The hellknights enigma


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tried, I tried, I tried, I tried!

I made it through 3 and a half pages of some wonderfully interesting discussions on the origins and nature of Hellknights. Frankly if I ever get my Kingmaker game started again a couple Knights might even show up and offer to help found an order in the River Kingdoms to help bring law to the lawless.

But this thread is literally being pulled off course by people playing a game of "Well Paladin's should mean this even though I can't prove it with mechanics or lore unless you include my personal beliefs and mix in some AD&D and 3.5 understanding of Paladins" on one side with the other side being "We've already said it doesn't work that way."

So, can we please go back to doing something constructive with this thread? Possible Hellknight Paladin builds, best choices/worst choices?

How about how to incorporate Hellknights into the traditional murder hoboing campaign or personal stories of Paladinic Hellknights in home campaigns or your favorite Adventure Path for Hellknight Paladins and why they are interesting?

Anything except this stuff that is wearing out my mouse wheel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Classes that make it easy to Hellknight:

Warpriests of Lawful deities (I once made a Warpriest of Erastil rather than a ranger purely to get her Hellknight-qualified without burning a feat on Heavy Armor proficiency. She only dusted off the heavy armor when she knew trouble was coming- ordinarily, she just rocked studded leather and a longbow as she protected her community and helped find lost or stolen children, doing her part to bring order to the frontier.)

Fighter (The most common point of entry)

Paladin (All the armor training, going to be Lawful anyway, and they've got a definite edge on the "curbstomp a devil" part of admission, because Smite Evil is a thing.)

For Signifiers-

A Magus is (paradoxically and in ways which I home-rule out of existence) actually a bit tricky to get signifyin', but thematically appropriate.

Clerics have an easier time of it, depending on deity of course.

Wizard with a fighter-dip Eldritch Knight style is also an option.

As far as traditional murder-hoboing, Hellknights are not much easier to fit than a standard Paladin, actually- they're dedicated to a cause greater than themselves, so wandering around murdering bad guys and taking their stuff is kinda iffy, IMO.

However, the Order of the Nail is all about pacifying "savage" cultures, so if you're stomping on orcs, Ogres, and the like, they can easily fit into the group.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

You forgot cavaliers (and, in the right story, samurai), Cole. ^_^

I'm quite fond of cavalier (constable) into Hellknight.

Community Manager

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed posts and their replies. Casual discussion of child molestation to try and "justify" your point 100% NOT OKAY, folks. Changing quotes to suit your narrative as well as to be insulting to another post is again, NOT OKAY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I'd be surprised if that's not already the name of a Yu-Gi-Oh monster.
Sadly, no. Some sweet giant mecha suits though

You missed the fan card.


ABCoLD wrote:

I tried, I tried, I tried, I tried!

I made it through 3 and a half pages of some wonderfully interesting discussions on the origins and nature of Hellknights. Frankly if I ever get my Kingmaker game started again a couple Knights might even show up and offer to help found an order in the River Kingdoms to help bring law to the lawless.

But this thread is literally being pulled off course by people playing a game of "Well Paladin's should mean this even though I can't prove it with mechanics or lore unless you include my personal beliefs and mix in some AD&D and 3.5 understanding of Paladins" on one side with the other side being "We've already said it doesn't work that way."

So, can we please go back to doing something constructive with this thread? Possible Hellknight Paladin builds, best choices/worst choices?

How about how to incorporate Hellknights into the traditional murder hoboing campaign or personal stories of Paladinic Hellknights in home campaigns or your favorite Adventure Path for Hellknight Paladins and why they are interesting?

Anything except this stuff that is wearing out my mouse wheel.

The whole thread is about the question: Why can paladins be hellknights?

It was the question the OP asked at the beginning. Yes, some arguments are getting repetitive, but they still discuss the original question.

If you want to discuss Paladins in Murderhobo campaigns, or Paladin Hellknight builds (which would belong in a Game mechanics forum, not a setting forum), open your own thread. Don't just try to hijack a thread, because it doesn't suit your taste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ABCoLD wrote:
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I'd be surprised if that's not already the name of a Yu-Gi-Oh monster.
Sadly, no. Some sweet giant mecha suits though

You missed the fan card.

I know, I was just looking for something official-like


1 person marked this as a favorite.

other than the order of the godclaw what would be the other orders that a paladin would consider joining?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Order of the Scourge is basically the LAW. Arresting criminals, determining appropriate punishments, keeping an eye on the Thrunes in case they go too far and have to be put down...

Do you want to hunt kidnappers? Do you want to find missing people and rescue those who were victims of a slave trade hungry for fresh product? Then you might like The Order of the Torrent! Applications can be filed in Kintargo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Graeme Lewis wrote:
Do you want to hunt kidnappers? Do you want to find missing people and rescue those who were victims of a slave trade hungry for fresh product? Then you might like The Order of the Torrent! Applications can be filed in Kintargo.

i thought they where kicked out of Kintargo?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Order of the Torrent is ( by design, it seems to me) tailor-made for Paladins.

The Nail and Pyre are more of a stretch, but offer some potential (a fall seems harder to avoid, but their stated missions don't inherently clash with a paladin's ethos)

The Scourge are a solidly Lawful Neutral bunch, so they're feasible.

The Rack and the Gate sects are a near-total no-go. Were they the only Orders, this thread would be a LOT shorter.

The Chain... are a very weird bunch. Personally, I'd place them in the "no flippin' way" pile, because slavery isn't something I can condone, but a Paladin interested in punishing slaveholders who violate the laws regulating slavery might make his home among the Order of the Chain on his road to an eventual fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:

The Order of the Torrent is ( by design, it seems to me) tailor-made for Paladins.

The Nail and Pyre are more of a stretch, but offer some potential (a fall seems harder to avoid, but their stated missions don't inherently clash with a paladin's ethos)

The Scourge are a solidly Lawful Neutral bunch, so they're feasible.

The Rack and the Gate sects are a near-total no-go. Were they the only Orders, this thread would be a LOT shorter.

The Chain... are a very weird bunch. Personally, I'd place them in the "no flippin' way" pile, because slavery isn't something I can condone, but a Paladin interested in punishing slaveholders who violate the laws regulating slavery might make his home among the Order of the Chain on his road to an eventual fall.

Agreed.

I have only recently introduced a new Hellknight Order into my game, The Order of Ink, which oversees Chelaxian borders physical borders and political alliances. Has anyone else made any new Orders?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
Graeme Lewis wrote:
Do you want to hunt kidnappers? Do you want to find missing people and rescue those who were victims of a slave trade hungry for fresh product? Then you might like The Order of the Torrent! Applications can be filed in Kintargo.
i thought they where kicked out of Kintargo?

