Double-Checking: Valerie Endings

I’m trying to figure out how to get Valerie’s Hellknight ending. I’ve gone through the game twice now:

  1. Spared Federico, compromised between Valerie and the bard, passed the trial: “beautiful muse” ending

  2. Killed Federico, sided with Valerie against the bard, refused the trial and killed everyone: “generic farmwife” ending.

What am I missing?

I believe you also need to consistently choose dialogue options that validate her opinion that beauty is worthless but I’ve never gotten it. I always get the standard farmwife ending.

Erratum - See the second post redacted just below for a more accurate guide.

It’s been a while I have played Kingmaker but I got the Hellknight Ending a few times by doing this :

  • Won the fight against Fredero Sinnet and spared him.

  • When she is causing some problems because of her scar, made her apologize to the bard and called her out about how she never considered beauty to be a part of who she really was.

  • When her presence is solicited by the Temple of Shelyn representatives, went and encouraged her to take part in the tribunal to speak her damn mind in front of everyone.

That should do it.


Doesn’t that end up healing her scar, though? Or does she still “fail” even if she speaks her mind?

No, she does not fail the verdict since Shelyn always ends up restoring her face but… I forgot to mention that you need to assist Valerie with three successful diplomacy checks during the trial before she finally speaks her mind ! If you fail to do that, you are going to get the beautiful muse ending where she is also marrying a farmer and having kids.

So basically, for a more accurate guide to “harden” her :

  • Do not kill Fredero or any NPCs belonging to the Temple of Shelyn (except Hegend who is always scripted to attack your party no matter what).

  • When Hyland bring you both Valerie and Eveld, say only : “Valerie, explain yourself!” and “Valerie, you overreacted. Apologize to Eveld.

  • When you find her outside very upset, choose : “You’re letting your old beliefs cover your pain and disappointment. Let yourself grieve for what you’ve lost.

  • During “Judgement of the Gods”, pick the following lines :

  1. [Lawful] “Maybe this trial will bring you peace ?” (the true neutral option worked for me too)
  2. [Diplomacy 30] “Valerie despises Shelyn and everything she touches. Don’t confuse her good manners with obedience to the goddess!
  3. [Diplomacy 30] “What would you say about all of those you’ve killed since? Be honest with yourself, Valerie. You’re a warrior, not a nurse.”
  4. [Diplomacy 30] “Ha! What a spineless creature! How can you take him seriously? Valerie, you must feel like a right hypocrite, trading bows with this scum.”

This should suffice to unlock the best following ending :

Spoilers - Hellknight Valerie

If you do not interfere during her trial or choose the chaotic option to kill everyone despite everything, you will still get the married and forgotten ending.


Thanks a lot for this!

Now I know why I didn’t manage to get her Hellknight ending… and still I am mightily confused:

Hellknights are Evil… Lawful Evil, right?
So how in the name of Urgathoa is always choosing goody twoshoes wuss dialogue options “turning someone evil”?

The Lawful option I kinda see, but never killing anyone, talking about apologies, that weak Good people talk! >:]

But seriously, I really feel like her Path to Evil™ should have included decidedly more evil things happening, not apologies and cuddles.

They can be Lawful Neutral too - and not killing Federico makes sense in that context because the duel has clear rules that Valerie agreed to.

But Valerie has also told our character verbatim: “You are my Commander, your word is Law”.
Thus, when we order her to kill him, or decide ourselves to do so, she should see that as Lawful too, shouldn’t she?

After all, what we say is Law to her, by her own admission, and at the time of that encounter, we genuinely are the Ruler of those lands.

Unless of couse she has serious double standards, heh.

But yeah, I didn’t know that Hellknights could be LN too… doesn’t make much sense to me, given whom and what they’ve chosen as their patron saint/inspiration, but if the rules say so… :man_shrugging:

She is Lawful Neutral; you may not be. :slight_smile: It’s like a god ordering a paladin to commit a crime - obedience can clash with the consequences of any action.

