Chaos equivalent to Hellknights

[Arkain]

Hey there.

A while ago I was asked for advice in going concerning how one would go creating a Gnosticism-styled belief system in Pathfinder's Golarion setting. This developed into a bit of a discussion and eventually we came to a rather interesting question that I couldn't quite answer. The Hellknights may vary quite a bit depending on what order they belong to, yet what the all have in common is their devotion to law, including the ability to smite chaos in the game mechanics. That's all fine and dandy, but are there maybe organizations equally focused on chaos?
Unable to find or think of any on the fly, my first feeling was to look towards the Maelstrom. Maybe one could go about by creating cults similar to those of demon lords or other similarly powerful creatures, except focused on protean lords. There is even a protean subdomain for chaos, so it doesn't seem to outlandish if one wants to take mechanics into account. As an alternative to that, one might go so far as to directly worship the Speakers of the Depths, deities to the proteans themselves and basically one of the best manifestations of chaos proper I could find. One of the issues I found with various chaotic gods and powers is that worshipping chaotic forces is well and good, but very often you end up in some sort of morality, with chaotic neutral deities or powers often being a bit unsatisfactory. Yet here I am wondering if being all pro-Maelstrom is something that would be appropriate for mortals in the same way it might be for creatures literally made of chaos.
Of course, this assumes this degree of "chaos" even forms some kind of cult in the first place. As for inspiration, I figure one could go and take a look at D&D, as maybe one of the settings has something in that vein, but I wouldn't know much of that off the top of my head, besides Planescape. The factions of Sigil in particular come to mind here, especially the Xaositects, but I'm afraid all that might not be it either if only because it may seem a bit antiquated at this point.

A small note here, this isn't for an actual game, yet the question still lingers and I find it quite interesting.

[ahyangyi]

In the random table for Ganzi Oddity there is such an entry:


Chaos Champion (Su) Ganzis with a lineage linked to the einherji often become crusaders for the forces of entropy and excel in combat against lawful beings. The ganzi can smite law once per day as a swift action, targeting a lawful foe. She adds her Charisma modifier as a bonus on attack rolls and gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to her Hit Dice. Once activated, smite law persists until the target is dead or the ganzi rests, whichever comes first.

So, even if the organizations are in question, the existence of individual chaos-crusaders is easily justified.

[Cortillaen]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised, this being Golarion we're talking about, if there is a chaotic analogue of the Hellknights somewhere, but I also think the concept of such an organization would be inherently contradictory. "Organization", after all, is an ordered structure imposed on an otherwise chaotic collection of like-minded individuals, which requires the sacrifice of individual freedoms and personal goals (to greater or lesser degree depending on the organization, but always some) to instead promote the collective goals of the organization. The entire raison d'etre of the Hellknights is to imitate the order and structure of Hell and impose similar order on the world, so creating an organization is perfectly in line with their ethos.

For people who seek to imitate the (lack of) structure of the Maelstrom, I'm not convinced any kind of enduring organization makes sense. Certainly some chaos-adherents might embrace the sort of meta-chaos of using anti-chaotic means to promote chaos, but I imagine they would be a minority and most would simply reject any kind of hierarchy. Instead, what you might have is a sort of forum where these sorts of people can gather for a time, share ideas (and probably some punches), and then go their own way. Temporary alliances and alignments of purpose might result, but they would likely be pretty short-lived. As for the forum itself, it would be only right for it to be held in a different place every time and on no set schedule; perhaps a new person is chosen each time to call the next one.

[Psyren]

On top of the idea of a "chaos organization" not really making a lot of sense when you get right down to it, there's also the reason the Hellknights exist, which is that the forces of entropy and disorder already have an upper hand in Golarion thanks to all the competing factions, inter-deity strife, Rovagug barely contained in the core, Worldwound etc etc. Even if those forces were inclined to band together, there's no real reason for them to do so, there's already chaos aplenty.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Cortillaen
…I also think the concept of such an organization would be inherently contradictory…I’m not convinced any kind of enduring organization makes sense.