Only once Barzilai Thrune takes command. Assuming he doesn't (i.e., assuming the Glorious Reclamation doesn't happen), they're still there. Well, their citadel is. Since they're on the road so much, there might not be too many leaders there at the moment.

EDIT: Hell, after Barzilai Thrune is kicked out of Kintargo they immediately get to come back, so... y'know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:

Classes that make it easy to Hellknight:

{. . .}

I took a crack at this here. Wonder what the upcoming Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Path of the Hellknight will bring? Anyone want to hazard a guess about it in the thread linked above?


Freehold DM wrote:

Agreed.

I have only recently introduced a new Hellknight Order into my game, The Order of Ink, which oversees Chelaxian borders physical borders and political alliances. Has anyone else made any new Orders?

I've introduced three, all based around Westcrown, due to our Council of Thisves game:

- the Order of the Sewer: the first all-goblin order under Lichtor-King Jinkoo; they keep written heresies destroyed and the Sewers clean of evil; also, they civilize goblins.
- the Order of the Flame: a new goblin order who split from the Sewer due to politics; they remain friendly and allies of the Sewer; they tame the Forest
- the Order of the Angelous: a semi-heretical order that may eventually be coopted into the Godclaw; it centers around worshipping the Angelous (a minor godlike figure)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here they are!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
I have only recently introduced a new Hellknight Order into my game, The Order of Ink, which oversees Chelaxian borders physical borders and political alliances. Has anyone else made any new Orders?

An order based on the less evil aspects of Asmodeus might focus on the actual legal system itself, serving as guards to justices, and jailors and investigators and lawyers/advocates and, when it goes that way, executioners. A heavy focus on enforcing contracts and finding 'bail-jumpers' or others attempting to evade justice, as well as other more picky legal matters, would fit well. They'd be as impartial as can be, and side against what they view as perversions or misuse of the legal system, such as punishments that precede trials, or attempts to 'game the system.' Others might not live up to that ideal, and be little more than jack-booted thugs, hiding behind the color of authority.

A more Abadarite order could be focused on protecting trade, ruthlessly stamping out brigands and bandits, and yet also protecting banks and countinghouses, and seeking out counterfeiters and smugglers and pirates. In a situation like in Andoran, where the Lumber Consortium works around the law to oppress their workers, it's possible that different factions of this Order could be on different sides, some supporting the company against their workers, while the other side takes offense at the manipulation of the spirit of the law to behave unethically.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
An order based on the less evil aspects of Asmodeus might focus on the actual legal system itself, serving as guards to justices, and jailors and investigators and lawyers/advocates and, when it goes that way, executioners. A heavy focus on enforcing contracts and finding 'bail-jumpers' or others attempting to evade justice, as well as other more picky legal matters, would fit well. They'd be as impartial as can be, and side against what they view as perversions or misuse of the legal system, such as punishments that precede trials, or attempts to 'game the system.' Others might not live up to that ideal, and be little more than jack-booted thugs, hiding behind the color of authority.

One thing that a Hellknight of the Order of the Gavel must remember is that the legal system, despite aiming for a higher ideal, is still very much a mortal system. Judges can be corrupted or bribed, jailors can "lose" paperwork freeing an innocent person, barristers can forge evidence. The legal system must be protected both from without... and from within.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Graeme Lewis wrote:
Set wrote:
An order based on the less evil aspects of Asmodeus might focus on the actual legal system itself, serving as guards to justices, and jailors and investigators and lawyers/advocates and, when it goes that way, executioners. A heavy focus on enforcing contracts and finding 'bail-jumpers' or others attempting to evade justice, as well as other more picky legal matters, would fit well. They'd be as impartial as can be, and side against what they view as perversions or misuse of the legal system, such as punishments that precede trials, or attempts to 'game the system.' Others might not live up to that ideal, and be little more than jack-booted thugs, hiding behind the color of authority.
One thing that a Hellknight of the Order of the Gavel must remember is that the legal system, despite aiming for a higher ideal, is still very much a mortal system. Judges can be corrupted or bribed, jailors can "lose" paperwork freeing an innocent person, barristers can forge evidence. The legal system must be protected both from without... and from within.

I find Abadar to be one of the most likely producers of Hellknight Paladins, and I have no doubt in my mind his church has the cash to fund their own Order if they wanted to. Order of the Gavel Hellknights with black flowing gowns under their armor, wielding massive Judicial Hammers against any who would taint the sacred courtroom with their lies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Given that Abadar is the only deity in the Godclaw pantheon who gets along with all of the other deities in that pantheon, I suspect that he and not Asmodeus is the most influential of that order's five deities within that order.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the Godclaw also venerates Irori and Torag, in addition to Asmodeus, Iomedae and Abadar, there's theoretically potential for Hellknight orders more focused around Irori and Torag, but I'm not finding them as intuitive for this purpose as Abadar.

The Iroran creed to self-perfection seems, IMO, a bit to self-centered to build an Order around (although one focused on systems that prevent people from reaching their full potential, such as forbidding writing or preventing lower ranking people from studying or even using weapons, could be on-theme).

As for Torag, an Order of dwarven Hellknights seems fun, visually, as squad of dwarves who are willing to embrace and emulate the tactics of Hell in service to their goals of protection of their people, but, again, the flavor doesn't work as well for me, so I'd prefer it to be a small Order, like the Order of the Torrent.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Set wrote:

Since the Godclaw also venerates Irori and Torag, in addition to Asmodeus, Iomedae and Abadar, there's theoretically potential for Hellknight orders more focused around Irori and Torag, but I'm not finding them as intuitive for this purpose as Abadar.

The Iroran creed to self-perfection seems, IMO, a bit to self-centered to build an Order around (although one focused on systems that prevent people from reaching their full potential, such as forbidding writing or preventing lower ranking people from studying or even using weapons, could be on-theme).

As for Torag, an Order of dwarven Hellknights seems fun, visually, as squad of dwarves who are willing to embrace and emulate the tactics of Hell in service to their goals of protection of their people, but, again, the flavor doesn't work as well for me, so I'd prefer it to be a small Order, like the Order of the Torrent.

Well of course they'd like to emulate it, it's one bigass forge!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:


I have only recently introduced a new Hellknight Order into my game, The Order of Ink, which oversees Chelaxian borders physical borders and political alliances. Has anyone else made any new Orders?

