Knights of Neraka and Honor - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Dragonhelm Mar 19, 2004 9:15:00	I'm going to start a discussion on this thread, so as to not take away from the "101 Components" thread on knights. Originally posted by Lily_Knight I kinda like the armoured thugs and hooligan aspect myself. It is almost comical to image the city of Sanction being seiged by prostitutes and drunken sellswords.
#2 The_White_Sorcerer Mar 19, 2004 9:49:02	Originally posted by Dragonhelm In my mind, there's a certain charm to the Knights of Neraka. They were honorable. They put the knighthood first. They were basically the answer to the question, "What if evil didn't turn upon itself?". Nope, those were the Knights of Takhisis. The Knights of Neraka seem like a totally different knightly order to me. BTW, Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird?
#3 lugnut71 Mar 19, 2004 9:55:17	Everybody has different views of honor. That being said I like the old Knights of Takahisis better. Hopefully the Neraka Knights will return to that way.
#4 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 10:57:21	Originally posted by The White Sorcerer BTW, Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird? The way I justify the Sneak Attack ability is that they don´t sneak up on their opponents...instead they´re trained to find weak spots in armor and in their opponent in general... As for honor among Dark Knights...well Targonne is dead and the knighthood needs a new leader. I´ve put one of the old fashioned knights on the throne in my campaign. This knight (Gareth Darkraven) sees it as his life´s quest (no he´s NOT a tinker gnome!) to restore the knighthood to its former glory...that´s what I´ve done to bring back the Knights of Takhisis/Neraka to the road of evil and honor...
#5 cam_banks Mar 19, 2004 10:58:55	Originally posted by lugnut71 Everybody has different views of honor. That being said I like the old Knights of Takahisis better. Hopefully the Neraka Knights will return to that way. The Knights of Takhisis had a specific role in the saga - be scarier, more efficient, more numerous, and more powerful than everybody else. And, be there when the gods let Takhisis win in order to save the day against Chaos later. They should never have been as good as they were for any length of time. They were a formidable plot device with a specific end in sight, and their current incarnation as the less-honorable yet still dangerous Knights of Neraka puts them on a more even footing with the other organisations and institutions of Krynn. I'm making heavy use of them for my Dragonlance campaign (based on the Key of Destiny) and my players are suitably scared of them, but they know they can be dealt with if they really have to. I like them quite a bit as they are, which is to say they're an organisation that has fractured into regional miniatures of the larger whole, with local generals and leaders seizing power in the wake of Mina. Cheers, Cam
#6 Dragonhelm Mar 19, 2004 11:00:07	Originally posted by The White Sorcerer Nope, those were the Knights of Takhisis. The Knights of Neraka seem like a totally different knightly order to me. In a sense, they are. Or at least they changed over time. Call me nostalgic, but I think I would always portray the Knights of Takhisis/Neraka as they were in the Chaos War in my games. BTW, Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird? Lol! That depends on how one interprets honor. Honor is different for the KoS than it is for the minotaurs, which in turn is different from the KoN/KoT/Dark Knights/Mina's Traveling Troupe/IRS/Er.../ahem/whistles.
#7 lugnut71 Mar 19, 2004 12:09:13	I think when I play in the age of mortals I will also change have them revert to the more honorable way of old.
#8 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 19:58:27	Originally posted by lugnut71 I think when I play in the age of mortals I will also change have them revert to the more honorable way of old. I think that in the future, we're going to be seeing a lot more of this. I agree that the KoN were much more interesting in the Chaos War because they existed as an intriguing mix of honor and evil. It was a concept that had not before been explored, the idea that one could work on the side of evil and still act with honor. This made them stand out, made them different from the other baddies we've seen before. Regardless of why they were created, this is what they have become, and the majority of fans want to see them in this honorably evil light once more. P.S.: I am planning this same thing in my campaign.
