types existed before the whole cosmological background came into it and PF inherited it.
Would it be simpler to have "Earth" as an energy type? Yes, but for the sake of backwards compatibility, we´ll never get it.

Kileanna wrote:

Nobody sees themselves as evil, so how does the characters justify themselves to think they are the good guys?

This, to me, is sort of the problem. Since "Detect Evil" (and similar) are level 1 spells available to a variety of classes. If you're an evil person who can cast that spell, you can scan yourself and say "yes, I am apparently evil." What sort of person, though, receives that information and does not decide "Well, I had better shape up and be a better person. I didn't think I was *evil* but I guess I've gone too far."

Me, for example. Should I not ping as LE, then there´s something wrong. The choices I made for my life, I had to ask myself: "Do I care that what I produce and sell kills people, ruines lives and fosters addictions, all the while being a legal thing? No, absolutely not" - in objective morality, that stance makes me "evil" and I´m perfectly fine with it, wouldn't´t have it any other way.

There´s a certain appeal in playing the ruthless, ends-always-justify-the-means type and favoring options and tactics that will get the job done, pretty effectively so, but which I actually don´t want anyone to witness or suffer thru in RL. That´s a Craig Davis "James Bond", Scorpion Clan Bushi or similar character.

Edit: As an example, in a Dragon Empires campaign, I played a Slayer themed as "Failure at Bushido", learning the tools of the trade, but never getting into what honor and the order really mean.

Casters: Arcanist/Magaambyan > Wizard/Diabolist > Psychic

Melee: Barbarian (AM B..) > Paladin > Fighter/Grey Maiden o. Hellknight

Ranged: Paladin > Ranger > Fighter

Support: Cleric/Angelfire > Occultist > Skald

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Purple Overkill wrote:

That´s just our modern way of thinking and how we see "Free Will" as part of the end-all, be-all of "Good" - which is pretty much CG.

When you're willing to go to genocide to achieve your goals, you've hit the deep end of the alignment pool.

Being completely unfamiliar with the specific example being discussed...

Lawful Good types don't need to see "Free Will" as inherently valuable the same way that CG types do, so it's perfectly acceptable for them to punish those that disrupt the harmonious social order or refuse to live up to their communal responsibilities.

That doesn't mean that they will perform evil actions to enforce their social order.

Basically, it´s a "Kill or Convert" type of Crusade with the sides involved being LN vs CN. So pretty old school Morcook.

Yes, that can happen when confusing "order" with "law".

Purple Overkill wrote:

Again, a very modern view of things.

Yeah, no. There's a limit to how far you can dismiss actual, objective, harm being done to people as an arbitrary constraint by dismissing that (you know, the entire idea of being good) as "modern".

You do not like being stabbed. Other people do not like being stabbed either. They've known this at least as long as they've been able to write down "hey, don't stab people"

Incidentally, I work in an industry with a yearly direct and indirect death toll that is way above the official "genocide" threshold and everyone is pretty cool with that.

Lol. Damn that's a great story

There´s even a "Part II - The Return" to it:

We´ve some serious after-action talk, go into the misconception what play-style is neither covered by PF and me as a gm and decide to have a second go at it one week later. Same group setup, but the Cavalier getting replaced with a Witch to have some kind of spell support.

(Please note that I rarely, if ever, fudge dice - this time, tho....)

- The bandit encounter comes up and I... roll and confirm a crit against the Monk....
- The Mite lair comes up, the Rogue scouts... and again fails against the traps. The Ranger goes in for the rescue.... and triggers the other trap...
- Same dungeon, the Witch gets nosy, casts light on a stone and drop it... on the Giant Centipede.
- First random encounter roll for a hex: 1 Worg. (They fired one arrow at it from 330ft. Missed, but the Worg trod off, unimpressed)

.... I .... cringed.

Edit: After that, it was all pretty smooth gaming, the Cavalier made a cameo appearance and the Worg turned into a running gag.

Balkoth wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

If your CN is refusing to do something because they don't want to harm good people... That isn't CN. That is CG. The character is choosing, actively, good over evil and avoiding actions that are evil. That is the definition of Chaotic Good.

Wrong.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

That's Chaotic Neutral -- they won't want to kill innocents, but they won't go out of their way to help others.

I agree with you. The Evil people of my past campaigns don't mind if they help people or hurt people as long as their actions benefit themselves. Selfishness with a healthy dose of pragmatism is usually what we'd see. Makes me wonder whether our "Evil" campaigns were other people's "Neutral" campaigns.

