So I've been reading about this new Illriger class and the article mentioned it as a Hell Knight. I don't know for sure about the new 2024 Paladin version, but the 2014 edition mentions Oath of Conquest Paladins often being Hell Knights. Are they both Hell Knights? Was that part not included in to revised 2024 paladin and this is their way of bringing it back in? Are they just expanding on the archetype? I know Illriger is a seperate class from the specific Oath of Conquest Paladin, but how do they differ thematically?
The Oath of Conquest Paladin and the Illrigger class differ significantly in their thematic essence. The Oath of Conquest Paladin revolves around themes of fear, control, and domination. These Paladins are driven by a desire to subdue their foes and impose order through sheer power and intimidation. Their abilities, such as Aura of Conquest, are designed to exploit and amplify fear, making them formidable enforcers of their will, often with a strict, oppressive demeanor.
In contrast, the Illrigger class embodies themes of infernal power and versatility, serving the archdevils of the Nine Hells. Illriggers blend martial prowess with dark, infernal magic, offering a wide range of playstyles from stealthy assassins to diabolical commanders. Their connection to infernal forces allows them to manipulate the battlefield through fear, deception, and strategic use of dark magic. This gives the Illrigger a broader thematic scope, encompassing both martial and magical elements in service to their fiendish patrons.
While the Oath of Conquest Paladin is about imposing order through fear and martial dominance, the Illrigger thrives on the chaotic and manipulative nature of infernal magic using their versatility to achieve their goals in a variety of ways. I hope this answers your question.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
True, but a paladin could devote themselves to an evil god in theory. Although, I know that typically doesn't fit well in games. That's partly why the Illrigger confuses me, in addition to conquest paladins also being considered hellknights.
Illrigger's are more "Agents of Baator" than just hellknights. Each of the Illrigger subclasses is very different with really only the Painkiller coming close to what you would think of as a "hellknight".
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
no reason a paladin couldn't be devoted to an evil cause
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
Not all paladin's follow Oath of Devotion. The person I quoted didn't state what oath the paladin followed, so I assumed he was talking about all paladins. So as I said, not all paladins are good or lawful. The days of the 1e Lawful Good only paladins are gone.
But I do agree with you about what you stated above since Oath of Devotion is basicly the classic 1e paladin.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
Not all paladin's follow Oath of Devotion. The person I quoted didn't state what oath the paladin followed, so I assumed he was talking about all paladins. So as I said, not all paladins are good or lawful. The days of the 1e Lawful Good only paladins are gone.
But I do agree with you about what you stated above since Oath of Devotion is basicly the classic 1e paladin.
Yeah, but all paladins have ideals to follow. For example, if an Oath of Conquest paladin constantly works to avoid conflict, they are breaking their oath.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
Not all paladin's follow Oath of Devotion. The person I quoted didn't state what oath the paladin followed, so I assumed he was talking about all paladins. So as I said, not all paladins are good or lawful. The days of the 1e Lawful Good only paladins are gone.
But I do agree with you about what you stated above since Oath of Devotion is basicly the classic 1e paladin.
Yeah, but all paladins have ideals to follow. For example, if an Oath of Conquest paladin constantly works to avoid conflict, they are breaking their oath.
Ok. Yeah. But what does that have to do with my original statement about not all paladins are lawful and good? You can be chaotic whatever and still have a code you follow. And being lawful doesn't make you good. Yes every paladin has ideals that they follow. But that doesn't mean their ideas are lawful or good.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
Not all paladin's follow Oath of Devotion. The person I quoted didn't state what oath the paladin followed, so I assumed he was talking about all paladins. So as I said, not all paladins are good or lawful. The days of the 1e Lawful Good only paladins are gone.
But I do agree with you about what you stated above since Oath of Devotion is basicly the classic 1e paladin.
Yeah, but all paladins have ideals to follow. For example, if an Oath of Conquest paladin constantly works to avoid conflict, they are breaking their oath.
Ok. Yeah. But what does that have to do with my original statement about not all paladins are lawful and good? You can be chaotic whatever and still have a code you follow. And being lawful doesn't make you good. Yes every paladin has ideals that they follow. But that doesn't mean their ideas are lawful or good.
The original statement you quoted was about the freedom allowed to illrigers that isn't allowed to paladins.
I have a couple follow up questions, if you'll induldge me. Each of the Illrigger subclasses puts them under the direction of an archdevil, but the Illrigger's Order of Desolation is supposed to place the interests of the hells overall above infernal infighting and politicking. Those subclasses don't even cover all the archdevils either. How would you or have you resolved that issue if/when it comes up in game that something your archdevil wants done clashes with another archdevil's plans? Also, do you stick to the existing subclasses, but just devote them to a different archdevil for one that doesn't have a specifically designated subclass? I've been looking for any homebrewed subclasses that might make up for the missing archdevils, but none show up when I search.
I don't think the Illrigger (hate that name) has been around long enough to have additional subclasses homebrewed and out on the 'net. But there is plenty of ArchDevils that you could work to build new subclasses. I think one for Glasya could be a wicked ride.