#9 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 20:41:25	I need a honorguide for combat for the KoN? I play a KotL in a Comunitybordrollenplay. What is honorable in combat? Exempel: The Party follow thiefs. One Partymember see two enemys (rearguards) in 300 meters. the most partymembers will go in underwood and sneak to the enemy but the knight say no its not honorable! The Mage will make a sleepspell to arrest the enemy. But the knight say no its not honorrable! the party fight against many enemy and kill one by one. The last enemy is big boss. all Partymember will help the knight to kill him. but the knight sayd its not honorable! the DLCS gives not enough information about the code for the knights of neraka. And WotC has not postet over the Knights of Nerka. What a bummer.
#10 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 21:44:14	I would say the mage casting the spell would not be against the Knight´s honor. It is just a means to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and the endangerment of the Knight´s partymembers. And no-one is harmed needlessly by the spell...does anyone agree with this or am I completely off trail...?
#11 baron_the_curse Mar 19, 2004 22:27:57	I also prefer the Knights of Takhisis as they where first presented in the Second Generation. I never thought anyone could match the Dragon Armies for coolness, how can you with flying citadels, dragons, armies of draconians, and legions of ogres. The sleeker, nastier, and lawful Dark Knights not only did that, but also surpass my expectations with their well-defined honorable system that was not a mockery to the Solamnics, but almost a tribute of respect to their enemies.
#12 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 22:59:58	Okay, how do I put this into words? I don't like what has happened to the Dark Knights, but I find it fitting. The Knights of Takhisis were all going and spouting about how wrong the Solamnics were that Evil turns in upon itself, because they didn't, they had honor and all that, and then, once their leasder dies(ironically, by a dishonorable knight), they become a band of brigands and theives. It's all part of the underlying theme that Evil might seem to triumph for a little while, but then it turns in upon itself yet again.
#13 zombiegleemax Mar 19, 2004 23:38:50	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The White Sorcerer BTW, Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sneak Attacks don't just mean that you have to be sneaky! Sneak attacks can be used anytime someone is denied their dexterity bonus, or when they are caught flat footed. If your initiative is higher than your opponents and it's the first round of combat - then you get your sneak attack bonus added to your damage. If you have the quick draw feat, and you draw right after making a challenge - and catch them flat footed - then you get your sneak attack bonus added to your damage. If you have improved trip and you trip and attack - they are denied their dex. bonus - and you get to add your sneak attack damage. There are a thousand and one applications for why a Knight would use every and all opportunities available to him to fight an opponent in battle. For some people a one on one fight is considered honorable, but how you fight doesn't matter, as long as it's just you and your enemy. I think that the knights are just fine as is. I mean they are suppossed to be evil, right?
#14 zombiegleemax Mar 20, 2004 2:40:05	In answer to a question that was posted... It is dishonorable to do anything to give oneself an unfair advantage. For example: ambushing, ganging up on an opponent, or using certain magic spells to kill. Also, while I understand why the KoN were made into brigands, they were still much cooler during the Chaos War. The mix of honor and evil made it impossible to hate them, no matter how much you wanted to... And while evil does turn in on itself, one can judge from past novels that it always returns, stronger than before.
#15 lily_knight Mar 20, 2004 4:51:01	Originally posted by Dragonhelm In my mind, there's a certain charm to the Knights of Neraka. They were honorable. They put the knighthood first. They were basically the answer to the question, "What if evil didn't turn upon itself?". Plus, they were a great antithesis for the Knights of Solamnia. Since the Chaos War, though, they've lost much of that, becoming nothing more than thugs and bullies. What made Medan shine in the War of Souls trilogy is that he still held to that code of honor, while many of the Knights of Neraka hadn't. Well said. I don't think however that the Knighthood will ever regain the honour that they once where so famous for. They have definantly become fractured, and even Mina had some trouble bringing all the factions together, so I doubt an ordinary mortal could. This fracture is perfect for gaming tables. DMs can now run the knighthood in varying ways, because not all knights share the same characteristics. Some are bandits, some are bullies, whilst others like Medan are honourable. The evil knighthood is no longer monolithic, and that makes it more realistic and fun.
