| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't respond to all of this, but there is one big point I take exception to:
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.
In the context, I think you mean by "rebellion in service to righteous law" that sometimes a paladin must choose the good action over the legal action, correct, up to and including overthrowing legal authority in order to allow a good authority to move in? I think I can agree with that, after all it is a good description of the Glorious reclamation, so clearly it works. The problem is that a paldin is not, in fact, choosing to act within a "righteous law" when they do so. They are, explicitly not acting within any law at all. They are acting good, but that is a separate set of guidelines.
In essence, their moral code does not substitute for local law when local law fails them, but it can be more important. Paladins can take illegal acts without falling, as long as the act is also good. But they shouldn't kid themselves and say they are being lawful when they do so. Perhaps they are, such as when they are following the legal guidelines of another authority (such as a Taldoran paladin operating in Cheliax, for example), or when they feel the authority they aren't properly respecting isn't actually legitimate (which could definitely apply to Cheliax) but sometimes they are being Chaotic. And that's not the end of the world. Don't make a habit of fomenting rebellion is all the code asks, but the occasional coup de main when all other options are exhausted is sometimes the way to go.
Edit: To answer your hypotheticals about an outlawed monk or paladin in Irovetti, a paladin absolutely must leave Irovetti if they are barred from the city. They might set up shop exactly 3 feet outside the limits of the authority, and fund adventurers to operate inside Irovetti if they need to do so to protect innocents, because they can't just let that slide in order to obey the law, but the only honorable action left to them in that situation is to be an honorable opposition, from the outside.
A monk could go that route, but could also simply vow to never use their own class abilities or directly teach them to others (inside the city at least) ever again. And they'd keep that vow too. They're hardcore like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I do not understand how it is possible that lawful good characters support to participate in the orders of the hellknights.
And the ones that place Law above Good in priority sound like those of Abadar (or a similar deity(*)) and those that have sworn an Oath Against Chaos (although this is partially redundant -- the overlap between those two groups is likely to be considerable).
(*)Somebody mentioned Damerrich in a way thatmakes him sound like a candidate for this, and Ragathiel also sounds like a candidate for this. Hints of a potential impending fall also render Iomedae a potential candidate; in the past, this would have theoretically also included Aroden, but the origin story of the Hellknights makes it sound like he and they wouldn't have really gotten along, despite being on paper compatible with respect to alignment.
reminds me of the Texas Board of Education
I am surprised people actually got that joke
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AnimatedPaper: You made some really great points!
My use of language, however, was not actually metaphorical, nor was it an attempt to use anything other than basic, descriptive language.
If I may respond to your post in-parts?
I can't respond to all of this, but there is one big point I take exception to:
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.
In the context, I think you mean by "rebellion in service to righteous law" that sometimes a paladin must choose the good action over the legal action, correct, up to and including overthrowing legal authority in order to allow a good authority to move in? I think I can agree with that, after all it is a good description of the Glorious reclamation, so clearly it works. The problem is that a paldin is not, in fact, choosing to act within a "righteous law" when they do so. They are, explicitly not acting within any law at all. They are acting good, but that is a separate set of guidelines.
To my meaning: "sort of."
In addition to just their moral imperative (that is, the search for that which is good above all else), they really, honestly, and truly do have a righteous law that they follow - not to mention any deity-specific codes ().
As they are paladins (and thus must be lawful good, by default), their codes, then, must also be lawful good, by default - different, perhaps, in their interpretations and even essence from each other, but fundamentally the same alignment.
For the purpose of clarity, however, I'm not actually advocating that paladins simply act in open rebellion. Point in fact, some paladins expressly could or should not, based on either their own conscience or their own faith.
Indeed, I have no problem with a paladin who chooses legal elements as part of their lawful behavior. That said, I also have no problem with a paladin who chooses to act in open rebellion to that which is immoral and unjust.
Most notably,
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
And here is the crux: what constitutes exceptional circumstances? What constitutes chaotic acts?
Law Versus Chaos says that chaos implies,
freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Notice what chaos does not include: anarchy, rebellion, or any such thing.
Point in fact, chaotic neutral notes,
A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer).
<snip>
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
While anarchy and rebellion are mentioned in various places (specifically in the "neutral good", and "neutral" portions of the alignment, and Gamemastery Guide on Alignment*) that can either be read as "that's what chaos means" or "that is how people view it" which are very different.
Yet, ultimately, whether a paladin can or should do the rebellion thing is answered for us, at least in-setting, as you've noted: the Glorious Reclamation is a prime example of that (though A doesn't particularly care for it**), which is part of what I was attempting to establish - if there was an acceptance of setting-specific canon as accurate for the setting, or not.
To further display exactly how that can be, I refer (again) to the Council of Thieves adventure path. At one point, various iconics used to be chosen as "example characters" at the end of the various adventure paths; in Council of Thieves - an adventure who's explicit purpose is surreptitious rebellion against the establishment for the good of the people of the city of Westcrown - one of the iconics chosen for the 'Path was Seelah, the iconic paladin. Within said 'Path, she was expected to: flee the legal authorities through the sewers, assault non-city official officers of the law (a group of young Hellknights) in order to rescue a legally-arrested man (the one who established their rebellion in the first place), illicitly travel beyond the patrolled wall past which no citizen was permitted to legally go (and to do so more than once), and participate in the establishment and growth of an "underground" group of illegal vigilantes.
And that's in the first adventure. In fact, there is artwork depicting her doing many of those exact things.
The very second adventure has her getting herself invited to the mayor's manor under false pretenses (so she could wait until everyone drugged themselves, then sneak around), and the third has her entering an illegal zone (again)***.
Throughout the entire path, she is shown, repeatedly, gaining levels as paladins, while participating in explicitly-illegal acts without allowing herself or her identity to be known to the law.
To what end? To the end of saving people from a plague of darkness (that kills people nightly) and the subsequent anarchy that comes from a set of related actions.
And so, Paizo, at least, has noted that, in-Golarion, a paladin can, in fact, be servitor to a cause higher than legality, even violating legal commands in a non-direct (but explicit) manner. This is not "non-lawful" behavior even though it's "unlawful" legally (because way back when, at some point, someone decided to use the word "Law" for a suite of concepts that are related to, but not identical to, legality).
*
**
***
In essence, their moral code does not substitute for local law when local law fails them, but it can be more important. Paladins can take illegal acts without falling, as long as the act is also good.