That´s possible. Some "Evul" campaigns I´ve seen over the decades were rampant power trips, ego matches and chock full of domineering behavior.

Purple Overkill wrote:

That´s just our modern way of thinking and how we see "Free Will" as part of the end-all, be-all of "Good" - which is pretty much CG.

When you're willing to go to genocide to achieve your goals, you've hit the deep end of the alignment pool.

To quote Dredd: "It´s all the deep end".

Again, a very modern view of things.

Some years back, a group of players contacted me, saying they were interested in trying PF and that Kingmaker sounds good.

So I do the regular session zero thing, explaining how this is a cooperative game, monitoring the shared character building, and so on, starts out really promising.

The first session starts.... and all five players have their character move in total opposite directions, from running back to Brevoy, to haggling with Oleg to wanting to scout the nearby woods all alone.

So starts the slow TPK:

- The Monk (I´m so fast and stealthy!) gets one-shot outside by the bandits.
- The Ranger (I´m a perfect woodsman and hunter) gets eaten by a Worg.
- The Rogue (Stealthy trap-handler!) enters the Mite lair alone and botches Perception for the traps.
- The Cavalier (Courtly manners are my thing!)... well, I lose interest in what that character does because his travel destination is more than 2 months away.
- The Barbarian gets into insulting and attacking Oleg & Co. and won´t cease that, ending up killed by the NPC in self-defense.

Turns out the whole group was made up out of VtM players and were used to their characters always acting solo and power-tripping around in their corner of the world. Their gm got fed up and left the group...

Least to worst:

1) LG, NG
2) LN, LE, CG
3) N, NE, CN, CE

Random observation: people interesting in cooperative play-styles tend towards (1), spot-light joggers, power-trippers and generally obnoxious people tend towards (3).

The fact that Qun demands the assimilation of all people and the Qunari have literally crusaded against non-believers makes them Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral at best.

That´s just our modern way of thinking and how we see "Free Will" as part of the end-all, be-all of "Good" - which is pretty much CG.

Bog standard reach/summon clerics, mostly Angelfire or Apostle archetypes. As for deities, I find Shelyn, Shizuru and Groetus fun for clerics.

"Noir World". It´s always 4pm, it rains, life is s$+$ty. The catch: There´s only one DMPC, all you´ve got to do as a player is taking turns in being the Voice from the Off and comment on what´s going on.

While channeling itself can be quite good, basing your primary tactic on it will be unsatisfying, if not to say boring.

@White Hilt:

This conflict is more about the difference between "Slavery" and "Indentured Servitude" and the difference between an NG and CG view of it.
Basically, Sarenrae is connected to a culture where paying off dept can be done by going into servitude to "work it off", or apprenticeship has to be paid for with a period of servitude in exchange for that training, and so on.

As this is neither cruel nor a form of unjust punishment, she´s nothing against it, as it is not forced and abused slavery.

Purple Overkill wrote:

If you have that kind of players, they want to play against the system and have you on board as a manager who keeps the system going.

I mean, if I,as the GM, have absolutely no say in what happens and I'm just there to be a referee, I don't think I would want to GM anymore. I don't see how that can possibly be fun for me.

It´s what this tangent of the discussion is coming to, to be blunt about it. Provide the encounters, provide the window dressings, shut up.

@TheAlicornSage:

You´re confusing two things.

The existence for rules for playing a game means we play a game, as now boundaries and goals are set, what defines "playing a game" means. That´s important because people tend to confuse "but playing D&D with buddies is fun and fun is all that should be about, right", so "toying" and "procrastination" get confused with "playing a game".

So, naturally, your idea of what "playing a game" and "what importance have the tools we use to do so within the boundary of the rules for playing the game" will clash with someone who says "We´re playing a game and the tools we use to set the boundaries for the game". Now this is often because people can´t really define the first step and set the clear boundary marks for "what the actual game" is.

If you want to write a novel, don't bother with players.

Gets repeated a lot, is often actually not true.

You want to create an epic, then the story is the whole setting and the players have agency within the confines of the story.
Inexperienced storytellers just don´t get the "agency" part here, inexperienced players don´t get that there´re boundaries to their agency.

Are "sandboxing" and "story-driven" games really at odds? I think this is a false dichotomy.

The problem is that "RPG" covers a very broad range of gaming that is not really compatible after a certain degree of separation. It´s like talking about a "Ballgame", covering things from "Soccer" and going from there.