#16 ferratus Mar 20, 2004 5:43:18	Originally posted by Cam Banks The Knights of Takhisis had a specific role in the saga - be scarier, more efficient, more numerous, and more powerful than everybody else. And, be there when the gods let Takhisis win in order to save the day against Chaos later. They should never have been as good as they were for any length of time. They were a formidable plot device with a specific end in sight, and their current incarnation as the less-honorable yet still dangerous Knights of Neraka puts them on a more even footing with the other organisations and institutions of Krynn. See, that is where we are continuing to err. We expect the Knights of Nereka to be the only cross-continental human evil on Ansalon. However, people don't want their evil to be monolithic and want other options of evil behavoir (ie. the ravages of an army of thieves and butchers). Rightly so. On the other side are people who want the KoN to keep what made them unique and cool in the first place, that they were honorable, scary, and efficient. My solution to this is not to have Knights of Nereka in every backwater town from Pashin to Palanthas. Why not have the Knights of Nereka number in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands? Why not have them run Nereka and its satalites extremely well, and leave the rest of Ansalon for the raiders, the pillagers, and all the other bandits. Heck, that is what I am using the dragonlords for in my campaign. Shiver, Lorrinar, Cinder, Morhlex, and Azurite (new blue dragon wyrm in the wake of Sthendus and Skie dying) all have followers who garb themselves in dragonarmy trappings. There you go, we have both the honorable knights of Nereka, and the armies of evil looting sellswords with their camp followers and chaos. We don't need the knights of Nereka to be the antagonists in every damn story.
#17 cam_banks Mar 20, 2004 9:17:39	Originally posted by Lily_Knight This fracture is perfect for gaming tables. DMs can now run the knighthood in varying ways, because not all knights share the same characteristics. Some are bandits, some are bullies, whilst others like Medan are honourable. The evil knighthood is no longer monolithic, and that makes it more realistic and fun. I wholeheartedly agree with these assessments. My players only know about Pashin and the southern area of Khur at this point, and this is the only place they've had to deal with the Knights of Neraka so far. As far as they're concerned, the main threat of the dark knights is the push out of Silvanesti helmed by Dogah, as their homelands (southern Solamnia/Southlund, southern Ergoth, and Schallsea) have no Nerakan enclaves. So, for the purposes of the campaign world as the environment the heroes move in, the dark knights have a specific role centred in this area. There are a lot of other evil forces and agencies converging on the heroes at this stage, but when I started the campaign I determined to have the dark knights be their major opponents for the first chunk of the campaign. They're all 5th level at this point, a hair shy of 6th level, so they'll actually be encountering dark knights with PrC levels soon. At some point though, the dark knights are going to be the lesser of evils, and their role will probably be phased out to be replaced by other groups. It's the flexibility of the Nerakans in the War of Souls that makes them ideal to be inserted at any level and in any role. I have no doubt that having them be more disciplined and organized, such as they were under Ariakan, would make them excellent villains at higher levels. As dissidents and thugs on the run from minotaurs and bound together by the will of Dogah and the memory of Mina, they serve as good opponents for low-level play. I don't know that I would even try to make them serve more roles than one, as variety's always the key to the campaign in the long-term, but consistency (and PC vs NPC conflicts and rivalries!) does speak to their inclusion throughout. Cheers, Cam
#18 Charles_Phipps Mar 20, 2004 14:49:23	The Knights have had their own fracturings before and they came back from it. So shall the KoT/N
#19 Charles_Phipps Oct 11, 2004 1:31:43	What do you think the future of the Knights will be?
#20 cam_banks Oct 11, 2004 5:52:27	What do you think the future of the Knights will be? Why did you dig this thread up? You were the last one to post to it previously and nobody else followed up on it. Rather than commit thread necromancy, you should have started a new thread with the new slant you wanted to discuss. This one was about honor and the Knights of Neraka. Cheers, Cam
#21 Charles_Phipps Oct 11, 2004 10:41:50	Being a worshipper of Chemosh, I do believe though that the posts of the previous thread are worth re-reading. I will obey however Forum Dragon Highlord though bows