In my Kingmaker game, as one player spend a lot of resources attracting hellknights to the remote lawless region, I introduced a small but efficient Order of Ashes. The gist is, order of ashes is made up of elderly hellknights, who travel far to seed law and order before time takes its toll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question, what/who is the mythic idiot that Aelryinth mentioned?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Has anyone else made any new Orders?

In the wake of our first Crimson Throne playthrough, the Order of the Ember established itself in Korvosa (we'd sent the Order of the Nail a sternly worded letter and told them that since Korvosa was now quite civilized, we didn't expect to see them poking around without a damned good reason), founded to punish usurpers and imposters. A lot of ex-Grey Maidens, plus a healthy dose of Shoanti influence thanks to a PC's influence. Lots of grim-faced shaven-headed tattooed women in plate mail toting Earthbreakers. Good times.

In a GM capacity, I whipped up one reasonably good-aligned bunch (the Order of the Lock) who opposed thieves and assassins of all stripes,and then the far less chummy Order of the Razor, who took it upon themselves to punish those who "betray their culture" (not going further down this particularly nasty rabbit hole on these boards, except to say that when they were finally wiped out, it was considered cause for a LOT of celebration in Sargava).


leo1925 wrote:
Question, what/who is the mythic idiot that Aelryinth mentioned?

It's impossible to be sure, sans clarification from him, but, from context, I believe he's referring to a mythic ability called Beyond Morality. I lack the ability to link at the moment, as I am on my phone, but if you go to d20pfsrd.com, you can search for that name and it should direct you to the Universal Path Abilities in Mythic Rules. Hope that helps!

EDIT: spelling


5 people marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
Question, what/who is the mythic idiot that Aelryinth mentioned?

The impression he gave me was that "Mythic Idiot" referred to "anyone who disagrees with me"; I may be wrong, but that was the vibe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Question, what/who is the mythic idiot that Aelryinth mentioned?

It's impossible to be sure, sans clarification from him, but, from context, I believe he's referring to a mythic ability called Beyond Morality. I lack the ability to link at the moment, as I am on my phone, but if you go to d20pfsrd.com, you can search for that name and it should direct you to the Universal Path Abilities in Mythic Rules. Hope that helps!

The one you want is Mythic Beyond Morality; just to confuse things, it isnt related to and thoroughly supercedes the non-Mythic Wizard Arcane Discovery of the same name.


I was also thinking about the mythic power beyond morality but how that power creates the mythic idiot.


Thanks for the links, guys!

leo1925 wrote:
I was also thinking about the mythic power beyond morality but how that power creates the mythic idiot.

I was trying to find all of the uses to create a context, but all of them except for this one.

Aelryinth wrote:
Setting FLUFF also allowed Paladins of Asmodeus and Milani, and is in contradiction with the rules.
Rysky wrote:

No, no they don't. Asmodean Paladins we're never supposed to be a thing and have been retconned.

The Paladin of Milani was simply an error.

Aelryinth wrote:

Note the use of 'allowed', not 'allows'.

i.e. where Fluff contradicts with the rules, Fluff is overruled, unless it is explicitly spelled in the 'rules' of the setting.

I.e. Neutral zombies raised by juju oracle/witch docters. Also retconned to Evil because of the Rules.

i.e. Most Divine casters in Golarion MUST have a divine being behind them (barring Oracles, I believe). That's a Golarion Rule.

It's Golarion fluff that there are Paladin Hellknights, when the rules say it's nigh impossible for such a thing without some very specific exceptions (i.e. inflitrate and convert, or Mythic Idiot).
Which is an exceedingly defying reality for ALL paladin Hellknights.

==Aelryinth

Bold part.

That... really doesn't tell us much.

That said, here's the ability again.

Beyond Morality wrote:

Beyond Morality (Ex)

You have no alignment. You can become a member of any class, even one with an alignment requirement, and can never lose your membership because of a change in alignment. If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion. Attempts to detect your alignment don't return any results. If a class restricts you from casting spells with an alignment descriptor, you can cast such spells without restrictions or repercussions. If you're the target of a spell or effect that is based on alignment, you're treated as the most favorable alignment when determining the spell's effect on you. Any effects that alter alignment have no effect on you. If you lose this effect, you revert to your previous alignment.

Based on the context of the deleted posts, my guess - and please, bare in mind, this is only a guess, unless Aelryinth clarifies something - is that he feels that the essence of the mythic ability violates the substance of the paladin - in other words, he views it as a violation of the nature of the paladin.

Anything that has tended toward that direction in his view (such as the concept of Hellknight Paladins) has generally been dismissed as "stupid" in various ways. Hence, I think that's what he means by "Mythic Idiot" - he finds it stupid.

But again, that's only a guess from context clues that remain: I can't actually speak for the guy.

EDIT: To be more clear (as I don't think I was), I think it's his opinion that it allows a paladin to "act like an idiot" - i.e. "not like a paladin" - hence the name.

Grand Lodge

I have been reading Alexander Hertzen's autobiography "The Past and Thoughts", and it gives one a lot of ideas on how a good person might serve a Lawful Evil/Lawful Neutral authority. (Alexander Hertzen was a 19th century Russian writer and influenced the worldview of the subsequent revolutionaries.)

Pre-revolution Russian Empire was pretty much Lawful Evil / Lawful Neutral, although they were rank amateurs when it came to evil. I suppose it is campaign-dependent whether Cheliax's level of evil is that of Stalin, or of the Russian Czars.

But there was a lot of scope for action for a Good official or military person, as long as their attempt to do good did not extent to attacking the state. Even refusing, to the Czar's face, to participate in bogus judicial proceedings is something one might be able to get away with - although one should not be surprised if one is reassigned to a particularly unpleasant part of Siberia - but this is not an issue for player characters who frequently operate in unpleasant places anyway.


Alexander Hertzen's The Past and Thoughts is pretty interesting, and I think similar elements could (and does) work well for places like Korvosa or similar (at least, prior to specific instances), but I'm not sure this would apply either to the Hellknights, though I think it could be taken in a few different ways.

For Cheliax, the Majestrix might be able to be swayed this way, so long as you don't push her too far. If pushed too far, the Majestrix will simply destroy you; if not pushed too far, she can appear quite reasonable (as seen in Council of Thieves), even when she is not (as also seen in Council of Thieves). The fact is, it works if it doesn't explicitly prevent her Majestrix from functioning well and allows things to run relatively smoothly for her (i.e. doesn't end up south of the cost/benefit ratio in her mind to quash you).