This is the heft of the point I was making: paladins owe their allegiance to a master or authority higher than that of a mortal ruler of any stripe. They owe their allegiance to good first and above all. It is not just themselves, but to a genuinely higher Law - whether it be their Code, their deity, or their own morality.
The issue, however, is that a paladin is not free to simply break the law "just because" - it must be a point at which they find it necessary to do so. And, unfortunately, some paladins must rely on either their conscience, as not all have access to their church, another country, or magic item.
A paladin's burden, then, is to ensure that they don't "interfere" with the higher work - that higher law, their code, or other authority - that they are called to pursue.
To some, this might manifest as something akin to "Legality must be enforced above all, for the higher good.": to these, it is fair to say they follow Abadar, or might become Hellknights. To others, this might manifest as, "For the good of all, rebellion must arise." - paladins of Shelyn are like as not to follow such things, when love is oppressed and the people perish. Most paladins try to strike a balance between such elements - but individuals can and must vary because, unlike axiomites and inevitables, paladins are individual, and have nuances, balances, foibles, weaknesses, and strengths that vary from person to person: their personalities are, fundamentally, different, and they cannot do a massive mind-meld to understand what all other paladins are thinking.
This is a fancy way of saying, "Work with your GM; and paladins probably don't have to be cookie-cutter adherents with the same views on everything (unless they do, in a setting, for some reason)."
But they shouldn't kid themselves and say they are being lawful when they do so.
This, I think, is where we have an exceptionally nuanced disagreement-within-agreement.
I agree, to a point: I don't think they should "kid" themselves when they are not behaving in a lawful manner. But I do not believe they are necessarily acting in a non-lawful manner.
Which effectively agrees with what you follow up with,
Perhaps they are, such as when they are following the legal guidelines of another authority (such as a Taldoran paladin operating in Cheliax, for example), or when they feel the authority they aren't properly respecting isn't actually legitimate (which could definitely apply to Cheliax) but sometimes they are being Chaotic. And that's not the end of the world. Don't make a habit of fomenting rebellion is all the code asks, but the occasional coup de main when all other options are exhausted is sometimes the way to go.
This is, in fact, expressly my own point.
In responding to A's points, he noted (or seemed to imply) that following local legal codes was a necessity for lawful individuals - else things fail.
My response was: what if the legal code is unjust? What if the legal code is expressly evil? What if the legal code fails on the moral level?
I'm attempting to ascertain to what extent his decisions or opions held - to learn what was the limit to which he held paladins accountable.
Edit: To answer your hypotheticals about an outlawed monk or paladin in Irovetti, a paladin absolutely must leave Irovetti if they are barred from the city. They might set up shop exactly 3 feet outside the limits of the authority, and fund adventurers to operate inside Irovetti if they need to do so to protect innocents, because they can't just let that slide in order to obey the law, but the only honorable action left to them in that situation is to be an honorable opposition, from the outside.
A monk could go that route, but could also simply vow to never use their own class abilities or directly teach them to others (inside the city at least) ever again. And they'd keep that vow too. They're hardcore like that.
With the monk: sure, I agree entirely.
With the paladin: the problem with what you've described is that they, then, violate the very same vow.
To whom does the paladin owe their loyalty? How long must they honor a ruler such as Irovetti... and why must they honor a ruler such as Irovetti? What differentiates him from, say, Cheliax? Certainly, he's a different person than the Majestrix - that's a given. But "he's not as willfully nasty" doesn't make him any more or less "legitimate" than she.
I would say: it depends on the paladin. One may well feel that her vow to her master supersedes Irovetti's decree. Another may feel that, while wrongful and harmful, the paladin must obey the law of the land... and some of these may feel they would do more harm than good to remain near the city, as they would only incite Irovetti's paranoia, and may well accidentally drive him toward desperation and evil by simply hanging around. Others would absolutely do exactly as you say.
In this case, it's not that a given paladin is putting herself above a local law: she has to look at her code and what it means to ascertain what is the "correct" action - my point is only that different paladins could legitimately come to differing conclusions based on the letters of their law... it is up to them to determine the spirit***.
**
**
***
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the heft of the point I was making: paladins owe their allegiance to a master or authority higher than that of a mortal ruler of any stripe. They owe their allegiance to good first and above all. It is not just themselves, but to a genuinely higher Law - whether it be their Code, their deity, or their own morality.
You made some good points as well, and I don't want to hash out all of them, but this quote I feel gets to the heart of our disagreement.
In essence, in a world where there are literal embodiments of capital-L-Law, there is no higher law. There are illegitimate authorities, yes, and as a paladin you have to pick which authority holds your true allegiance, but that isn't picking between law and higher law, it is simply picking where you stick your allegiance, and sometimes choosing Good over Lawful, which is where the meat of the paladin's RP comes from.Specifically, choosing their own morality over local legalities is an unlawful act if the paladin believes that the local (or higher) authority is legitimately exercising their power. If the paladin does not recognize that authority, or owes their allegiance to another authority that opposes that local power, the waters become murkier, but either way the code doesn't actually forbid chaotic actions. Only evil ones.
Which is kind of entertaining if you think about it; a paladin is forbidden from helping someone else act in a chaotic manner, but are free to go nuts themselves.
But hey, I will admit I am more apt to interpret both the Lawful alignment and paladins in general a bit more harshly than I've seen represented in play (for instance, I would be APPALLED if a paladin acted as dishonorably as Seela apparently does in CoT at a table I was adjudicating), so take all that with a grain of salt.
As I was typing all this, I got to wondering about Cheliax and the third damnation of house Thrune. Leave aside paladins serving as Hellknights, how on Golarian have the paladins of the world not banded together to depose Abrogail? She literally damned her entire country to Asmodeus; if THAT doesn't trigger the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" section of the code, what would?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I was typing all this, I got to wondering about Cheliax and the third damnation of house Thrune. Leave aside paladins serving as Hellknights, how on Golarian have the paladins of the world not banded together...
The Glorious Reclamation asks much the same question.
Meanwhile, Mendev (and its complementof paladins) has its hands full with the Worldwound, and Lastwall is stuck between the Hold of Belkezen and their watch on Gallowspire...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are not one dimensional smiters.
Paladins can and will interpret the code differently.
Paladins can and will prioritise different aspects of the code.
Paladns are not required to needlessly sacrifice themselves without some small hope of success.
This means that some Paladins actively oppose Cheliax by allying with countries opposed to Cheliax.