Before we can say those things are at odds, we´d first talk about as what sub-type of RPG they´re meant to be played and subsequently, what "player agency" means for each type.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

So they know what kind of game you run? Clear communication? Respecting your players play style?

I always talk at great length about that but "how I feel about dice" has never actually come up. I guess I've never encountered anybody who feels strongly about this topic IRL.

I talk about tone and themes, how to handle objectionable material, the basic rules of improv, collaborative world-building, how all rules are optional rules, that I'm more interested in "Storygaming" than "wargaming", etc. but never about dice.

I play "with" my (fellow) players and not "against" them, it´s not a tournament, it´s not competitive, it´s 100% pure cooperative gaming and that´s it. So agreed, talking about what part the rules take in this is a thing, but as a tool of communication, not as the outline of what the game is.

@TheAlicornSage:

Your initial assessment, that there´s a difference between "The rules on how to conduct a game" and "The Rules you use during the course of the game" is the important one that will greatly influence how to understand what is meant when using the word "Balance" (With the added factor of the fan-base avoiding that topic, too).

The first set of rules also cover the topic of "creativity", as this will set the boundary conditions for what is or should be possible to do during the course of a game.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to play a character with high Int and Wis who is still Chaotic Neutral?

It's easy (VERY easy) to play a CN character who's silly, crazy, psychotic, shortsighted, fractured, fanatical, impetuous, or otherwise mentally impaired... but is there a personality that can be thoughtful and insightful, and yet still manage to be Chaotic Neutral?

In the first place, it´s very easy to play in a very disruptive manner and than blame it on just playing your alignment, in this case CN, support this with citing known disruptive character traits and declare all your action as "your character just being so". Bis this doesn´t have anything to do with CN.

CN is about individuality, personal freedom, the insight that personal growth can only be achieved by not being hampered by conformity and the "greater good" is served best by having each and every person decide on what his personal form of "good" actually should be.

Being fickle and erratic can happen when a flash of insight strikes you and you need to act now, debate later, but the same insight also should tell you to let others in on the knowledge and action, else you _do_ look a bit like a madman.

So I´d agree: Sherlock and House are good examples, Deadpool not so very much.

Let him. Give him a free slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness. Then sit down with him and explain your world view on the paladin oath.

When he is about to do something that may lead to falling the Phylactery (you) will warn him.

I think this is a case where the gm should actually learn to paladin ....

Oh, I did. I once had the misfortune to start a group with a bunch of players that all got into the game under the same gm, a guy who operated under the believe that the rules should actually dictate the game and the sole job of the gm is to call out the results of the rolls.

Ckorik wrote:

FormerFiend wrote:

Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.

The problem of course has nothing to do with the GM - who always can do that (and always could) - it's when the player doesn't want that game and the GM uses 'it's in the book' to justify their position.

Communication communication communication.

If you're a player that feels particularly passionate about this, and you're playing with a DM who's DMing a game in a homebrew setting where they make the rules, sit down and have a conversation with them as to whether or not they've actually put thought into whether they actually want a given spell to be evil by the rules of their world and they aren't just doing it "because the book says".

That being said, one should also be perfectly prepared for their DM to rule that yeah, they do want those spells to be evil, for whatever reason.

Analysis first, communication second.

Let´s be honest about it: "Evil" gets cool and powerful toys as this is basically a heroic fantasy game and gms need an arsenal to challenge players with, on the condition that we stay within the boundaries of the rules and it can still be a challenge vs. a whole group. So naturally, "our" toys are more powerful, else we couldn't´t really work within the indented system.

In addition, the rise and prominence of the "dark" or "anti-" hero using the weapons of the enemy to beat them (and look cool while doing so) gets more pronounced, while the "white knight" is getting more and more of a bad rep.

Third, too many players opt into the "consumer entitlement mentality". This doesn´t work in a game that is collaborative and competitive at the same time.

... then comes communication.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

I don't see how overruling equals cheating.

It is, if and when the GM explicitely stated, that he wouldn't do so beforehand, more so if the players explicitely stated that they don't want the GM to do so.

If one the other hand, the GM announces that he might do so, if necessary, for sake of everything you listed, and the players accepted that, then it's part of the group treaty and by definition not cheating.

And the thing is, that there is only one valid reason not to tell the players beforehand and that is if the players made clear that they don't want to know if fudging belongs to the GMs arsenal. I which case players should simply tell the GM before he even mentions that topic.