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Dragonhelm

Mar 19, 2004 9:15:00

I'm going to start a discussion on this thread, so as to not take away from the "101 Components" thread on knights.

Originally posted by Lily_Knight
I kinda like the armoured thugs and hooligan aspect myself. It is almost comical to image the city of Sanction being seiged by prostitutes and drunken sellswords.

The_White_Sorcerer

Mar 19, 2004 9:49:02

Originally posted by Dragonhelm
In my mind, there's a certain charm to the Knights of Neraka. They were honorable. They put the knighthood first. They were basically the answer to the question, "What if evil didn't turn upon itself?".

Nope, those were the Knights of Takhisis. The Knights of Neraka seem like a totally different knightly order to me.

BTW,
Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird?

lugnut71

Mar 19, 2004 9:55:17

Everybody has different views of honor. That being said I like the old Knights of Takahisis better. Hopefully the Neraka Knights will return to that way.

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 10:57:21

Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
BTW,
Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird?

The way I justify the Sneak Attack ability is that they don´t sneak up on their opponents...instead they´re trained to find weak spots in armor and in their opponent in general...

As for honor among Dark Knights...well Targonne is dead and the knighthood needs a new leader. I´ve put one of the old fashioned knights on the throne in my campaign. This knight (Gareth Darkraven) sees it as his life´s quest (no he´s NOT a tinker gnome!) to restore the knighthood to its former glory...that´s what I´ve done to bring back the Knights of Takhisis/Neraka to the road of evil and honor...

cam_banks

Mar 19, 2004 10:58:55

Originally posted by lugnut71
Everybody has different views of honor. That being said I like the old Knights of Takahisis better. Hopefully the Neraka Knights will return to that way.

The Knights of Takhisis had a specific role in the saga - be scarier, more efficient, more numerous, and more powerful than everybody else. And, be there when the gods let Takhisis win in order to save the day against Chaos later.

They should never have been as good as they were for any length of time. They were a formidable plot device with a specific end in sight, and their current incarnation as the less-honorable yet still dangerous Knights of Neraka puts them on a more even footing with the other organisations and institutions of Krynn.

I'm making heavy use of them for my Dragonlance campaign (based on the Key of Destiny) and my players are suitably scared of them, but they know they can be dealt with if they really have to. I like them quite a bit as they are, which is to say they're an organisation that has fractured into regional miniatures of the larger whole, with local generals and leaders seizing power in the wake of Mina.

Cheers,
Cam

Dragonhelm

Mar 19, 2004 11:00:07

Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
Nope, those were the Knights of Takhisis. The Knights of Neraka seem like a totally different knightly order to me.

In a sense, they are. Or at least they changed over time.

Call me nostalgic, but I think I would always portray the Knights of Takhisis/Neraka as they were in the Chaos War in my games.

BTW,
Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird?

Lol!

That depends on how one interprets honor. Honor is different for the KoS than it is for the minotaurs, which in turn is different from the KoN/KoT/Dark Knights/Mina's Traveling Troupe/IRS/Er.../ahem/*whistles*.

lugnut71

Mar 19, 2004 12:09:13

I think when I play in the age of mortals I will also change have them revert to the more honorable way of old.

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 19:58:27

Originally posted by lugnut71
I think when I play in the age of mortals I will also change have them revert to the more honorable way of old.

I think that in the future, we're going to be seeing a lot more of this. I agree that the KoN were much more interesting in the Chaos War because they existed as an intriguing mix of honor and evil. It was a concept that had not before been explored, the idea that one could work on the side of evil and still act with honor. This made them stand out, made them different from the other baddies we've seen before. Regardless of why they were created, this is what they have become, and the majority of fans want to see them in this honorably evil light once more.

P.S.: I am planning this same thing in my campaign.

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 20:41:25

I need a honorguide for combat for the KoN? I play a KotL in a Comunitybordrollenplay.

What is honorable in combat?

Exempel: The Party follow thiefs. One Partymember see two enemys (rearguards) in 300 meters.

the most partymembers will go in underwood and sneak to the enemy but the knight say no its not honorable!