Some will try to change it from within by joining organisations such as the more good oriented hellknight organisations
Some will support open revolution.
Some will have local problems that are more important right now.
Some will be heading to the worldwound where the abyss literally has a foot in the door (and let's face it Abrogail and Cheliax are small fry compared to this particular threat).
None will try to assassinate Abrogail, because a) dishonourable and b) won't change anything, some other Thrune will just take over (and considering some of them, may be far worse)
Paladins are not one united organisation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I was typing all this, I got to wondering about Cheliax and the third damnation of house Thrune. Leave aside paladins serving as Hellknights, how on Golarian have the paladins of the world not banded together to depose Abrogail?
1. Last legitimate pretendent with, probably, strongest claim on imperial throne, Sheraya Solistar, decided that being pathfinder is more pressing then saving her country. She paid the price when she disappeared in the expedition in Tusk Mountains. Without her, balance of power really shifted in Thrune favor because, probably, all other pretenders had a claim on the imperial throne no better then they had.
2. Civil war that raged for 40 years? People were kinda happy to see that at last somebody won. Minority who was against House Thrune was in Sargava, or was disorganized to mount an efficient rebellion, or just fled to Andoran or other countries. Therefore, the people in Cheliax accepted House Thrune as legitimate winners of civil war.
3. People probably accepted Asmodeus as new state religion because with him House Thrune filled the vacuum after Aroden. I don't think Thrune and other clear minded folks wanted new Oath Wars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I was typing all this, I got to wondering about Cheliax and the third damnation of house Thrune. Leave aside paladins serving as Hellknights, how on Golarian have the paladins of the world not banded together to depose Abrogail?1. Last legitimate pretendent with, probably, strongest claim on imperial throne, Sheraya Solistar, decided that being pathfinder is more pressing then saving her country. She paid the price when she disappeared in the expedition in Tusk Mountains. Without her, balance of power really shifted in Thrune favor because, probably, all other pretenders had a claim on the imperial throne no better then they had.
2. Civil war that raged for 40 years? People were kinda happy to see that at last somebody won. Minority who was against House Thrune was in Sargava, or was disorganized to mount an efficient rebellion, or just fled to Andoran or other countries. Therefore, the people in Cheliax accepted House Thrune as legitimate winners of civil war.
3. People probably accepted Asmodeus as new state religion because with him House Thrune filled the vacuum after Aroden. I don't think Thrune and other clear minded folks wanted new Oath Wars.
+1.
Also, keep in mind the global politics.Golarion is set up for a full scale WWI.
So, let's say that the Glorious Reclamation *does* strike hard at Thrune and deals a major blow, causing immense political upheval in Cheliax.
Thrune turns their attentions inwards, focusing on a major civil war raging across the motherland (catching many innocent bystanders and commonfolk in the crossfire), pulling resources from their foreign investments in order to quell the uprising.
Without fear of Thrune patrols, Shackles corsairs are now free to plunder the coasts with impunity; Sargava is now fair game as there is no reason to honor the tithe for protection, Rhadoum has to step up their coastal defenses to oppose the threat of piracy.
Andoran begins making more overt actions against Cheliax under pressure from abolitionists residents. What were occasional skirmishes from black-ops groups become official raids by major military platoons.
Taldor, sensing weakness caused by over-extension, begins running propaganda campaigns against Andoran in an effort to solidify itself as the lead of the global powers. Should they take more direct actions against Andoran, their southern rivals in Qadira will surely notice.
Molthune, which has been fighting to claim more territory, now has reason to suspect Andoran to be in a weakened state in which they may actually have a shot of victory over the larger nation. After all, the Molthuni military would be more adept at fighting against an opposing military than the guerrilla tactics of Nirmathas. With some support from Taldor, they strike at Andoran.
Meanwhile, with Thrune troops withdrawn from their cities, Chelish holdings in Varisia, Arcadia, and Garund begin to suffer under local stresses that they needed help with contending with. Wild beasts, savage natives, and environmental disasters wreck these outposts.
Nidal and Isger are wild cards; as vassal states, they may lend hand to Cheliax in its time of crisis or they may use the turmoil to throw off their yokes and claim full independence. Either way, more warfare and bloodshed is the result.
In the end, Cheliax becomes the new Galt as the greater part of the Inner Sea is dragged into a long, drawn out conflict.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is why the protagonists of Hell's Vengeance are, in defiance of all evidence... the real heroes. :O
their the heroes cheliax needs
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the heft of the point I was making: paladins owe their allegiance to a master or authority higher than that of a mortal ruler of any stripe. They owe their allegiance to good first and above all. It is not just themselves, but to a genuinely higher Law - whether it be their Code, their deity, or their own morality.
You made some good points as well, and I don't want to hash out all of them, but this quote I feel gets to the heart of our disagreement.
Thanks! And that makes sense!
I tend to respond to full things to specifically point out good as well as to make sure that no one can accuse me of cherry-picking from out-of-context (which has happened). It's become a habit by this point.
To that end, however, while I'd be open to continuing conversation, my point in doing so is not to necessarily sway you to my way of thinking, but rather to foster understanding of both where I'm coming from, and where you are - a clarification of nuance, as it were, and not, "You're doing it wrong." (especially as I don't think you are). :)
In essence, in a world where there are literal embodiments of capital-L-Law, there is no higher law. There are illegitimate authorities, yes, and as a paladin you have to pick which authority holds your true allegiance, but that isn't picking between law and higher law, it is simply picking where you stick your allegiance, and sometimes choosing Good over Lawful, which is where the meat of the paladin's RP comes from.
I'm actually curious what you mean by the first part of this.
While, yes, there are literal embodiments of capital-L-Law, those aren't (save for one, this guy) the literal embodiements of capital-L-Legality.
I mean, Irori is lawful neutral - but he has no relation to laws or legality whatsoever. Contrast that with Rahadoum who ban paladins of any god, no matter who, despite the fact that they are not evil. And their people seem to suffer for it (or at least, some Rahadoumi and some outsiders think they do).
Both of these are vastly different takes on what "lawful" - even lawful neutral - means.
Let me link lawful neutral for context;
The lawful neutral alignment represents devotion to law, authority, tradition, or a strong moral code. Concepts of order and organization are paramount, though what form these concepts take is likely to differ based on an individual's perspective.
Note the "or" I made bold there. That means that any of those things, and not necessarily all of them, are equally lawful neutral.