To be honest, most of the RolePlay for me has been my Illrigger and his Patron's interests vs the parties, not really vs other ArchDevils. How to align enough to keep the party from being too distrustful while getting teh job done. But they are always scheming against each other so its a very likely scenerio. Given how little is actually said about the Order, I would think an Illrigger would side with their patron first and foremost. But you have to really understand the Patrons to understand the ways they would politic. For example Dispater (patron of the painkiller "tanks") is so wrapped up in his paranoia and hiding he isnt very likely to still his head up. Asemodus (patron of Architects of Ruin) is the big boss and swats the rest when needed.
Of course, in the end its going to depend on how deeply you and your DM roleplay things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've been reading about this new Illriger class and the article mentioned it as a Hell Knight. I don't know for sure about the new 2024 Paladin version, but the 2014 edition mentions Oath of Conquest Paladins often being Hell Knights. Are they both Hell Knights? Was that part not included in to revised 2024 paladin and this is their way of bringing it back in? Are they just expanding on the archetype? I know Illriger is a seperate class from the specific Oath of Conquest Paladin, but how do they differ thematically?
The Oath of Conquest Paladin and the Illrigger class differ significantly in their thematic essence. The Oath of Conquest Paladin revolves around themes of fear, control, and domination. These Paladins are driven by a desire to subdue their foes and impose order through sheer power and intimidation. Their abilities, such as Aura of Conquest, are designed to exploit and amplify fear, making them formidable enforcers of their will, often with a strict, oppressive demeanor.
In contrast, the Illrigger class embodies themes of infernal power and versatility, serving the archdevils of the Nine Hells. Illriggers blend martial prowess with dark, infernal magic, offering a wide range of playstyles from stealthy assassins to diabolical commanders. Their connection to infernal forces allows them to manipulate the battlefield through fear, deception, and strategic use of dark magic. This gives the Illrigger a broader thematic scope, encompassing both martial and magical elements in service to their fiendish patrons.
While the Oath of Conquest Paladin is about imposing order through fear and martial dominance, the Illrigger thrives on the chaotic and manipulative nature of infernal magic using their versatility to achieve their goals in a variety of ways. I hope this answers your question.
One major play difference between a Paladin of any Oath and an Illrigger is that the Illrigger has far more freedom. If an Illrigger does a good deed to further the evil ends of his patron then that is all fine and dandy, but if a Paladin does an evil deed.... that could end badly!
True, but a paladin could devote themselves to an evil god in theory. Although, I know that typically doesn't fit well in games. That's partly why the Illrigger confuses me, in addition to conquest paladins also being considered hellknights.
Illrigger's are more "Agents of Baator" than just hellknights. Each of the Illrigger subclasses is very different with really only the Painkiller coming close to what you would think of as a "hellknight".
You know that in 5e, Paladins aren't required to be good or lawful right?
Not technically, but a DM could have objections to a lawful evil devotion paladin.
You are winning the game. Good job! Oh wait...
no reason a paladin couldn't be devoted to an evil cause
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There is if you want to be lore accurate.
You are winning the game. Good job! Oh wait...
Not all paladin's follow Oath of Devotion. The person I quoted didn't state what oath the paladin followed, so I assumed he was talking about all paladins. So as I said, not all paladins are good or lawful. The days of the 1e Lawful Good only paladins are gone.
But I do agree with you about what you stated above since Oath of Devotion is basicly the classic 1e paladin.
Yeah, but all paladins have ideals to follow. For example, if an Oath of Conquest paladin constantly works to avoid conflict, they are breaking their oath.
You are winning the game. Good job! Oh wait...
Ok. Yeah. But what does that have to do with my original statement about not all paladins are lawful and good? You can be chaotic whatever and still have a code you follow. And being lawful doesn't make you good. Yes every paladin has ideals that they follow. But that doesn't mean their ideas are lawful or good.
The original statement you quoted was about the freedom allowed to illrigers that isn't allowed to paladins.
You are winning the game. Good job! Oh wait...
I have a couple follow up questions, if you'll induldge me. Each of the Illrigger subclasses puts them under the direction of an archdevil, but the Illrigger's Order of Desolation is supposed to place the interests of the hells overall above infernal infighting and politicking. Those subclasses don't even cover all the archdevils either. How would you or have you resolved that issue if/when it comes up in game that something your archdevil wants done clashes with another archdevil's plans? Also, do you stick to the existing subclasses, but just devote them to a different archdevil for one that doesn't have a specifically designated subclass? I've been looking for any homebrewed subclasses that might make up for the missing archdevils, but none show up when I search.
I don't think the Illrigger (hate that name) has been around long enough to have additional subclasses homebrewed and out on the 'net. But there is plenty of ArchDevils that you could work to build new subclasses. I think one for Glasya could be a wicked ride.
To be honest, most of the RolePlay for me has been my Illrigger and his Patron's interests vs the parties, not really vs other ArchDevils. How to align enough to keep the party from being too distrustful while getting teh job done. But they are always scheming against each other so its a very likely scenerio. Given how little is actually said about the Order, I would think an Illrigger would side with their patron first and foremost. But you have to really understand the Patrons to understand the ways they would politic. For example Dispater (patron of the painkiller "tanks") is so wrapped up in his paranoia and hiding he isnt very likely to still his head up. Asemodus (patron of Architects of Ruin) is the big boss and swats the rest when needed.
Of course, in the end its going to depend on how deeply you and your DM roleplay things.