I think this might taking the analogy a little too far.

To be effective in the material world, there does need to be an element of down-to-earth practicality here. People can certainly join efforts to work towards a cause they all believe in, and build a long-term community of action, without being in violation of any overarching philosophical beliefs.

If you want to reflect some element of chaos in their approach, you can say they consciously avoid any kind of ranks, hierarchies or command structures, instead forming and re-forming operating elements according to the needs of the mission and personal preference. Rather than having strict chain-of-command or top-down governance, they might decide on objectives through communal consensus, with every individual’s vote having the same weight as everyone else’s. Individual operating elements might be fluid and temporary, but the overall flow could continue indefinitely.

Water is a useful metaphor here. Turbulent, formless, with no fixed shape, never the same from one instant to the next, not even with exact boundaries—and yet a river cuts through the static landscape and endlessly reshapes it. For a group of like-minded “chaos crusaders,” that might be a more visceral emblem than the rather abstract concept of a Maelstrom.


Originally Posted by Arkain
The factions of Sigil in particular come to mind here, especially the Xaositects, but I'm afraid all that might not be it either if only because it may seem a bit antiquated at this point.

What about Sigil or the Xaositects would seem antiquated?

[Cortillaen]

To be effective in the material world, there does need to be an element of down-to-earth practicality here. People can certainly join efforts to work towards a cause they all believe in, and build a long-term community of action, without being in violation of any overarching philosophical beliefs.

If you want to reflect some element of chaos in their approach, you can say they consciously avoid any kind of ranks, hierarchies or command structures, instead forming and re-forming operating elements according to the needs of the mission and personal preference. Rather than having strict chain-of-command or top-down governance, they might decide on objectives through communal consensus, with every individual’s vote having the same weight as everyone else’s. Individual operating elements might be fluid and temporary, but the overall flow could continue indefinitely.
Much of what you propose still involves surrendering personal freedom, though. Even a pure democracy is opposed to absolute freedom if you must be bound by the group decision. So the underlying question is "Exactly how chaotic are we talking about?" For someone who looks at the Maelstrom the same way Hellknights do Hell, I don't imagine many of them would consent to anything beyond small, temporary groups formed of only people desiring whatever the group's goal is (and even that is actually anti-chaotic when you think about it). It's the difference between having an org dedicated to maximal chaos/freedom at the personal level and one dedicated to increasing chaos on the material plane. The latter could be a thing, though likely with far more membership churn and fewer long-term goals than the Hellknights, but the former I just can't see happening.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't imagine many of them would consent to anything beyond small, temporary groups formed of only people desiring whatever the group's goal is (and even that is actually anti-chaotic when you think about it).

A modification to this idea: knights generally fight against something, and I'd consider guerilla cells chaotic enough to not sweat the details (after all sweating the details is a lawful trait).

so I'd just make some super-order threat thats like, draining all color and passion out of the world and the knights of chaos would be his guerilla-cell based structure of people fighting against it, because the thing that unites them is that they don't want to see the world turned grey, boring and without emotion. something like that. don't worry it'll all work out. I'm sure they'll kludge something together to defeat it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Cortillaen
Much of what you propose still involves surrendering personal freedom, though.

The OP didn’t mention freedom, and I’m not convinced that freedom per se is a primary issue here. Anyone involved in a group like this would almost certainly have the freedom to leave whenever they pleased—which is considerably more freedom than most armies and cults allow.

Beyond that, there’s the basic practicality of allowing slight concessions on minor points for the sake of collective action that should benefit many others—or at least the group’s own broad agenda.


Originally Posted by Cortillaen
So the underlying question is "Exactly how chaotic are we talking about?"

I think in practical terms, a more fundamental question is whether this prospective group is indifferent to human suffering, or fighting to prevent it (or their perception of it) in one way or another. Answering that question will provide a better sense of the constraints involved.