Compare to Lawful Good, which notes,
Typically driven by religious zeal or a fervent sense of justice, these characters are often willing to take extreme personal risk to do what is right. Not only do these characters go out of their way to help those in need and expunge the world of evil, they make it their way, setting all other goals aside in light of what they see as their duty.
... which is where I look at them and go, "Yes, their Duty, to a higher calling (in this case Good) outweighs their duty towards any given secular authority."
While I can understand (and generally agree with) home campaigns (even home campaigns otherwise set in Golarion) being different, in-canon elements (i.e. the body of written work) generally suggests that lawfulness and legality are two different things.
It is not an individual's conscience that makes something a Lawful element, but it is an individual's conscience that decides between two competing Lawful elements.
What a paladin is built for, then, is choosing Lawful Good over merely Lawful. Some paladins can, in fact, choose non-lawful but Good, and this is a genuine choice they may have to make. But others may well simply decide between two Lawfuls.
In other words, I'm emphasizing the, "There is another Lawful that they choose: that of their church/code/country/duty/faith/organization/etc. <choose at least one> that may easily outweigh the local legality that they are currently under.
You seem to be emphasizing, "All Lawful is Lawful, therefore one cannot be 'higher' as it is all Lawful."
Both of these are true - after a fashion - and non-competing statements. But mine notes that, to a given paladin, a given version of Lawful is the version of Lawful that they will choose - whether that's legal submission, or active rebellion against a legal authority. It is their devotion to a particular ideology which allows them to intuit what is and is not a "legitimate" authority or not.
Sometimes paladins get it wrong - they misunderstand their own codes, morals, or whatsoever have you -, or are placed in a genuinely "no-Lawful" situation.
But my posit is that rebellion against <certain authorities> need not be non-Lawful behavior, even if it is called "unlawful" by said authorities (because those authorities have made themselves illegitimate, if only in that one regard).
The natural question comes up, "What defines something as legitimate." and a Paladin must determine that for themselves... but they can also be incorrect. That's the balance that a paladin needs to walk.
Specifically, choosing their own morality over local legalities is an unlawful act if the paladin believes that the local (or higher) authority is legitimately exercising their power.
And here, I think, is where we're running into each other. I suspect we're saying almost the same thing, but using different words (and probably a few related and entangled concepts, as well).
Again, what defines something as "legitimate" in this case?
Irovetti isn't overstepping his bounds as a king in making the law, but (to some) he's overstepping his bounds as a rational agent - in other words, he undermines the legitimacy of his own legal proclamation, because his proclamation is, in fact, stupid, and openly harmful to everyone.
So is it legitimate?
Paladins of Abadar might say, "Yes, absolutely." and follow it to the letter.
Paladins of Iomedae might say, "No, I think it is unjust." and organize a valiant crusade or some other organized protest or even violent rebellion against it.
Paladins of Shelyn might say, "Yes, unfortunately; this place will forever be hideous, though." and feel forced to leave to avoid conflict, hoping to find some place or thing better to beautify somewhere.
Paladins of Sarenrae might say, "No, definitely not." and act against the state in secrecy (mostly by helping the poor and downtrodden with their divine powers), until it could be overturned.
Paladins of Torag might say, "Th' man's a foohl~! We gatta smahsh 'is foohl fhace~!" and seek to topple Irovetti in order to replace him with someone not hostile to the dwarven way of life.
Paladins of Erastil might say, "Oh, thank Erastil." and finally be freed to move out into non-city settlements they can help.
If the paladin does not recognize that authority, or owes their allegiance to another authority that opposes that local power, the waters become murkier, but either way the code doesn't actually forbid chaotic actions. Only evil ones.
Which is kind of entertaining if you think about it; a paladin is forbidden from helping someone else act in a chaotic manner, but are free to go nuts themselves.
Generally speaking, I agree - though to the last, I think we both agree that it's within comprehensible limits.
But hey, I will admit I am more apt to interpret both the Lawful alignment and paladins in general a bit more harshly than I've seen represented in play (for instance, I would be APPALLED if a paladin acted as dishonorably as Seela apparently does in CoT at a table I was adjudicating), so take all that with a grain of salt.
That's fine. As noted, we all have our differences of play-styles. My only point was to clarify what is in-canon, so that people have a basis from which to (intentionally) vary.
As I was typing all this, I got to wondering about Cheliax and the third damnation of house Thrune. Leave aside paladins serving as Hellknights, how on Golarian have the paladins of the world not banded together to depose Abrogail? She literally damned her entire country to Asmodeus; if THAT doesn't trigger the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" section of the code, what would?
Cole and Ashkar have the basis of it, but:
- paladins aren't that common, over-all
- many still remember the near-destruction of the Chelish civil war
- many are certain that there are "bigger problems" at present, ranging from the World Wound to the potential return of Tar-Baphon; those that exist are not entirely able to focus exclusively on the problem that infernal Cheliax provides
- paladins also have a host of lesser problems to deal with, locally; this can be analogous to people who do good works and aid those impovershed and unfortunate here in the U.S. (a first-world country of wealth and excess) even while others suffer in different parts of the world... of course, hypothetically, people could get together and solve all sorts of problems, but because people are not monolithic, and there are always plenty of local problems, it becomes difficult to successfully organize the venture of the size and scope necessity without that blessed event of "timing"
- gathering into a force that large is, effectively, declaring war: either it is doomed to fail, due to <reasons> (see Hell's Vengeance), or it is an open assault on an otherwise legitimate principality. While some may well accept that, it's going to be a trick to politically navigate such a thing, because, no matter how good a person or intent, having a huge number of well-armed and well-armored individuals who, by dint of 'divine right', decide that they can and should simply take over a country that isn't in the midst of rebellion is going to make all of your (new) neighbors exceedingly uneasy... after all, no country is lacking sins or corruption, and there were good people in the country who's infrastructure you just destroyed, so...
- convincing people, "Hey, this stable nation of non-conquest-seeking jerks needs to be cleansed. Time to leave home, family, and so on for near-certain death for a people who won't really be all that grateful." is a lot more of a difficult sell than, "You know that little El down the street is sick and in need of medicine; you have the power to make the world a better place, and money enough to purchase and gift that."