Hellknights being LN is just an extension of the idea that any alignment can vibe with an alignment one step removed. Valerie follows the law no matter what, but she doesn’t enjoy when it’s used against people (at the same time, she’s not “Good” to the point where she’d do anything about that dissatisfaction). Kanerah, on the other hand, loves using the law to advance herself and her causes - look at the policies she supports as Treasurer versus, say, Jubilost.


Besides, Valerie is not Lawful-blind. She already has a history of turning her back to her old order, because she felt that they were wrong. She’s struggling to obey orders she thinks are useless or needlessly cruel, she does not follow orders blindly whatever words she uses to reassure herself or others.

And as for Hellknights being LN or LE, don’t forget that they only follow Lawful gods, be they Asmodeus (LE) or Iomedae (LG). A number of important Hellknights are actually LG.

Hm, that’s even more immersion-killing for me… how can anyone call themselves a Knight of Hell and be Good at the same time?

I get that this is apparently established lore/rules, but I really don’t see the logic behind that.

Haha ~ There are no place for frivolous emotions and cuddles in my Kingdom. Only law and order.
For the apologies part, I don’t think it’s a weak thing for her to admit that she is the one that screwed up by unleashing on everyone because of her scar. Hellknights usually do not show any concern about what people think of them.This part with Eveld is actually crucial to turn the tables around during her judgement just to show how vain they all are and how she managed to stand dignified before them despite everything that has been thrown at her.

Not quite the same thing - Shelyn’s followers aren’t especially interested in law to begin with (art, beauty, love and music aren’t things that tend to conform to specific rules, after all). Valerie being a law-and-order, black-and-white kind of girl is the whole reason that church was wrong for her from the start.

That’s probably more for RP purposes than any actual lore value - there are always players who want to perform Evil classes but aren’t willing to commit to Evil actions to get there.

1 Like

Welp, if I were their Game Master, I sure as hell (ha!) wouldn’t allow that… what’s even the point of running a PnP campaign with broken immersion?

At least to me, that’s what it’s all about: immersion, plausibility even in the phantastical.

Different players have different values/motives for playing, it’s really not worth the energy to police that. But I’m glad Owlcat drew a line for Wrath at least, and said you can’t get to the Lich path through Good.

You and me both.
Though on the topic of “policing” it… it’s the Game Master’s job, among many others, to ensure that all members of the party can enjoy their time, and I’d argue that’s it far more fair to disallow playing Evil classes without respecting their alignment restrictions than forcing all other players to have their immersion for the entire campaign lessened, just so one player can break the rules and be a special cookie. :shrug:

Especially when it just doesn’t make any sense within the confines of the world the campaign takes place in… I mean: actual proper Hellknights would purge any such traitor who actually acts counter to their Lord’s commands and doesn’t fulfil their God/Demon’s alignment requirements… such a person would definitely be branded a Traitor to the Hellknight Order.

The only instance I’d allow that, were I said Game Master, would be if the entire party unanimously voted to be okay with it… because that’s another aspect of what being a good Game Master means to me: you are enforcing the important rules, yes, but you never tell the party entire how to enjoy the campaign.

So I guess if all players were “meh” about it, fine… but as a player, I could never be “meh” about such a thing… as I said, what’s even the point when immersion is declared optional.

This is veering way off-topic, so to put a cap on it: immersion isn’t necessarily a hill every player (or every GM for that matter) is willing to die for. What you do or don’t allow in your game’s all well and good, but like I said, there’s little point in holding that up as a kind of universal standard (and, in fact, this is probably the reason Paizo allows for such breaks/contradictions in the first place - if players want to go that route, the GM’s job is to find a way to make it work, not block it out of hand).

My answer was to HMorrison saying that Valerie should follow his orders completely as she said that his word was her order. I replied that it was not so simple.

Agreed, but:

I never once did that.
Everything I posted above, I always clearly wrote that I was stating my own personal views.
I merely said that, to me, a campaign without taking immersion seriously is meaningless, because, to me, it is… without immersion, one might as well read a transcript, is how I see it.
You and everyone else is just as free to see it whichever way they like, obviously.