[Cortillaen]

The OP didn’t mention freedom, and I’m not convinced that freedom per se is a primary issue here. Anyone involved in a group like this would almost certainly have the freedom to leave whenever they pleased—which is considerably more freedom than most armies and cults allow.
If you have a definition of Chaos, as it relates to the actions of sentient beings, that excludes freedom, I'm all ears. I've always taken personal freedom to be the defining trait of the Chaos side of the spectrum: freedom from oaths, from group norms, from little-L law, from boundaries. Fundamentally, I see Chaos on the personal level as freedom from restrictions. Even the "I follow a code, but I don't impose it on others" moral archetype is all about having restrictions placed on the person; that they are placed by the person him/herself is irrelevant.


Beyond that, there’s the basic practicality of allowing slight concessions on minor points for the sake of collective action that should benefit many others—or at least the group’s own broad agenda.
No matter how small the concessions, they are still a reduction in personal freedoms by the placing of restrictions, which a Chaos-absolutist might well reject. This is basically the Chaos/Law version of the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), asking whether actively creating a decrease in Chaos is justified by the act also creating (or potentially creating, as is more commonly the case) a larger increase in Chaos overall. The fact that people still argue over that problem today illustrates the trouble in trying to settle on one side or the other here. That's what I meant by "how chaotic".


I think in practical terms, a more fundamental question is whether this prospective group is indifferent to human suffering, or fighting to prevent it (or their perception of it) in one way or another. Answering that question will provide a better sense of the constraints involved.
Asking about views on human suffering is definitively getting the Good/Evil axis involved, which I don't believe was the objective of the OP. It's also quite natural to do. A pure dedication to Chaos itself, just like a dedication to Law/Order itself, is actually a sort of blue-vs-orange morality*. It doesn't really make sense to us as humans unless you add "because Freedom/Order is good" (whether "good" here means Good or "helpful to my objectives" or whatever). At core, the Chaos/Law axis is more about means than ends, at least from the human perspective. I think that's why the more pure CN and LN beings actually end up being more alien than fiends or celestials.

*This is also why the Hellknights don't make sense when taken at face-value. They claim to promote Law/Order without any concern for Good or Evil. But this isn't really a thing humans can do. All it takes is asking "Why?" a few times to reach either "because I follow so-and-so" or "because Law is better than Chaos", and then the next "Why?" will have a fundamentally moral (ie Good/Evil) answer. Even "Because I like Law" (assuming the person is actually operating on that blue-vs-orange morality spectrum) ends up being Evil since imposing your will on others, often violently, for purely selfish reasons is pretty definitively Evil. There's not really any escaping the moral color of human motivations in the end.

[icefractal]

They're the Hell Knights, but they're claiming to be strictly about Law, as much about LG as LE? It's odd they'd keep that name then, or that many LG people would agree to join such a group.

Is this a PF2 change? Because I remember them being a LE organization with some LN members.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Cortillaen
…which a Chaos-absolutist might well reject.

An absolutist, of course, and I don’t think anyone expects an absolutist to be a joiner in this situation.

But there are likely to be any number of people who are not absolutists, but for whatever individual reasons have a driving interest in chaos as a cause, and those would be the potential participants here.


Originally Posted by Cortillaen
Asking about views on human suffering is definitively getting the Good/Evil axis involved, which I don't believe was the objective of the OP.

But it does have a substantial impact on how any group like this would operate in the world—if they have boundaries, what those might be, and how that intersects with whatever goals they have.

OP, any thoughts on this?

[Arkain]

They're the Hell Knights, but they're claiming to be strictly about Law, as much about LG as LE? It's odd they'd keep that name then, or that many LG people would agree to join such a group.

Is this a PF2 change? Because I remember them being a LE organization with some LN members.

Not that I know of, no, though I'm also implicitly thinking of PF1 to be honest. My feeling is that it does depend heavily on the individual order. The Order of the Godclaw is particularly fond of Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag. Two of these deities are good aligned with only Asmodeus being evil, there are paladins in their ranks and they've taken part in crusades against the demons in the Worldwound, so, yeah. On the other hand, the Order of the Rack aids Cheliax in their history revisioning and does so by burning books with undesired knowledge, besides other unpleasant things to uphold the not so nice status quo. I'd pin the latter as rather evil.