Of course, none of this is a reason that paladins, as a whole, should not do that thing, if it's the right... insomuch as they understand it to be so.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is why the protagonists of Hell's Vengeance are, in defiance of all evidence... the real heroes. :Otheir the heroes cheliax needs
wow english isn't my strong suit this morning
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should probably clarify that I don't think House Thrune in general, or even their propagating* worship of Asmodeus, is an issue worthy of a crusade. The third damnation, where Abrogail II sold the soul of Cheliax itself to hell, THAT should be the sticking point. Mortals coercing mortals into individual damnation is par for the course and acceptable, but consigning the souls of people that did not agree to Asmodeus worship (however encouraged) to Asmodeus anyways should probably raise an eyebrow or two among the gods.
But, obviously, cannon interprets that differently, so I'll let it go.
Irovetti isn't overstepping his bounds as a king in making the law, but (to some) he's overstepping his bounds as a rational agent - in other words, he undermines the legitimacy of his own legal proclamation, because his proclamation is, in fact, stupid, and openly harmful to everyone.
I had a longer reply typed out, but suffice to say, if a paladin who has honestly agreed to honor Irovetti's laws decides they are above the law simply because they don't agree with it, and then acts on that decision, they are no longer acting lawful. And if they did not agree to honor those laws, or at any point find their obligations under it to onerous, by their own code they should have made their opposition clear and unambiguous, although possibly from a suitable distance (the code doesn't require them to be STUPID, just truthful and honorable).
To bring it vaguely back to the OP's question, if a paladin in Cheliax (or elsewhere that Hellknights operate) are willing to reconcile their personal morality (i.e., good alignment), the guidelines of their faith, and their paladin code with all the various legal authorities they have to respect, why not add one more, and join a Hellknight order? Their participation would be contingent on whether or not they believe they are promoting the worship of Asmodeus by doing so, but if they don't think they are, or feel they are taking on his good qualities without condoning his evil ones, then I don't really see the problem. Because legalistic IS one valid interpretation of lawful, and using their class abilities to enforce local laws as a way to promote Good and Law is within their code. But they can't do it blindly. Because Paladins especially operate under so many conflicting and overlapping guidelines, they have to constantly be questioning, is this promoting chaos? Is this promoting evil? If the answer ever comes back "yes," then they have an obligation to act on it, or they are no longer paladins.We can argue further the merits of lawful versus legal, but I don't think we'll convince one another, so perhaps its best to agree to disagree. Edit: Also, no problem responding point by point. I don't have the energy to do the same, but I don't mind that you do so. I do worry that I seem like I'm cherry picking and taking things out of context, and if it looks like I'm doing so, I apologize. I'm just trying to keep things clear.
*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Also, no problem responding point by point. I don't have the energy to do the same, but I don't mind that you do so. I do worry that I seem like I'm cherry picking and taking things out of context, and if it looks like I'm doing so, I apologize. I'm just trying to keep things clear.
Speaking as someone who's been reading this thread for a while, this is not how you come across. You come across as someone who's being respectful and responding to points within the argument, and you've said at least twice that you don't have the time/energy/etc. to be able to respond to TL the same way.
And by the way, I'm really liking reading your discussion. It's clear that while you may disagree on some points, you're not trying to attack one another; you're trying to understand each other, not being dismissive, not being antagonistic... There are people both on the internet and in real life who could take some pointers from your discussion here.
EDIT: Occasionally myself included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Learning new words is always awesome!
To bring it vaguely back to the OP's question, if a paladin in Cheliax (or elsewhere that Hellknights operate) are willing to reconcile their personal morality (i.e., good alignment), the guidelines of their faith, and their paladin code with all the various legal authorities they have to respect, why not add one more, and join a Hellknight order? Their participation would be contingent on whether or not they believe they are promoting the worship of Asmodeus by doing so, but if they don't think they are, or feel they are taking on his good qualities without condoning his evil ones, then I don't really see the problem. Because legalistic IS one valid interpretation of lawful, and using their class abilities to enforce local laws as a way to promote Good and Law is within their code. But they can't do it blindly. Because Paladins especially operate under so many conflicting and overlapping guidelines, they have to constantly be questioning, is this promoting chaos? Is this promoting evil? If the answer ever comes back "yes," then they have an obligation to act on it, or they are no longer paladins.
This, I think, is where we agree fully!
We can argue further the merits of lawful versus legal, but I don't think we'll convince one another, so perhaps its best to agree to disagree.
Agreed! :D
We're cool - mostly so long as we understand, that's what I'm after, in general. :D
Edit: Also, no problem responding point by point. I don't have the energy to do the same, but I don't mind that you do so. I do worry that I seem like I'm cherry picking and taking things out of context, and if it looks like I'm doing so, I apologize. I'm just trying to keep things clear.
Speaking as someone who's been reading this thread for a while, this is not how you come across. You come across as someone who's being respectful and responding to points within the argument, and you've said at least twice that you don't have the time/energy/etc. to be able to respond to TL the same way.
And by the way, I'm really liking reading your discussion. It's clear that while you may disagree on some points, you're not trying to attack one another; you're trying to understand each other, not being dismissive, not being antagonistic... There are people both on the internet and in real life who could take some pointers from your discussion here.
EDIT: Occasionally myself included.
I'm with Graeme, 100% of the way on this - both for my own failures, and your success! You've been (and are being) excellent, and I look forward to many future interactions with you!
No, my own tendencies come from the fact that I blather incessantly anyway combined with a highly-tuned and well-honed self-defensive measure. I'm... not even sure how I'd respond to many posts one-point-only at this point... every time I've tried it seems to fail or be taken wrongly. I kind of wish I had the ability to do that as succinctly as you, however! :D
EDIT: for clarification!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but consigning the souls of people that did not agree to Asmodeus worship (however encouraged) to Asmodeus anyways should probably raise an eyebrow or two among the gods.
Well, probably it does, but you don't mess with the guy who has the key from Rovahgug prison.
And, probably, if I mess with his little domain in Golarion just because his mortal follower willingly came to him and did what was expected for her to do, he has the same excuse for messing with mine folks. Simply put, I don't belive gods go punch the crap out of each other on the basis of the results of how their followers interact with other followers. If his proxy did something, encourage yours to do some opposing actions. If he personaly did it, well, show the facts to others and get your silent approval to kick him in the face. But this is my point of view on the matter of how gods do things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Interesting thought, that Asmodeus has the prison of Rovagug rigged to pop open if anything happens to him, or even if he just feels he isn't getting what he expects to get out of the Contract of Creation(*).