For the Hellknights, depending on your interpretation, this is exceptionally unlikely to apply.

If you follow the "They are extremists for Lawful Neutral concepts." as-presented in the written materials, they are unlikely to permit or countenance abuses of authority in that way; specific more lawful evil orders, of course, being the exception, but neither the lawful neutral nor lawful good orders would ever permit such abuses and a person making accusations of such (so long as they haven't proven themselves stupid or crazy in the past by anarchic actions) would more or less force an internal investigation into the event.

If you follow the "They are all secretly(?) cabals dedicated to the Devil" concept, such things seem unlikely to work - or, if they would work, the specific instance would be handled, but the "target" would quickly be trumped up on other (new) charges created... and so would the previous defender. It would only be for specific orders lacking in nuance and complexity of understanding (which is unlikely) that such "good tricks" would work in any substantive way.


Yamara Potato Nose wrote:

I have been reading Alexander Hertzen's autobiography "The Past and Thoughts", {. . .}

Pre-revolution Russian Empire was pretty much Lawful Evil / Lawful Neutral, although they were rank amateurs when it came to evil. I suppose it is campaign-dependent whether Cheliax's level of evil is that of Stalin, or of the Russian Czars.
{. . .}

Really? Both the Russian Czars and the Soviet Union have long struck me as more Neutral Evil, sometimes swinging to one side or the other on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, but always firmly returning to Evil. The sheer quantity of backstabbing (especially under the Soviet Union, and even when against the interest of the system) should be convincing evidence that this system was less than entirely Lawful -- not the kind of system that Hellknights would want to emulate.

Tacticslion wrote:

{. . .}

If you follow the "They are all secretly(?) cabals dedicated to the Devil" concept, such things seem unlikely to work - or, if they would work, the specific instance would be handled, but the "target" would quickly be trumped up on other (new) charges created... and so would the previous defender. It would only be for specific orders lacking in nuance and complexity of understanding (which is unlikely) that such "good tricks" would work in any substantive way.

Obviously, they can't be TOO thoroughly dedicated to the Devil(s), or much of Hellknight canon wouldn't work (including that which indicates that many of them do not see eye-to-eye with Diabolists, Thrune, or Hell itself), but that doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing a considerable hidden pull in that direction, even as they try (in some cases honestly) to use Hell-inspired discipline against Hell.


Well, yes. While I obviously don't cleave to that interpretation myself, as this thread shows (not to mention the three Hellknight orders that came into existence in my home campaigns), I included that as a possibility since there are a few that focus exclusively on that interpretation, regardless. The "secretly(?)" was meant to imply that it may even be a secret from the orders themselves (such as the Order of the Torrent, who are clearly "getting it wrong" according to some interpretations, such as Aelryinth's).

This isn't an attempt to discount such a view, nor an attempt to discredit it, but explaining how the LE mentality itself would (more or less) have to function, if Hell's laws were too closely cleaved to according to that interpretation, as-presented in-thread.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Beyond Morality is a defensive feat for a paladin.

It specifically says in the feat that you still need to abide by the restrictions of your class and code to remain a paladin (otherwise you'd lose all paladin class features). Thus, a paladin committing an Evil act with Beyond Morality would not change alignment...but would still Fall for violating the paladin code, since it doesn't allow him to do Evil.

The primary benefits of Beyond Morality for a paladin are being able to perform Chaotic acts without much penalty (since they won't change your alignment), and being immune to alignment based attacks and defenses (unholy word, word of Chaos, Prot/Good, Chaos Hammer, Smite Good, etc), which come in very handy when facing your opposite number.
=====================================================================
Paladin's Code:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
======================================================
i.e. you still can't do Evil as a Beyond Morality paladin, but you can be chaotic as long as you act with honor and help those in need (with the amusing stipulation that you can act Chaotic helping others who can't use that help for Chaotic ends, either!)

------------------------

So, there's nothing specifically in the paladin's code against acting Chaotic, but being Chaotic repeatedly will change the paladin's alignment in and of itself, and he can't act Chaotic in order to achieve Chaotic ends...but he could to achieve Lawful or Good ends (wrap your head around that one...).

Interesting. By a strict reading, you could leave the class and retain your class features as long as you abided by the Paladin code. Thus, it is possible to have a NG ex-paladin who can't gain more levels, but keeps his class features because he's using Chaotic means for Lawful and Good ends (breaking the rules to uphold the system, and all that). He wouldn't be able to do Chaotic ends (i.e. start a rebellion or commit a crime to enrich himself), but he'd still have the class features. As soon as he breaks the rebel out of prison to go about being a rebel, however, he'd lose his paladin class features.

It wouldn't work on the LN side, because you'd Fall for committing the Evil actions to offset the Good ones required to be LN, and if you don't commit the Evil actions, then you're basically LG with N tendencies.

==Aelryinth


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
It wouldn't work on the LN side, because you'd Fall for committing the Evil actions to offset the Good ones required to be LN, and if you don't commit the Evil actions, then you're basically LG with N tendencies.

Huh.

If you believe that neutral character must commit occasional evil acts in order to maintain a neutral alignment, then that explains so much about your positions in this thread.

Okay then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mind you, it's a belief unsupported by literally anything but a highly idiosyncratic attempt to graft mathematical balance onto default concepts of baseline morality, but all right, rolling right along...


Aelryinth wrote:
It wouldn't work on the LN side, because you'd Fall for committing the Evil actions to offset the Good ones required to be LN, and if you don't commit the Evil actions, then you're basically LG with N tendencies.
Zhangar wrote:

Huh.

If you believe that neutral character must commit occasional evil acts in order to maintain a neutral alignment, then that explains so much about your positions in this thread.

Okay then.

Cole Deschain wrote:
Mind you, it's a belief unsupported by literally anything but a highly idiosyncratic attempt to graft mathematical balance onto default concepts of baseline morality, but all right, rolling right along...

While I disagree with A's interpretation, heartily, I want to explain one possibility of where it may come from, really quickly, as I understand it.

It was, actually, a view that was originally supported by interpretations based off of OD&D, 1st Edition, and AD&D-based materials, especially the druid codes, and the whole Dragonlance divine concepts, not to mention some aspects of Planescape (the setting, not the computer game).

These settings emphasized Neutrality as "BALANCE" requiring a hefty dose of doing one action, then balance it with an opposing action (this applies to lawful and chaotic just as strongly).

Some players apply this to broader spectra than others, but I've noted that it seems to come most often from a selection of gamers who adhered closely to those kinds of productions or concepts (although, certainly, it seems that not all who hold those ideas necessarily were part of that background of gaming).