To best honest: D&D/PF is not a self-contained game and can not be run without a gm handling the content, opposition and adjusting the rules, as every iteration of d20 needs that kind of adjustment.

I think you recently quoted Mike Mearls on that yourself, correct?

Kileanna wrote:

And what if they want to play the «LG garbage»? I like the part of playing a paladin code.

i was talking about the fact they are forced into LG if they actually want to play LG all the power to them i just find that LG is far to restrictive to play and also has a tendency to ruin other players fun just as much as a player playing chaotic evil

Strange. I find playing a LG Paladin a liberating past-time. The clarity of morals and purpose, the simplicity of not having to justify your actions. It´s simple and freeing.

I second Korvosa. All the chelish vibe and still in Varisia.

Although... what's Neutral in Law vs. Chaos?

That doesn't help me.

Going by your list, I begin to see why you´re skeptical about paladins.

The lawful types care about "Order" with "Law" being one possible part of that. They think that an ordered society is best for all.
In case of LG, that´s tempered by a heavy dose of "mercy", as they try to avoid having the order they create and protect do harm to the people, else they slip into Hellknight territory.
The polar opposites are the chaotic types that see "Freedom" as the greatest good for all, as unpressed individuality will lead to personal growths.

So it´s easy to see where neutral, especially NG is the middle ground here, by simply accepting that both sides have merit and being able to see that they must not be mutually exclusive. "It´s good to have laws that protect society, but it´s also good that people are protected from the laws"

That runs contrary to having planet-spanning (or in some cases even interplanetary) churches and racial patron deities. That´s very important because of Pharasma, which is the central repository for knowledge how the planes and souls work.
We also have too many countries or major cities with an overly high percentage of plane-touched.
Then there´s people traveling half the globe to join the crusades in Mendev.

So, no, I think the supernatural aspects are too broadly distributed in the setting, even someone in a far away village will have knowledge.

Do flat earth believers actually exist? I always thought that was some kind of joke. Well, someone can be in denial, but that doesn´t change what the truth is.

I think it´s pretty hard to not know when living in a setting like Golarion. Too much planar traffic, too many manifested outsiders, deities, nature or philosophies granting access to spells, races like gnomes that migrated from the First World, occult rituals working for non-casters, all that.

It´s interesting how this knowledge would actually shape a persons attitude.

Check the updated version in Adventurer Guide. It works on the first successful charge in a round and calls out to work while mounted.

Purple Overkill wrote:

Would you be sent to Hell for freeing slaves, breaking laws and living life as a free and kind spirit or would you be end up in Elysium (which actually looks kinda like a reward to me)?

Where Huck would actually end up in a Golarion cosmology isn't really the point. The point is that Huck believed he would go to hell for helping Jim escape, but did so anyway. You asserted that a determination to help others even at the cost of eternal damnation for yourself was "an evil attitude to have," and Huck serves as a non-evil example of someone who was willing to do exactly that.

Oh, it´s very important. The nature of an objective and manifested morality system means you can have actual and concrete knowledge and have no need for believe at all.

@Avoron:

Would you be sent to Hell for freeing slaves, breaking laws and living life as a free and kind spirit or would you be end up in Elysium (which actually looks kinda like a reward to me)?

The situation with Huck is actually a reminder to certain people who think themselves to be christians that the gospel puts kindness and mercy above the laws and a true believer will always have to follow his conscience above all else.

No.

Part of casting Psychic Asylum is actually naming the specific task you want to accomplish in that 15 minutes.

Nah, you´re just committing the error to comparing a troop with a regular single monster.

Your first evaluation is right, they are CR 6 and their troops statistics should reflect this.

@DarkAviator:

You seem to mix-up how character creation works, therefore you´re coming to the wrong conclusion.

The first step, determining ability scores before adding race, can work with a lot of options to get there, from 3d6 to 4d6dl and PB or using an array.
In this step, no method should be able to create better or worse results than any other, setting the boundary rules to 3 and 18 (for this step).
After that basic step and beginning with adding racial modifiers, those two numbers cease to play a role in the game.

@Avoron:

This is where looking at how and why things are connected matters.

Look at it like this: The Outer Planes are a constant war to find out which "reality" will be the ultimate "cosmic truth" and eliminate all else in the long run.
Same with the Inner Planes. Once one reaches absolute dominance, "reality" will be drastically altered as a consequence.

