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.

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

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.

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.

Not that this is relevant to the original discussion, but as someone who runs lots of games set in Cheliax, I can answer the Hellknight alignment question.

Hellknights do not serve Asmodeus. They serve The Law, a la Judge Dredd. They often take INSPIRATION from the discipline of the legions of Hell, but given that they specifically slay a devil in order to “graduate” their training, they certainly are not de facto allied with Hell. Moreover, some Hellknight orders are lapdogs to House Thrune, while others consider themselves to be an authority exceeding even that of Thrune (though these Hellknights rarely voice such opinions out loud if they want to avoid a sudden, unfortunate end).

Some Hellknights serve Asmodeus. Some serve other lawful gods. There’s an entire (main supplement) order of Hellknights called the Order of the Godclaw that picks and chooses aspects from five different lawful gods, including Asmodeus, Iomedae, Abadar, Irori, and Torag. This is not immersion-breaking lore–it’s literally been there since the beginning, when Hellknights were introduced.

I’ve done a lot of great politics with Hellknights in my games. Lawful Good Hellknights are rare, but always crunchy. Unless they happen to live in a more permissive city, like Kintargo, they do tend to meet bad ends more often than their fellows, though.