Still, it does have some degree of history within gaming as a whole, and I can see where the idea of it comes from.

Of course, an alternate interpretation of A's post is simply that, by being part of the Hellknights, one would have to commit evil acts, by default, or he was attempting to examine the Beyond Morality mythic ability on its own terms.

That said, there are two flaws with his arguments in said post: the use of the word "feat" (though that is a minor and easily over-looked flaw) and the concept of Alignment.

Linking the exact wording of the ability again, for clarity, we'll look into the errors.

The first is spoilered because, though I go on at-length, it's not really important beyond clarifying what we're talking about.

It's an 'Ability' not a 'Feat':
First, is the use of the word "feat" - again, this is a minor error, but it's worth clarifying why it's an error, just so there are clear conversations. (In truth, it could be just an unclear grammatical faux pas, as I'll note below, rather than any actual confusion on A's part.)

Beyond Morality (the one being considered here) is a Mythic Ability. While the glossary doesn't define that term, it's clearly defined in-context. Mythic Path refers to abilities gained by attaining mythic tiers, and it's clearly labeled as a Universal Path Ability. The reason it's important to differentiate it from feats, is that something explicitly called Mythic Feats exist, and most all mythic creatures get them (aside from those with simple templates, and maybe even them; I'm uncertain). Mythic Feats are mostly "enhancements" of existing feats, though there are also some unique abilities only available to mythic creatures. So if we start referring to the abilities as "feats" we're going to have a lot of term-confusion. That said, there is a mythic feat called Extra Mythic Power, which could be what he was referring to by "feat" in his wording - basically working under the presumption that it would be acquired via the mythic feat.

Again, I can't speak for the guy, and there may well be other interpretations for his word choice, but that's what I've got.

The other error is more indicative of either not reading the ability in-full or ignoring or accidentally missing certain parts of it.

The unedited quote:

Aelryinth wrote:

It specifically says in the feat that you still need to abide by the restrictions of your class and code to remain a paladin (otherwise you'd lose all paladin class features). Thus, a paladin committing an Evil act with Beyond Morality would not change alignment...but would still Fall for violating the paladin code, since it doesn't allow him to do Evil.

The primary benefits of Beyond Morality for a paladin are being able to perform Chaotic acts without much penalty (since they won't change your alignment), and being immune to alignment based attacks and defenses (unholy word, word of Chaos, Prot/Good, Chaos Hammer, Smite Good, etc), which come in very handy when facing your opposite number.
=====================================================================
Paladin's Code:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
======================================================
i.e. you still can't do Evil as a Beyond Morality paladin, but you can be chaotic as long as you act with honor and help those in need (with the amusing stipulation that you can act Chaotic helping others who can't use that help for Chaotic ends, either!)

------------------------

So, there's nothing specifically in the paladin's code against acting Chaotic, but being Chaotic repeatedly will change the paladin's alignment in and of itself, and he can't act Chaotic in order to achieve Chaotic ends...but he could to achieve Lawful or Good ends (wrap your head around that one...).

Interesting. By a strict reading, you could leave the class and retain your class features as long as you abided by the Paladin code. Thus, it is possible to have a NG ex-paladin who can't gain more levels, but keeps his class features because he's using Chaotic means for Lawful and Good ends (breaking the rules to uphold the system, and all that). He wouldn't be able to do Chaotic ends (i.e. start a rebellion or commit a crime to enrich himself), but he'd still have the class features. As soon as he breaks the rebel out of prison to go about being a rebel, however, he'd lose his paladin class features.

It wouldn't work on the LN side, because you'd Fall for committing the Evil actions to offset the Good ones required to be LN, and if you don't commit the Evil actions, then you're basically LG with N tendencies.

Aelryinth wrote:
It specifically says in the feat that you still need to abide by the restrictions of your class and code to remain a paladin (otherwise you'd lose all paladin class features). Thus, a paladin committing an Evil act with Beyond Morality would not change alignment...but would still Fall for violating the paladin code, since it doesn't allow him to do Evil.

Point of order, it may cause him to fall, but would not necessarily cause him to fall, subject to GM discretion.

Quote:
If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion.

Certainly, with you as GM it would qualify for a fall (as noted, in the ability itself), but a given GM has more than enough ability to permit even evil actions under that without rescinding any or all of the paladin abilities (though it seems likely from the wording that most GMs are encouraged to at least think about minor punitive action).

Aelryinth wrote:
Interesting. By a strict reading, you could leave the class and retain your class features as long as you abided by the Paladin code.

Actually, you could not. Notably,

Ex-Paladins wrote:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.

So any non-lawful good paladin loses all abilities immediately... unless there is any other ability (like the stipulation in Beyond Morality) that allows them to ignore that bit.

Aelryinth wrote:
Interesting. By a strict reading, you could leave the class and retain your class features as long as you abided by the Paladin code. Thus, it is possible to have a NG ex-paladin who can't gain more levels, but keeps his class features because he's using Chaotic means for Lawful and Good ends (breaking the rules to uphold the system, and all that). He wouldn't be able to do Chaotic ends (i.e. start a rebellion or commit a crime to enrich himself), but he'd still have the class features. As soon as he breaks the rebel out of prison to go about being a rebel, however, he'd lose his paladin class features.

What I find interesting about this concept is that you seem to conflate legal with lawful - a conflation you've persistently made within this thread, which isn't strictly upheld by the rules.

The definition of lawfulness does not contain such a stipulation or ideal; it could be argued that "obedience to authority" is the important aspect, here (and thus being legal tends toward being lawful), but when authorities are conflicted (or you are the authority) a paladin must, by nature, choose between them. Beyond that, someone need not fit every aspect about an alignment to be of that alignment, nor commit an act directly opposing an alignment to avoid being part of that alignment. This is where nuance and the use of the word "implies" (as opposed to "is defined as") comes in. If this were not possible, than no adventurer or paladin could ever be good, as evil "implies" explicitly "hurting" and "killing" the undefined "others" - a necessary fact of adventuring and paladins of all stripes.

To your credit, you certainly note "to enrich himself" - which may indicate that he can do those things for other purposes (allowing Robin Hood to be a paladin?), but your latter examples seem to preclude any use of non-legal elements to enact positive behavior without losing alignment.

Of course, if you were referring to the Beyond Morality ability (which conversational context indicates, but which I can see it being different from), it doesn't apply at all, since, by definition, the ability precludes having an alignment whatsoever, while still permitting a paladin to be, well, a non-fallen paladin. Make sense?