(*)I have a sneaking suspicion that the Contract of Creation has been named in a way that George Orwell would have warned us about, and just the way that Order of the Rack Order of the Comfy Chair would like . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Interesting thought, that Asmodeus has the prison of Rovagug rigged to pop open if anything happens to him, or even if he just feels he isn't getting what he expects to get out of the Contract of Creation(*).
(*)I have a sneaking suspicion that the Contract of Creation has been named in a way that George Orwell would have warned us about, and just the way that
Order of the RackOrder of the Comfy Chair would like . . . .
Maybe, but Big A is... well, he's both canny and limited, so it's anyone's guess how deep that rabbit hole goes.
Being as arrogant as he is means he seems like the kind to fume when things turn against him (and he's been shown to be)... but even having himself shamed in a very public way and a portion of his own power and personal divine realm stolen from under his nose after he's already marked the perpetrator with his own sigil and power isn't enough to even cause him to hint at such.
Further...
...
... I started writing this quite some time ago, got distracted (ADD), aaaaaaannnd don't know where I was going.
Yay! Uh... happy April Fifth!
*throws confetti and runs away, hoping no one will notice*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always think of Asmodeus as the guy who will always uphold his word until the one big event in the future when he'll finally engage in a huge betrayal for a chance at total domination of the multiverse. Or as Vlad Taltos said in Phoenix: "I'm developing a reputation for honesty so I can blow it on something big. This isn't it."
The Asmodeus and Rovagug's key bit reminds me that Inner Sea Faiths gives a GM some foundation to set up an end of the multiverse campaign. The Apsu/Dahak chapters talk about their final battle (which they want you to believe will herald the end of the world) and how it's linked to the imprisonment of Rovagug, and the Groetus chapter talks about how he knows certain events that will happen before everything ends, but not how we get from here to there. Maybe a Wizard (in your party) did it.
The key lies in the fact that the Hellknights, despite their Thrune-friendly name, are not automatically allies of House Thrune or Cheliax. They are mercenaries who exist to uphold the law, and in many cases that means upholding Chelish law... but not always. Some times they fight against Cheliax, especially when they're hired by someone to uphold different laws that might clash against Cheliax law.
Think of them as orders of Judge Dredds for hire. Most of them are lawful neutral, and a fair amount are lawful evil. Lawful good is hands down the minority alignment for them, but in Hell's Rebels we detail the most lawful good of the orders; the Order of the Torrent; there's some good info in there for how a good-aligned order of Hellknights would function in Cheliax (HINT: They're based in a city that does NOT tow the party line.)
I cannot recall seeing this "for-hire" aspect of the Hellknights anywhere else. However, seeing as it comes from Mr. Jacobs it must be concrete. But if they're there to uphold the law, which law? The Laws in Andoran are different than the laws in Cheliax or Galt. i.e. Slavery is illegal, let's free them. No, we're in Cheliax, it's legal, let's kill the Bellflower Network... If they're just mercenary, than the only law they care about is the Golden Rule, who has the gold makes the rules. On the surface, the Hellknights seem pretty cool, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's feasible from the point of knighthoods needing to make money.
Someone has to be paying/sponsoring the Orders. Are they collecting taxes? Then they ARE the government. Is the government paying the order a stipend? Then they are an arm of the government. Are they open to missions from the highest bidder? Then they are open mercenaries. Are they employed by wealthy folk to solve problems within the confines of their codes? Then they are professional specialists/experts being hired as sees fit.
The Cheliax government probably pays almost all the Orders a retainer fee, which by their lawful nature would forbid them from taking up arms against it in rebellion...refusing the stipend would be tantamount to refusing the authority of the government, and a clear warning sign. Orders that toe the party line and serve enthusiastically likewise get more money.
Likewise, local nobles probably pay them a retainer to act as arms of the law and to make sure the orders don't rebel against them, and are open to their requests.
On top of this, the knights probably hire out anything from individuals to companies to deal with specific problems that fall within their purview, basically acting as specialty mercenaries that can be easily found and relied upon...just like knights of old.
And on top of that, the areas around the fortresses of the knights have likely been given unto them to manage and collect taxes, so entirely likely they are the government and collect taxes and set the laws in their own domains.
Note that the reason Hellknights exist is because of their overbearingly Lawful, monastic, somewhat fanatical mindset. There is no way the government could afford to pay such skilled martial combatants what they are actually worth, nor train up an identical force of such size. By simply paying retainers, and then bonus funds when actually needing their muscle, their costs are dispersed over time and many patrons, obviating the need for larger standing armies.
i.e. in other words, by taking the money that would normally be paid to secular, loyal troops, the Hellknights actually make open conflict harder. The only problem here is that Hellknights will also fight amongst themselves, which entirely defeats the original purpose for which they exist.
==Aelryinth
The key lies in the fact that the Hellknights, despite their Thrune-friendly name, are not automatically allies of House Thrune or Cheliax. They are mercenaries who exist to uphold the law, and in many cases that means upholding Chelish law... but not always. Some times they fight against Cheliax, especially when they're hired by someone to uphold different laws that might clash against Cheliax law.
Think of them as orders of Judge Dredds for hire. Most of them are lawful neutral, and a fair amount are lawful evil. Lawful good is hands down the minority alignment for them, but in Hell's Rebels we detail the most lawful good of the orders; the Order of the Torrent; there's some good info in there for how a good-aligned order of Hellknights would function in Cheliax (HINT: They're based in a city that does NOT tow the party line.)
I cannot recall seeing this "for-hire" aspect of the Hellknights anywhere else. However, seeing as it comes from Mr. Jacobs it must be concrete. But if they're there to uphold the law, which law? The Laws in Andoran are different than the laws in Cheliax or Galt. i.e. Slavery is illegal, let's free them. No, we're in Cheliax, it's legal, let's kill the Bellflower Network... If they're just mercenary, than the only law they care about is the Golden Rule, who has the gold makes the rules. On the surface, the Hellknights seem pretty cool, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
Actually, no. It's pretty explicit: an order has a purpose they cleave to, and the law they use is the Measure and Chain compared to and applied toward that purpose.
They are paid because they're very good at their intended purpose (and also because entering into a contract with them is an ironclad deal - the no backsies kind - whether the ruler in question wants it or not), and thus bring order.
Hellknight, for reference.
They are clearly mercenaries, but they are not mercenaries who are concerned with money. They are mercenaries who are concerned with a cause, and they champion that cause well enough to make people go, "Yeah; I'll pay for that." In a way, it's kind of akin to those semi-exclusive webcomics that manage to merchandise things anyway, only instead of by ads, it's by a premium subscription.