I hope you´re aware of a very interesting part from Heaven Unleashed, that goes into great detail explaining that over the course of time, an Petitioners alignment gets forcefully changed to fit the plane it ended up on, then strengthening the power of that plane.

So in the long run, you´re not just condemning yourself to be damned to Hell, but you´ll actually switch to LE, thereby being one more soul to be tallied when judgement day comes, strengthening Hell in the process.

This is why the intentions don´t matter when the outcome is absolute.

It´s a bit like voting in an elimination system: Suddenly, everyone is shocked by the outcome.

Your literary example is a good one, actually, but very complex to go into.

The main problem with it are the terms "good" and "evil" (Without using capital letters) which directly go into "reward", "punishment" and "redemption".

Taking a closer look at it, we shouldn't take the word "hell" too literally, especially not in the context of having an actual "Hell".
It´s more like an society having certain values, seeing them as "good" and naturally treading everything that goes against those values as "bad".

Now the thing is that we don´t talk about a pure B&W moral system (either/or), but we actually have 9 very valid stances that each consider themselves to be "good" and the polar opposite to be "evil" (or bad, or non-good, or whatever).

So taking the absolute stance, Huck Finn existed in a society that is either LN or LE and is CG himself. So naturally he´s "damned" and "evil" by not following his societies alignment.

Besides that, it´s a simple matter to look at why certain spells have an alignment tag. It mostly concerns divine casters and what spells they´re automatically banned from using. A good cleric simply can´t use Animate Dead, while an evil cleric can´t use Protection from Evil.

CrystalSeas wrote:

graystone wrote:

how are we to figure out what weapon falls under each 'type' if we don't use the weapons group listings?

What are you trying to achieve by ignoring the weapons group listings?

I assume you have some reason that you don't want to use them. But what's the point?

I don't think you've comprehended what I'm saying. Some suggest that you don't look at the groups but instead use some undefined 'type'. I'M asking why they are ignoring the groups and how you figure out what 'type' a weapon is without them. It's not me that's ignoring the groups.

PF is a permissive system with the basic rule that things should work like they do in RL unless explicitly stated to work differently.

Each weapon is a discreet rules element telling you what it is and going into how that thing is translated into game stats. A Firearm is an firearm because you need the firearms proficiency to use it and that in turn is tied to the general firearm rules.

The weapon groups do not touch on in-game reality on any point, they´re part of the permissive nature of the PF rules. If a class feature, feat or something comes up that gives you a permission to use or alter something, you need to know what you´re actually permitted to use it on, then you consult the list to see what you´re actually permitted to.

What you try is turning it from a permissive tool into a descriptive tool. What weapon group things are in do not alter the discreet rules that define the weapon and there´s absolutely no indication that this should happen.

A "sling" is no Firearm as it doesn´t use the rules for firearms, which are the defining element here.
Being able to move it into the Firearms weapon group only gives you the permission to use whatever legal rules options you have and can apply to it.

Edit: I guess this is the fallout caused by AMH/WMH. The core Fighter is supposed to wield a broad array of weapons and now we´re back again to them being specialized on one or max two weapons again. The unintended side-effect could be Brawlers using Shield Brace and a Naginata....

Waifu, it mainly means that you overrate what "weapon group" means.

@Waifu:

You over-complicate things.

Basically, you have two sets of rules that work independent and don´t touch or modify each other: The rules for the individual weapon and the rules for Weapon Groups.

The rules for the individual weapon are very specific on what that weapon is, while the rules for weapon groups are very specific on what boni go there.

Don´t give too much weight to how a weapon group is named. It makes no difference if it´s called "Light Blades", "Heavy Blades" or "A" and "B" as this is only an indicator for how certain class features should interact with the specific weapon if appropriate.

Purple Overkill wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The clarification that Evil spell meant Evil act was necessary

Once it was given, it was pretty obvious that people would clamor for a guideline

By its very nature a guideline cannot satisfy everyone

TBH I believe there would not be such an uproar about this if Infernal Healing was not on the Wizard list and allowed in PFS. That Evil PCs are banned in PFS made things even worse

Can't speak for anyone else, but infernal healing doesn't even enter into it for me. I'm more concerned with summoning, personally. And, again, the ping pong morality.

The interesting point with a setting where objective morality is a thing and can always be measured and checked is why you would actually use tools (in the broadest sense) that you know will do spiritual harm to you?