EDIT: for clarification!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Whoops. Didn't read down to ex-paladins, just read the code. It's actually a good thing...don't mind not having a NG paladin at all. I suppose it's a standard Paizo thing where instead of putting all the relevant rules in one place they break them up and make you search or look dumb.
i.e. if you just read the code, I was perfectly correct. It isn't until you get the ex-paladin stuff that they tell you "Oh, being LG and upholding the code are just as important as not doing Evil, and with the same penalties if you violate them."

On Beyond Morality:
There is only ONE class that has a code of conduct, and that's the paladin. Basically, GM discretion is whether or not to let you get away with something...the default is, you don't. Beyond Morality waives alignment requirements for the class (since you don't have one), but you still have to obey the code, which means not committing Evil actions willingly.
And since the whole game is literally GM discretion, that's not an arguable loophole for a paladin with the Mythic Feat to freely take Evil actions.

As for Legal vs Lawful,
You're overanalyzing it. It's an example, easily understood, nothing more. Trying to turn it into a psyche profile is really, really going a bit far, you know?

Now, conflating that 'Lawful means you can ignore Legal' makes me roll my eyes. That's nothing more then a self-interested chaotic mindset wrapped up in alignment complaints, justifying any action with 'my own discipline and rules override this.' Which is balderdash, one of the aspects of a lawful person is a respect for the rules and codes of others, not just your own. You may disagree with them, but that does not give you carte blanche to disregard them.

It's a Chaotic action to say 'to hell with the rules and proper procedure' and go in and spring someone from jail with force. If you were Lawful, you'd go by the established procedures to do so, unless the laws themselves were being twisted (i.e. unlawfully jailed), at which time you'd punish the lawbreakers and uphold the law properly.

The Red Raven storyline has a beautiful example of this. The investigator first tries to argue the law and get the Raven's secret identity released. It's Galt, they don't care, trump up charges and throw him in a cell with no justification. Since he's being held unlawfully, the investigator feels no issues with breaking him out of his illegal confinement, and frees him. A chaotic character wouldn't care about the law at all - it's a friend, he's in jail, get him out, and middle fingers to the bastards that put him there, long live the revolution!

As for the whole LN thing: EEsh. You're restricted to LN and LG actions. Unless all you do are LN actions, you're going to tilt LG.
A truly LN character isn't going to see much difference between LN and LE. But this guy is following a paladin code, and won't undertake LE actions. His universe of choices is LN and LG actions, exactly like a paladin's is, he's just going to be a bit less caring then a paladin. He's going to tilt LG (n) because that's what his actions are going to make him. He DOES care enough not to do evil, so there can't be and won't be 'balance', however you want to look at it.
Trying to overthink it as 'this balances off against that' and trying AGAIN to psychoanalyze is again overthinking it. You may want to stop the head shrink stuff and 'based on editions' and all that blah.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Really? Both the Russian Czars and the Soviet Union have long struck me as more Neutral Evil,

The backwater provincial officials that Hertzen describes do seem to be more of the Neutral Evil variety - I am sure Norgorber would approve of a lot of them. But the higher authority seems to have more of a lawful bend.

The Stalinist system seems to have inherited the worst that the Russian empire had to offer, and leaned a lot more into the evil direction.

I can see Hellnights fighting for the Czarist Russia, but I think only the most evil of them would support the USSR, especially under Stalin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to cover this one thing at a time.

Aelryinth wrote:
Whoops. Didn't read down to ex-paladins, just read the code. It's actually a good thing...don't mind not having a NG paladin at all. I suppose it's a standard Paizo thing where instead of putting all the relevant rules in one place they break them up and make you search or look dumb.

True! Happened to me on more than one occasion - it's one of the reasons I want a streamlined version of the Core, or something similar, with cleaner and clearer references.

That said, Paizo inherited that pretty directly from 3.X, so, you know, it goes all the way back.

Aelryinth wrote:
i.e. if you just read the code, I was perfectly correct. It isn't until you get the ex-paladin stuff that they tell you "Oh, being LG and upholding the code are just as important as not doing Evil, and with the same penalties if you violate them."

Sure, agreed. I wasn't certain if you were referring to just the code or the other ability from context, though, but yes, if you ignore the Ex-Paladin rules, than you'd be correct!

Aelryinth wrote:

On Beyond Morality:

There is only ONE class that has a code of conduct, and that's the paladin. Basically, GM discretion is whether or not to let you get away with something...the default is, you don't. Beyond Morality waives alignment requirements for the class (since you don't have one), but you still have to obey the code, which means not committing Evil actions willingly.
And since the whole game is literally GM discretion, that's not an arguable loophole for a paladin with the Mythic Feat to freely take Evil actions.

I find the first sentence questionable.

While Paladins have theirs spelled out (as do the variant-paladin class antipaladins), of course, the Cleric RAW makes clear reference to a "code of conduct" as well (though that code is not as formalized in-printing as the paladins is, if it's even in the Core - which I'm uncertain of), meaning they, too, have such a code.

Though it's less solid, a similar argument could be made for druids, inquisitors, and even cavaliers (and thus samurai) - though none are explicitly called "codes of conduct," the ex-druid section, the ex-inquisitor section and the edicts of a cavalier (and samurai) are (or contain), in fact, literally codes by which they must conduct themselves, or risk losing their abilities.

(It's possible that other classes have this as well, but I stopped looking after the cavalier.)

Aelryinth wrote:

As for Legal vs Lawful,

You're overanalyzing it. It's an example, easily understood, nothing more. Trying to turn it into a psyche profile is really, really going a bit far, you know?

I'm afraid I don't. If you feel I've created a psyche profile of you... okay? I think all I did was mention that it had historical roots within the game we currently play and why some (but not all) people that share those roots might come to similar conclusions (with a note that some who do not share said roots might come to similar conclusions).

It was, in fact, an attempt at pointing out that there are multiple ways to reasonably come to the conclusion that you (to multiple posters) seemed to espouse. If that is not the conclusion you were espousing, it may be the way that you are communicating your concepts might need refinement - heaven knows mine does on occasion (and it's really frustrating, when that happens, too, as I end up indicating things to people that I don't mean).

Aelryinth wrote:
Now, conflating that 'Lawful means you can ignore Legal' makes me roll my eyes. That's nothing more then a self-interested chaotic mindset wrapped up in alignment complaints, justifying any action with 'my own discipline and rules override this.' Which is balderdash, one of the aspects of a lawful person is a respect for the rules and codes of others, not just your own. You may disagree with them, but that does not give you carte blanche to disregard them.