However, most all of the orders belong to Cheliax, where they all started, so the issue hasn't come up much. The three Hellknight orders that exist beyond Cheliax, are the Order of the Nail who was invited by the monarch of a Cheliax-friendly city-state (under the mistaken assumption that the Hellknights would be so grateful, they'd just become the servants of the monarch; they were then too powerful and important to just make go away or back out of the contract); and Order of the Coil who is not only a minor order, found in a former Chelish colony (and are implied to have been there since before that colony declared independence, due to a severance with Thrune); and the Order of the Godclaw who is in a Cheliax-adjacent vassal state-cum-trade route (which basically means they're just in Cheliax).
That means that they have no ties to any country or ruling body other than those with a direct historical connection to Cheliax (and whose laws, to some extent, reflect those of Cheliax, either current or now-past). Within that paradigm, it really doesn't matter - none of the orders actually have any dealings with definitively non-Chelish countries.
I imagine that if anywhere like Andoran or Druma or other city-states in Varisia or whomever decided, at some point, to invite a Hellknight order somewhere, that order would have to decide if their current mission is better served by remaining in Cheliax or moving elsewhere.
But they definitely enforce their law, not the whim of the local ruler - as both the first Majestrix and Queen Domina found out to their mutual displeasure. That said, the current Majestrix is trying to do something about that, and is possibly being somewhat successful at it...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Asmodeus and Rovagug's key bit reminds me that Inner Sea Faiths gives a GM some foundation to set up an end of the multiverse campaign. The Apsu/Dahak chapters talk about their final battle (which they want you to believe will herald the end of the world) and how it's linked to the imprisonment of Rovagug, and the Groetus chapter talks about how he knows certain events that will happen before everything ends, but not how we get from here to there. Maybe a Wizard (in your party) did it.
And thankfully, we are in the Age of Lost Omens, so you can surprise your players by having all those prophecies fail gloriously or happen at completely wrong times! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if they're there to uphold the law, which law?
As a Hellknight said to Eando Kline - all laws are his laws. Hellknight in Andoran will uphold Andoran laws, while he is in the country borders.
The three Hellknight orders that exist beyond Cheliax
There's another one, who is stationed in the village near Emerald Spire in River Kingdoms. Order of the Pike if I remember its name right.
none of the orders actually have any dealings with definitively non-Chelish countries.
Is Magnimar a non-Chelish city-state (considering it being found by ex-Korvosan citizens)? If yes, then Order of the Nail has this sort of dealing. They were invited in Magnimar, and have there a dozen or more of hellknights in their Bastion of the Nail. Guys are credited for free patroling places where city guard doesn't go.
But if they're there to uphold the law, which law?
As a Hellknight said to Eando Kline - all laws are his laws. Hellknight in Andoran will uphold Andoran laws, while he is in the country borders.
This sounds cool! Where is it from?
The three Hellknight orders that exist beyond Cheliax
There's another one, who is stationed in the village near Emerald Spire in River Kingdoms. Order of the Pike if I remember its name right.
Hmmm... I have that Superdungeon, but we haven't look too much at it, yet. I'd forgotten the Hellknights were involved.
According to the wiki (where I linked earlier), though the Order of the Pike operates out of the Whisperwood.
That said, according to the Emperald Spire entry (), that is, in fact, where Fort Inevitable is located (which is also noted as their base, citing itself as there). Similarly, however, Odeial calls itself the home of that Order.
Either we've run into a weird (un-clarified) retcon, or there's some history missing we're unaware of. Thanks!
none of the orders actually have any dealings with definitively non-Chelish countries.
Is Magnimar a non-Chelish city-state (considering it being found by ex-Korvosan citizens)? If yes, then Order of the Nail has this sort of dealing. They were invited in Magnimar, and have there a dozen or more of hellknights in their Bastion of the Nail. Guys are credited for free patroling places where city guard doesn't go.
Hm... it was definitely Korvosa who invited them, but reading into the Order a bit more, you are correct that they have ties to Magnimar... which does seem to be more independent than Korvosa. I'd guess that would be the one that I just missed, then! Thanks!
Certainly Magnimar has Chelish roots (as it was founded by disaffected Korvosan citizens), but that's really only about as true as, say, Andoran or Molthune. Cool! Good to know! :D
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if they're there to uphold the law, which law?As a Hellknight said to Eando Kline - all laws are his laws. Hellknight in Andoran will uphold Andoran laws, while he is in the country borders.
Hellknight should go on vacation once in a while. To a place with no laws. "Stay in the resort and you'll be fine, Hellknight," said the Chelaxian travel planner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a Hellknight order involved in the Emerald Spire, but I don't remember which one it is. The one where the leader's daughter despises wizards, believing sorcerors and their bloodlines are the chosen arcane casters of the gods.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds cool! Where is it from?
Pathfinder Journal fron Spires of Xin-Shalast arch of 3.5 RotRL.
Either we've run into a weird (un-clarified) retcon, or there's some history missing we're unaware of. Thanks!
Yep, thats them. I remember reading about them, and how they rulled Thornkeep with an iron grip.
Hm... it was definitely Korvosa who invited them, but reading into the Order a bit more, you are correct that they have ties to Magnimar...
Yeah, Domina invited Order of the Nail in Varisia. But after years some of Justices in Magnimar decided, that their city needs more LAW. And they sent an invitation. Naturally, Order of the Nail jumped at the opportunity to increase its influence and power. If I remember right, now Justices don't know how to politly send them away from the city.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's feasible from the point of knighthoods needing to make money.
Someone has to be paying/sponsoring the Orders. Are they collecting taxes? Then they ARE the government. Is the government paying the order a stipend? Then they are an arm of the government. Are they open to missions from the highest bidder? Then they are open mercenaries. Are they employed by wealthy folk to solve problems within the confines of their codes? Then they are professional specialists/experts being hired as sees fit.
The Cheliax government probably pays almost all the Orders a retainer fee, {. . .}
This actually makes quite a bit of sense. Another possible role (not mutally exclusive with those listed above) is that they could serve as a privatized tax collection agency(*).
(*)Frightening future analog on Earth: From what I understand of a recent Supreme Court decision in the United States potentially gives the green light to such a thing happening here. Don't be surprised if, a few years from now, you get a knock on the door from the Order of the Serpent . . . .
