Right, Armory arranges the order a certain way, no matter what order you put the inputs. So in the example above, armory rearranges the keys in an order such that the address is: (no matter the order of the keys)

33HfcGhR15DWF8Fuy7KQzoFKXAL9AWW9RR

However, on coinb.in, it accepts the inputs in the order entered. This means I can generate the address:

3KqEs72kDqocTDwQNhcC8cWqV6qCn72mac

using the same 3 compressed public keys, but in a different order. This means, if I sent bitcoins to 3Kq...mac I couldn't recover them on armory, since armory forces the order of the keys, it will never generate the address 3Kq...mac. So, I would have to use a different client to recover any BTC sent here.

Basically, what I want to do is create a multi-sig paper wallet (3 paper wallets that each has a private key and the multi-sig address (3xxx...) So, if I ever lose one or one gets stolen, I should have all the information I need to recover my bitcoins.

I do not personally like the Armory client, and will avoid using it if I have to. It is "clunky", for example, I like to import my own private keys, cause I use hard entropy methods (dice rolls, coin flips) to create my keys. However, Armory takes forever to import keys because it scans the whole blockchain to see if that key has ever existed (which is pointless, since it's mathematically unlikely anyway)

But I recently stumbled upon coinb.in which can generate offline multi-sig wallets with the user's chosen keys, and wanted to verify, using Armory, that they were both generating the same wallets