This segment is literally doing exactly what I suggested: you are conflating lawful with legal.

If it is required that a lawful person follow legal laws, then it is impossible for a paladin to live in (or be a citizen of) Cheliax, period. The whole thing about Hellknights is mostly moot, as a paladin cannot, in good conscience, remain a citizen of a power like Cheliax - because to do so either means they pay lip-service (and sometimes actual service, however indirectly) to Hell, or because they are, by your definition, not lawful.

I'm not talking about those instances when Cheliax violates its own laws: I mean that, according to the thing you literally just wrote, "respect for the rules and codes of others" (appearing to mean, from context to obey them) means that a person who is lawful will obey the laws of Cheliax, if they are from Cheliax.

That includes submitting to the authority of the Hellknights and the Thrice-Damned Majestrix.

If this isn't what you mean, you're not communicating that point clearly. I suspect you're attempting to get something nuanced across, but not doing so in a way that makes sense to many.

Aelryinth wrote:
It's a Chaotic action to say 'to hell with the rules and proper procedure' and go in and spring someone from jail with force. If you were Lawful, you'd go by the established procedures to do so, unless the laws themselves were being twisted (i.e. unlawfully jailed), at which time you'd punish the lawbreakers and uphold the law properly.

See, the problem here, is that you (at least in your post, I can't claim to know what you intend, only what appears in-text) make no differentiation between just laws and unjust laws.

This was the point I was making with legal v. lawful.

As an example: a monk is lawful, or else is not a monk. A would-be monk is born in, let's say, the River Kingdoms; specifically Pitax (as King Irovetti seems kind of nuts). That would-be monk trains under a local master, who eventually passes away, leaving training texts behind, and demanding his student swear to stay in Pitax to help guide it toward order and enlightenment (which his student gladly does). Let's say, for this scenario, Irovetti, legally, declares monks to be outlawed from Pitax. Is that monk, then, obligated to leave Pitax to maintain his monkhood or else become an ex-monk? What if that would-be monk does leave: does the breaking of such an important vow by spurning Pitax cause him to shift chaotic? Is he just "trapped" between two chaos choices? Now, same scenario, but with paladins: what if Irovetti did so to paladins? At what point would the people who are are Lawful, by alignment, not legally obligated to follow the Legal rules ("Laws")? Bear in mind, at no point has Irovetti actually violated any rules: he has, legally, made a solid lawful declaration binding all legal citizens, according to his legitimate authority.

Of course, perhaps Irovetti isn't a good example?

So let's put this back in Cheliax, where most of the problems in this thread lie: what if all monks were legally obliged to be part of a select group of Asmodean monasteries? No falsification, no empty threats, no deception: just straight up legally binding principles that they must be Asmodean. Do any monks who, due to their previous commitments of their faith, become unlawful by default? Do paladins who decry such a decree fall? Certainly, enforcing such a decree seems evil - it actively serves the interests of Hell and it's divine patron god.

While one might say, "This is just a chaotic act." how long does such behavior have to persist before the monk or paladin becomes non-lawful?

My point - the thing I was trying to get at - was that, in my view (and that of several here) even "rightful," legal authority doesn't trump or supersede a paladin's good requirements - an argument you've made yourself.

The point is: a paladin may be made illegal in Cheliax, or Pitax, or elsewhere, but that doesn't cause them to flee or to fall. Instead, it is their duty to follow through on their duty - that is to do the righteous and just thing, even if it's illegal, no matter how long they have to persist at it.

This can, and does, include "rebellion" in service to righteous law in situations where there is no "winning" a legal battle - otherwise you're in a world where lawful good is impossible (or at least exceptionally unlikely) as soon as anyone other than lawful and good people hold sway.

Aelryinth wrote:
The Red Raven storyline has a beautiful example of this. The investigator first tries to argue the law and get the Raven's secret identity released. It's Galt, they don't care, trump up charges and throw him in a cell with no justification. Since he's being held unlawfully, the investigator feels no issues with breaking him out of his illegal confinement, and frees him. A chaotic character wouldn't care about the law at all - it's a friend, he's in jail, get him out, and middle fingers to the bastards that put him there, long live the revolution!

But is the Red Raven dealing with a paladin?

(Also, unless you're talking about a different Red Raven, I don't see the connection.)

Aelryinth wrote:
As for the whole LN thing: EEsh. You're restricted to LN and LG actions. Unless all you do are LN actions, you're going to tilt LG.

Does a minimal of good actions make you Good, then?

Aelryinth wrote:
A truly LN character isn't going to see much difference between LN and LE.

This... this makes no sense at all. Of course they will. That's why they're different alignments.

Neutral people who see no difference between themselves and those who engage in Evil actions will not stay neutral for any length of time - especially if it only takes a minority of actions to become an alignment. Unless they also see no difference in LN and LG? Or am I missing something you're indicating?

Aelryinth wrote:
But this guy is following a paladin code, and won't undertake LE actions. His universe of choices is LN and LG actions, exactly like a paladin's is, he's just going to be a bit less caring then a paladin. He's going to tilt LG (n) because that's what his actions are going to make him. He DOES care enough not to do evil, so there can't be and won't be 'balance', however you want to look at it.

Okay, so: which guy? Who are we talking about?

- random paladin?
- Beyond Morality paladin?
- potential Hellknight paladin?

You seem to be referring to someone specific but without any real context to said person, I can't agree that "his" ideals will follow that track, because... I don't know "him" or "his" situation.

Aelryinth wrote:

Trying to overthink it as 'this balances off against that' and trying AGAIN to psychoanalyze is again overthinking it. You may want to stop the head shrink stuff and 'based on editions' and all that blah.

==Aelryinth

My only point of this was to:

a) point out where the idea that a character who must commit evil acts to maintain a neutral alignment has some basis in the history of the game (hence wasn't entirely baseless)

b) to point to the actual written definitions of alignment within the game, and apply those.

If you feel I've somehow "overthought" those two things... I really don't know, sir. Mayhap I did. I was attempting to show some potential evidence for a spin you appeared to use in the thread that you yourself did not show. Barring that, and barring any evidence provided, I have no idea how you could arrive at such conclusions, other than personal interpretation trumping that of others or written works, which is fine, but also can come off as lacking without substantive evidence, as you are making assertions with no proof and expecting it to be self-evident.