Maybe you think, "Look, I get that the gods and the planes and the magical fabric of the universe or whatever have declared that using this healing spell to save someone's life is an objectively evil thing to do, but I'm going to do it anyway because I actually care about helping people, not just tallying up plus marks on some sort of cosmic spreadsheet."

Now tell me, is that an evil attitude to have?

It is. The ends do never justify the means and the mortal realms is nothing compared for the eternity of the outer planes.

Ethics can be a cruel topic when the immortal soul is a proven thing. Sounds harsh, right?

No cheating is ever acceptable, however what is considered "cheating" will vary by the group. Some know and expect for a GM to fudge dice for and against them. Some want the dice to be the sole decider even if it means their characters die.

PS: Some also want the GM to "cheat", but they don't want to know about it.

Let me phrase it this way: One problem is that we can approach this game with very different expectations, from it being a simulation, to a (amitrash-)game, to be focused on the narrative.

The rules are very neutral but also often tend to lead to unplausible results, depending on your focus. For ex., let´s just assume the focus is on the simulation. We run into the usual problem that happens when using the rules to simulate something and what actually should be simulated clash, as the result is off. In this case, we have to adjust the result by hand, fiat and knowledge.

We can have this talk both ways: Plot Armor is one, Plausible Reality the other. Especially with a focus on Sim, the point of "cheating" comes up when a die roll indicates a result that is never, ever possible.

Being part of a Weapon Group doesn´t alter the basic properties of the weapon. A sling in the firearms group stays a sling.

Purple Overkill wrote:

In a setting with active deities claiming dominion over their portfolio(s), the notion of an unified legal system as we know it is a bit odd.

Not every fantasy setting has active deities though. And if they claim dominion over their portfolios might also be a matter of interpretation considering how many domains are shared by different gods.

It´s still an important point to look out for when talking about the difference between a setting based on our history and trying to extrapolate what influence the fantasy elements could have had.

As an example, guilds and merchants used to be the ones to create and enforce the rules concerning their sphere of interest. A necessary privilege back then.

In most settings, we´ve the situation that we have both at the same time: small kingdoms but globe-spanning religions. In this situation, it would stand to reason that the churches provide the bulk of the specialized knowledge and part of the societal infrastructure, similar to the aforementioned situation with the guilds.

So it´s quite possible that a "temple" of Abadar doubles as a bank and courthouse in most kingdoms, as they already exist and have the experience with it. Other religions work similar in their area of concern and also have the same type of global reach.

Overall, that could mean a very fractured and decentralized law system, but also nearing a "global standard" on the individual topics, barring schisms like with Sarenrae.

Delightful wrote:

I imagine that a Lawful Neutral character philosophically doesn't really care about the possible innocence of the victim and is only really thinking about Greater Good and maintaining stability. If that means letting someone who might be innocent dead than so be it. Things like Justice is more of a Good-aligned concern in my opinion.

You mean Good is about "Karmic Justice" while lawful only care about "earthly justice" am I right ? :)

"Justice" is a difficult word to use as nearly every society has some very specific cultural understanding of it, same with "Redemption" and "Punishment". In some cases the legal system also has to do double duty in crime prevention by doling out harsh sentences and make an example on the perp.

So I wouldn't´t actually differentiate between "earthly" and "spiritual" justice, as it´s more about the order of things than the actual laws. The principal thought is that there is an underlying order to everything and if people adhere to it, life for everyone is "good". It´s a bit like confucianism or Zen: If you understand the rules, you don´t need the rules any longer.

Now "Law and Order" can be benevolent or absolute. The former would be the LG variation of it, which tries to prevent undue harm by being merciful, while LN can look quite oppressive at times by putting order first, subjects and mercy second or third.

So that is a spiritual thing at its core and adherents to it try to shape the real world based on that believe.

A funny example are Red Mantis. They don´t assassinate legit rulers as they accept the divine mandate to rule as part of the natural order of things.

Edit: LN and CN may be the hardest alignments to talk about for people coming from a western or christian-based society, as e tend to identify a lot of the uncaring nature that´s associated with them as "evil".

Let´s stick to Hellknights, as we actually do have a wealth of background material on them by now.

If "killing Evil" (and vice versa) would make you good by default and regardless of underlying intention, that order would be split into pure LG and LE and pobably face a "civil war" sooner than later because of that.

HWalsh wrote:

No realistic city in a world of fantasy...

Did you really just write that phrase? Seriously?

It´s a good point, tho. In a setting with active deities claiming dominion over their portfolio(s), the notion of an unified legal system as we know it is a bit odd.