The Mage will make a sleepspell to arrest the enemy. But the knight say no its not honorrable!

the party fight against many enemy and kill one by one. The last enemy is big boss. all Partymember will help the knight to kill him. but the knight sayd its not honorable!

the DLCS gives not enough information about the code for the knights of neraka.

And WotC has not postet over the Knights of Nerka. What a bummer.

#10

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 21:44:14

I would say the mage casting the spell would not be against the Knight´s honor. It is just a means to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and the endangerment of the Knight´s partymembers. And no-one is harmed needlessly by the spell...does anyone agree with this or am I completely off trail...?

#11

baron_the_curse

Mar 19, 2004 22:27:57

I also prefer the Knights of Takhisis as they where first presented in the Second Generation. I never thought anyone could match the Dragon Armies for coolness, how can you with flying citadels, dragons, armies of draconians, and legions of ogres. The sleeker, nastier, and lawful Dark Knights not only did that, but also surpass my expectations with their well-defined honorable system that was not a mockery to the Solamnics, but almost a tribute of respect to their enemies.

#12

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 22:59:58

Okay, how do I put this into words? I don't like what has happened to the Dark Knights, but I find it fitting. The Knights of Takhisis were all going and spouting about how wrong the Solamnics were that Evil turns in upon itself, because they didn't, they had honor and all that, and then, once their leasder dies(ironically, by a dishonorable knight), they become a band of brigands and theives. It's all part of the underlying theme that Evil might seem to triumph for a little while, but then it turns in upon itself yet again.

#13

zombiegleemax

Mar 19, 2004 23:38:50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
BTW,
Is it just me, or is a class that requires the feat Honor-bound and has the sneak attack special ability kinda weird?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sneak Attacks don't just mean that you have to be sneaky! Sneak attacks can be used anytime someone is denied their dexterity bonus, or when they are caught flat footed.

If your initiative is higher than your opponents and it's the first round of combat - then you get your sneak attack bonus added to your damage.

If you have the quick draw feat, and you draw right after making a challenge - and catch them flat footed - then you get your sneak attack bonus added to your damage.

If you have improved trip and you trip and attack - they are denied their dex. bonus - and you get to add your sneak attack damage.

There are a thousand and one applications for why a Knight would use every and all opportunities available to him to fight an opponent in battle. For some people a one on one fight is considered honorable, but how you fight doesn't matter, as long as it's just you and your enemy.

I think that the knights are just fine as is. I mean they are suppossed to be evil, right?

#14

zombiegleemax

Mar 20, 2004 2:40:05

In answer to a question that was posted... It is dishonorable to do anything to give oneself an unfair advantage. For example: ambushing, ganging up on an opponent, or using certain magic spells to kill.

Also, while I understand why the KoN were made into brigands, they were still much cooler during the Chaos War. The mix of honor and evil made it impossible to hate them, no matter how much you wanted to... And while evil does turn in on itself, one can judge from past novels that it always returns, stronger than before.

#15

lily_knight

Mar 20, 2004 4:51:01

Originally posted by Dragonhelm
In my mind, there's a certain charm to the Knights of Neraka. They were honorable. They put the knighthood first. They were basically the answer to the question, "What if evil didn't turn upon itself?". Plus, they were a great antithesis for the Knights of Solamnia.

Since the Chaos War, though, they've lost much of that, becoming nothing more than thugs and bullies. What made Medan shine in the War of Souls trilogy is that he still held to that code of honor, while many of the Knights of Neraka hadn't.

Well said.

I don't think however that the Knighthood will ever regain the honour that they once where so famous for. They have definantly become fractured, and even Mina had some trouble bringing all the factions together, so I doubt an ordinary mortal could.

This fracture is perfect for gaming tables. DMs can now run the knighthood in varying ways, because not all knights share the same characteristics. Some are bandits, some are bullies, whilst others like Medan are honourable.

The evil knighthood is no longer monolithic, and that makes it more realistic and fun.