Yamara Potato Nose wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Really? Both the Russian Czars and the Soviet Union have long struck me as more Neutral Evil,

The backwater provincial officials that Hertzen describes do seem to be more of the Neutral Evil variety - I am sure Norgorber would approve of a lot of them. But the higher authority seems to have more of a lawful bend.

The Stalinist system seems to have inherited the worst that the Russian empire had to offer, and leaned a lot more into the evil direction.

I can see Hellnights fighting for the Czarist Russia, but I think only the most evil of them would support the USSR, especially under Stalin.

I forgot to mention in my last post that both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union strike me as being more similar to . . . Irrisen . . . Which is canonically Neutral Evil, and ruled largely by Neutral Evil rulers. They care not for order or freedom, except as tools to use for their own selfish ends. Either way, not Hellknight material.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:


I forgot to mention in my last post that both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union strike me as being more similar to . . . Irrisen . . . Which is canonically Neutral Evil, and ruled largely by Neutral Evil rulers. They care not for order or freedom, except as tools to use for their own selfish ends. Either way, not Hellknight material.

Irrisen is based on Russian folk tales.

A Czar who finds an underling too LG for his taste might send him to this kind of place with the order to slay Baba Yaga, and offering the reward in the form of his daughter in marriage in case of success.

The Czar would expect the underling to be eaten by Baba Yaga, but should the underling return with Baba Yaga's head, the Czar will grit his teeth and throw the kingdom's largest wedding party ever, at which literally an ocean's worth of vodka will be consumed. Which is pretty Lawful, I think.


On the Red Raven:

I've found two more Pathfinder-Explicit references that A could be referring to. The former seems unlikely, but the latter might fit - but, as I've not read either, I don't know.

Nothing else sounds like it applies, from my understanding, nor do the early links by Google.

Due to that, I really don't know what the Red Raven references. Was the inspector a paladin?

EDIT:

Aelryinth wrote:
The Red Raven storyline has a beautiful example of this. The investigator first tries to argue the law and get the Raven's secret identity released. It's Galt, they don't care, trump up charges and throw him in a cell with no justification. Since he's being held unlawfully, the investigator feels no issues with breaking him out of his illegal confinement, and frees him. A chaotic character wouldn't care about the law at all - it's a friend, he's in jail, get him out, and middle fingers to the bastards that put him there, long live the revolution!

After reviewing the context, it definitively seems to come from Pathfinder - maybe the first link I made was correct, then? It was part of a series, so that's a possibility.

Anyway, that's all I can find until it's clarified for me. Ah, ignorance: it's annoying. ;P

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um, read the iconic backstory for the Vigilante. He's the Red Raven. The investigator is the iconic, Quinn.(read his iconic backstory).

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lik2?Meet-the-IconicsAric

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Um, read the iconic backstory for the Vigilante. He's the Red Raven. The investigator is the iconic, Quinn.(read his iconic backstory).

linkified

==Aelryinth

Ah! Thank you. When I looked up "iconic" and "red raven" the only thing I got previously was the introductory blurb I linked the first time. By expanding my search I got a few more things, but I'd not see this! Thank you!

(Although I'd read Quinn's before, and it was one of my favorites, but it didn't click, given that there was nothing about them being friends or the names or anything within his backstory.)


Yamara Potato Nose wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:


I forgot to mention in my last post that both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union strike me as being more similar to . . . Irrisen . . . Which is canonically Neutral Evil, and ruled largely by Neutral Evil rulers. They care not for order or freedom, except as tools to use for their own selfish ends. Either way, not Hellknight material.

Irrisen is based on Russian folk tales.

A Czar who finds an underling too LG for his taste might send him to this kind of place with the order to slay Baba Yaga, and offering the reward in the form of his daughter in marriage in case of success.

The Czar would expect the underling to be eaten by Baba Yaga, but should the underling return with Baba Yaga's head, the Czar will grit his teeth and throw the kingdom's largest wedding party ever, at which literally an ocean's worth of vodka will be consumed. Which is pretty Lawful, I think.

That probably depends a LOT upon which Czar you have to deal with. Actually, it also depends a lot upon which Soviet leader you have to deal with. Given the tendency to overturn previous proclamations with the message that the new way is the way it has always been (Order of the Rack, anyone? -- have to question their true committment to Lawfulness), and the tendency to engage in rampant corruption even to the serious detriiment of the system, I'd say that the average was Neutral Evil, with only a subset of Czars and Soviet leaders being somewhat reliable at doing what you say above. Watch your back if you get into a deal like that above with the Czar or the Premier . . . .


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

That probably depends a LOT upon which Czar you have to deal with. Actually, it also depends a lot upon which Soviet leader you have to deal with. Given the tendency to overturn previous proclamations with the message that the new way is the way it has always been (Order of the Rack, anyone? -- have to question their true committment to Lawfulness), and the tendency to engage in rampant corruption even to the serious detriiment of the system, I'd say that the average was Neutral Evil, with only a subset of Czars and Soviet leaders being somewhat reliable at doing what you say above. Watch your back if you get into a deal like that above with the Czar or the Premier . . . .

The Order of the Rack is basically Orwell's Ministry of Truth. There is the version of what happened that is Sanctioned and Legal™, and then there is the chaotic, rebellious, perhaps even heretical slog that is what people consider to be "Actual History". They're just making sure that history books and published literature conform to "Historical Accuracy" and "Proper Thinking", which they have a very real and rigid set of guidelines for.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Graeme Lewis wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

That probably depends a LOT upon which Czar you have to deal with. Actually, it also depends a lot upon which Soviet leader you have to deal with. Given the tendency to overturn previous proclamations with the message that the new way is the way it has always been (Order of the Rack, anyone? -- have to question their true committment to Lawfulness), and the tendency to engage in rampant corruption even to the serious detriiment of the system, I'd say that the average was Neutral Evil, with only a subset of Czars and Soviet leaders being somewhat reliable at doing what you say above. Watch your back if you get into a deal like that above with the Czar or the Premier . . . .

The Order of the Rack is basically Orwell's Ministry of Truth. There is the version of what happened that is Sanctioned and Legal™, and then there is the chaotic, rebellious, perhaps even heretical slog that is what people consider to be "Actual History". They're just making sure that history books and published literature conform to "Historical Accuracy" and "Proper Thinking", which they have a very real and rigid set of guidelines for.

reminds me of the Texas Board of Education


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wizjolnir wrote:

I do not understand how it is possible that lawful good characters support to participate in the orders of the hellknights.

The answer is the vast majority don't. Those that do are ones who place law above good in priority, and even for them, the bulk of the orders are not a good fit. Some are.

251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / The hellknights enigma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.