[Psyren]

They're the Hell Knights, but they're claiming to be strictly about Law, as much about LG as LE? It's odd they'd keep that name then, or that many LG people would agree to join such a group.

Is this a PF2 change? Because I remember them being a LE organization with some LN members.

They're explicitly LN in PF1. Yes, Iomedae isn't a fan of the branding, but their willingness to keep an eye on dangerous things like the Worldwound is seen to do more good than harm overall.

As the name indicates, Asmodeus is very likely playing a long game here, and the leaders of the order tend far more towards LE than LG.

[Palanan]

OP, what are your thoughts on whether a "chaos cult" would be concerned or otherwise with any suffering they might cause?

And what sort of agenda and endeavors do you think they would be pursuing?

[Arkain]

The original idea that I discussed back then was along the lines of seeing established deities as false and trying to topple the system. Eventually, we wondered about the whole chaos organization bit and the problem of attached morality (i.e. good/evil), hence why I originally mentioned that.
What agenda is indeed a good question here, as it might tie in with the whole part about morality implied in stances towards suffering and such. Assuming the furthering of chaos, we would circle back to Psyren's early post, as chaos is already "winning" anyhow and can take many forms. Does trying to free Rovagug bring chaos? Certainly, but it's also pretty much evil, whereas sowing disorder in existing nations in an attempt to bring them closer to anarchy may be more of a "pure" chaos focus. Probably time for the fictional not very sensible chaos faction to divide into sub factions or "orders", if you will? :smallbiggrin:
I can easily imagine looking at the world and thinking to bring order to it might be a good thing, with various degrees of the ends justifying the means. On the other hand, thinking that everything is going a bit too smoothly, so let's screw it up just because seems a bit more difficult to grasp. A requirement for that would probably be a strong belief that too much order is not good, as it limits you too much. We do have degrees of that, come to think of it. The Hold of Belkzen is kinda anarchic, but with a distinctively evil bend. There is also Galt, a nation of revolutionary anarchy that forms a new government every couple years, so in that sense, it might "work". To a degree anyways, as executions are so common there's an entire prestige class about the job.

[torrasque666]

Not that I know of, no, though I'm also implicitly thinking of PF1 to be honest. My feeling is that it does depend heavily on the individual order. The Order of the Godclaw is particularly fond of Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag. Two of these deities are good aligned with only Asmodeus being evil, there are paladins in their ranks and they've taken part in crusades against the demons in the Worldwound, so, yeah. On the other hand, the Order of the Rack aids Cheliax in their history revisioning and does so by burning books with undesired knowledge, besides other unpleasant things to uphold the not so nice status quo. I'd pin the latter as rather evil.

On the other hand, you also have had the Order of the Torrent, who focused on rescuing abductees (before it fell to corruption and now only has a scattered 23 members) and the Order of the Scourge opposes corruption in all its forms (which frequently puts it at odds with the quite corrupt nation of Cheliax.)

Though I'd agree that the Scourge's methods land it at a solid LN instead of LG.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Arkain
…whereas sowing disorder in existing nations in an attempt to bring them closer to anarchy may be more of a "pure" chaos focus.

True, but anarchy also brings suffering, from the disruption of infrastructure and supply chains as well as raw mob violence. Any large-scale efforts towards disorder in a nation will carry a cost in lives, so how the various pro-chaos actors view that will influence what goals they pursue.


Originally Posted by Arkain
Probably time for the fictional not very sensible chaos faction to divide into sub factions or "orders", if you will?

I’ve been doing my best to word around the “chaos order” phrasing myself. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Arkain
On the other hand, thinking that everything is going a bit too smoothly, so let's screw it up just because seems a bit more difficult to grasp.