{. . .}
i.e. in other words, by taking the money that would normally be paid to secular, loyal troops, the Hellknights actually make open conflict harder. The only problem here is that Hellknights will also fight amongst themselves, which entirely defeats the original purpose for which they exist.
Well, that depends very much upon whose original purpose you are talking about . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a small hellknight order based in Taldor(Order of the Scar) and there was a hellknight order that was based on the border between nidal and molthune(Order of the Crux, but no one really talks about them anymore)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a small hellknight order based in Taldor(Order of the Scar)
Indeed.
and there was a hellknight order that was based on the border between nidal and molthune(Order of the Crux, but no one really talks about them anymore)
Because they were put to the sword, and Citadel Gheisteno burned to the ground, for their desire to put themselves above the law.
There are... disturbing rumors... of spectral activity in that area, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are... disturbing rumors... of spectral activity in that area, though.
sad to say those rumors are true read Hellknight
The avatars there are pretty amusing. How do Hellknights tell each other apart?
it's really hard sometimes when there are so few of these
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are... disturbing rumors... of spectral activity in that area, though.sad to say those rumors are true read Hellknight
I passed Hellknight Jheraal on the road to Citadel Rivad some days past, but I've not heard the details of her most recent doings. Few are as tight-lipped as the Hellknights of the Rack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I passed Hellknight Jheraal on the road to Citadel Rivad some days past, but I've not heard the details of her most recent doings. Few are as tight-lipped as the Hellknights of the Rack.
** spoiler omitted **
ah
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always wear my numbername tag.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always wear mynumbername tag.
get back to your patrol number 685,340
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?
I have the Order of the Quill, who are focused on finance. (The Infernal Revenue Service, as it were. Lots of Abadar-followers.) Because society can't exist without proper organization of resources. And if you have the spleen to fight a devil as tough as you are, you *might* be cut out to make adventurers pay their taxes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I just got Path of the HEllknight this last week, and the different orders really do mix things up.
Order of the Chain - bounty hunters, pursuers of fugitives from justice, not a bad choice for Paladins.
Order of the Gate - let's summon us a bunch of devils, for, uh, justice, yeah! Probably a terrible choice for Paladins...
Order of the Godclaw - less mission-oriented than some of the others, more based around their particular faith-arrangement. Still, associated with fighting the demons at the Worldwound, and a decent place for a Paladin to end up.
Order of the Nail - let's kill us some primitives and savages, which we define as anybody who owns lands we want for ourselves and doesn't have the military might to stop us from settling their lands. Nope. Not likely to be a lot of Paladins here, since the Order's hat seems to be 'racist conquistadors.'
Order of the Pyre - same as Order of the Nail, but concerned with destroying foreign religion and burning books full of 'dangerous' ideas from 'lesser' cultures. In-game, where there literally *are* 'dangerous ideas' (spells with the [evil] descriptor, etc.), a good-ish version of a book-burnin' sect *could* exist, but this surely isn't such an animal, since, again, it's all about the racism and nativism and racial/cultural superiority themes. So, few if any Paladins need apply.
Order of the Rack - a third pretty much 'bad-guy' Order. As defenders of the status quo, regardless of the justness of that status quo, they end up defending Cheliax's government, for instance.
Order of the Scourge - justice for all, rooting out corruption in the highest levels of government, this is totally a possibility for a Paladin, who may be sick of seeing rich or powerful people get away with monstrous crimes, while the poor are being sold into slavery for far less.
Lesser Orders;
Order of the Coil - the Nail on steroids, focused solely on totally obliterating native Mwangi culture. Yikes. Not likely to be any Paladins here.
Order of the Crux - evil to the bone, even before they came back as undead. Nope.
Order of the Glyph - Geryon worshipping supporters of House Thrune who destroy and alter historical records to suit the 'new truth.' Bad-guys to the core.
Order of the Pike - monster-hunters and defenders of rural areas, this Order seems like a fine place for a Paladin to operate.
Order of the Scar - anti-assassination guardsmen, a Paladin might be acceptable in a place where the leader to be protected is someone the Paladin approves of (such as the Crusader Queen of Mendev), but not so much Miss Abby Thrune...
Order of the Torrent - recover kidnap victims / hostages. Another that's a good place for Paladins.
Order of the Wall - defenders of civilized borders, whether or not a Paladin would be suitable would depend on the borders. Those defending northern lands from the monsters of the Sodden Lands would likely be comfortable for Paladins. Those defending borders between devil-run Cheliax and freedom-loving Andoran, not so much.
I like that the Orders include room for pretty much any interpretation in this thread.
There are a number of 'bad-guy' Orders that no Paladin would be likely to be able to function within without falling, like the Nail, Pyre, Rack, Coil, Crux and Glyph.
Then there are Orders like the Torrent, Pike and Scourge, which seem like pretty comfortable fits for someone with a Paladin's ethics and strong moral code.
And a few on the squiffy edge, like the order of the Wall or Godclaw or Scar, where fine lines might need to be tread, and some role-playing / moral conflict opportunities may exist.
|
|
Remember that, like many of the other orders, we of the Scar are still mercenaries. We are not forced to protect the Empress of Cheliax unless we so choose - probably (but not exclusively) for money. As such, paladins should feel perfectly welcome in our order. There are always more innocent targets in need of protection, after all.
Interesting to note that Path of the Hellknight essentially flipped the Pyre and the Chain on the ethical spectrum for me...
The Chain used to be presented as hunters of runaway slaves, something Path of the Hellknight describes as being mostly smear propaganda, while the Pyre used to be less about thought crimes and more about dangerous magic.
And the Scourge write up was practically screaming, "Do you wanna be Judge Dredd?"
I agree that Glyph is evil, bout they protect and hoard true records Thrune doesn't want the world to know, as presented in Scourge of the Godclaw they don't do any destruction of true history and alteration/publication of false history themselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also note that the spell required for the Test is not evil (no [evil] descriptor) if used for a paladin. Really shouldn't anytime, as the devil summoned can't leave the area, or affect anything outside the given arena. It also disappears if no challenger steps up or the spell runs out before the fight does, unlikely as that may be.
And that is why the protagonists of Hell's Vengeance are, in defiance of all evidence... the real heroes. :Othey're the heroes cheliax needs
But are they the heroes Cheliax deserves? Probably.
Also, Hellknight just sounds cool. Axisknight? Inevitableknight?