#16

ferratus

Mar 20, 2004 5:43:18

Originally posted by Cam Banks
The Knights of Takhisis had a specific role in the saga - be scarier, more efficient, more numerous, and more powerful than everybody else. And, be there when the gods let Takhisis win in order to save the day against Chaos later.

They should never have been as good as they were for any length of time. They were a formidable plot device with a specific end in sight, and their current incarnation as the less-honorable yet still dangerous Knights of Neraka puts them on a more even footing with the other organisations and institutions of Krynn.

See, that is where we are continuing to err. We expect the Knights of Nereka to be the only cross-continental human evil on Ansalon. However, people don't want their evil to be monolithic and want other options of evil behavoir (ie. the ravages of an army of thieves and butchers). Rightly so. On the other side are people who want the KoN to keep what made them unique and cool in the first place, that they were honorable, scary, and efficient.

My solution to this is not to have Knights of Nereka in every backwater town from Pashin to Palanthas. Why not have the Knights of Nereka number in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands? Why not have them run Nereka and its satalites extremely well, and leave the rest of Ansalon for the raiders, the pillagers, and all the other bandits.

Heck, that is what I am using the dragonlords for in my campaign. Shiver, Lorrinar, Cinder, Morhlex, and Azurite (new blue dragon wyrm in the wake of Sthendus and Skie dying) all have followers who garb themselves in dragonarmy trappings. There you go, we have both the honorable knights of Nereka, and the armies of evil looting sellswords with their camp followers and chaos. We don't need the knights of Nereka to be the antagonists in every damn story.

#17

cam_banks

Mar 20, 2004 9:17:39

Originally posted by Lily_Knight
This fracture is perfect for gaming tables. DMs can now run the knighthood in varying ways, because not all knights share the same characteristics. Some are bandits, some are bullies, whilst others like Medan are honourable.

The evil knighthood is no longer monolithic, and that makes it more realistic and fun.

I wholeheartedly agree with these assessments. My players only know about Pashin and the southern area of Khur at this point, and this is the only place they've had to deal with the Knights of Neraka so far. As far as they're concerned, the main threat of the dark knights is the push out of Silvanesti helmed by Dogah, as their homelands (southern Solamnia/Southlund, southern Ergoth, and Schallsea) have no Nerakan enclaves. So, for the purposes of the campaign world as the environment the heroes move in, the dark knights have a specific role centred in this area.

There are a lot of other evil forces and agencies converging on the heroes at this stage, but when I started the campaign I determined to have the dark knights be their major opponents for the first chunk of the campaign. They're all 5th level at this point, a hair shy of 6th level, so they'll actually be encountering dark knights with PrC levels soon. At some point though, the dark knights are going to be the lesser of evils, and their role will probably be phased out to be replaced by other groups.

It's the flexibility of the Nerakans in the War of Souls that makes them ideal to be inserted at any level and in any role. I have no doubt that having them be more disciplined and organized, such as they were under Ariakan, would make them excellent villains at higher levels. As dissidents and thugs on the run from minotaurs and bound together by the will of Dogah and the memory of Mina, they serve as good opponents for low-level play. I don't know that I would even try to make them serve more roles than one, as variety's always the key to the campaign in the long-term, but consistency (and PC vs NPC conflicts and rivalries!) does speak to their inclusion throughout.

Cheers,
Cam

#18

Charles_Phipps

Mar 20, 2004 14:49:23

The Knights have had their own fracturings before and they came back from it.

So shall the KoT/N

#19

Charles_Phipps

Oct 11, 2004 1:31:43

What do you think the future of the Knights will be?

#20

cam_banks

Oct 11, 2004 5:52:27

What do you think the future of the Knights will be?

Why did you dig this thread up? You were the last one to post to it previously and nobody else followed up on it. Rather than commit thread necromancy, you should have started a new thread with the new slant you wanted to discuss. This one was about honor and the Knights of Neraka.

Cheers,
Cam

#21

Charles_Phipps

Oct 11, 2004 10:41:50

Being a worshipper of Chemosh, I do believe though that the posts of the previous thread are worth re-reading.

I will obey however Forum Dragon Highlord though

*bows*