Perhaps some of them have the belief that chaos itself is not the ultimate goal, but rather the means by which the world can be reborn into a new and purer form—reducing the current world to formless energy, at least metaphorically speaking, which can reorganize itself to achieve its true potential.

In this view, the reduction to chaos is not the final endstate, but rather a necessary starting point before the world can rebuild itself into a better form. Perhaps they believe that the world originated in chaos, but went awry, and so there have been many cycles of a forced return to chaos and a new rebirth, each time going astray and each time requiring another return to chaos—all in the belief that this time, the world might finally rebuild itself into the perfection it was always meant to achieve.

[Wildstag]

Even if the concept of an organized unit of knights for Chaos seems bizarre or alien to some, I don't see why it can't also just be a "tradition" so to speak. Like a Dread Pirate Roberts or "Rule of Two Sith" kinda thing would make sense, a role that people pass down that doesn't have strict rules aside from "take this title or name and do what you believe best".

That being said, I don't believe there's anything within Pathfinder or Golarion to really support such a character idea.

[Arkain]

True, but anarchy also brings suffering, from the disruption of infrastructure and supply chains as well as raw mob violence. Any large-scale efforts towards disorder in a nation will carry a cost in lives, so how the various pro-chaos actors view that will influence what goals they pursue.



I’ve been doing my best to word around the “chaos order” phrasing myself. :smalltongue:



Perhaps some of them have the belief that chaos itself is not the ultimate goal, but rather the means by which the world can be reborn into a new and purer form—reducing the current world to formless energy, at least metaphorically speaking, which can reorganize itself to achieve its true potential.

In this view, the reduction to chaos is not the final endstate, but rather a necessary starting point before the world can rebuild itself into a better form. Perhaps they believe that the world originated in chaos, but went awry, and so there have been many cycles of a forced return to chaos and a new rebirth, each time going astray and each time requiring another return to chaos—all in the belief that this time, the world might finally rebuild itself into the perfection it was always meant to achieve.

Possibly so, yes. I figure the point there might be that it's seen as better in the long run that supposedly oppressive order is disrupted. A bit radical, maybe, but that may exactly be the point. Anyways, was just an idea.

"The Order of Chaos welcomes you, brother."
"The what of what now?"
"The Order of Chaos."
"Alright, I'm leaving."
"Every single time, I wonder what their problem is..."
:smallamused:

I actually like that one. "You know the drill mates, no taking chances on this one. We're gonna take 20 on this world creation bit" :smallbiggrin:
To be fair, that's actually part of a couple creation myths, both real and fictional. There is either nothing or pure chaos and deity X steps in to bring some order to it all, thus creating existence as we know it. For example, Apsu and Tiamat in Pathfinder, with Apsu being order and Tiamat chaos. So in that vein one might very well find that the current order is not just or right, as there were other options, so why not fight for them? Depending on the particular nuances of chaos involved you might end up with the three chaotic alignments anyway, but still, it might be something.



What about Sigil or the Xaositects would seem antiquated?

This is actually something I forgot to address when it was more recent. My feeling is that Planescape (in the sense of the AD&D setting) rather shows its age every now and then. The whole schtick about subverting expectations works mostly if those expectations are still relevant. Games of any kind have evolved a bit in the last couple decades (or so one should hope, anyway) and I sometimes see a bit of an 80s/90s thing in it much like one may in other media, particularly with it being a bit on the edgy side.
Now, the Xaositects always struck me as a bit too random, if you will, even to the point where they behave "normal" for periods of time because otherwise they would be predictable. I might however have my view there colored very much by their depiction in Torment, what with the barking, garbled up syntax, words and all that. That may be technically "chaotic", but I rather find it to be more on the obnoxious side of things and have no particular interest in it. In addition, it strikes me as an interpretation of chaotic (neutral) as an alignment for crazies, something I thought we had outgrown a while ago. On the flipside, I figured the Doomguard might be interesting to look at, with their embrace of entropy, not in a sense of thus justifying destroying everything just because you can, but as simply accepting the inevitable. Options for CG, CN and CE there.