Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How a paladin should treat his mount

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
should be.

The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.

I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
(book) described how to manage it?

I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
comment/advice/tip too.

Thanx
Juza

More about : paladin treat mount

August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

I'm a lurker here but I thought I'd pipe in. Overall, as a DM I would
not let a Paladin get away with this.

The way I've both played it and run it is that the Paladin should have
a close relationship with his mount, as close as a friendship one can
have with an animal. The Paladin shares an Empathic link with the
Mount... and ill-treated or mostly-ignored mount would be upset and the
master would know about it.

I've seen no hard and fast rules for Paladin's and Mounts but the
interpretation amongst my players is the Mount is a gift from the
Paladin's deity and should be treated accordingly with respect. I would
wager that among the Paladin's code of conduct is a set of rules
applied to proper treatment of one's Mount, which would include paying
attention to it and keeping it well at all costs.

A Paladin using a deific gift of a Magical Beast to him for his
accomplishments as purely a meat shield smacks of disrespecting the
intention of the gift, the purpose of the mount, and the empathic link
the Paladin shares with the Mount.

At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
before he is able to have one again.

=====
Death Quaker!
http://www.deathquaker.org
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
> At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
> up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
> before he is able to have one again.

A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.

The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

WillC...@gmail.com wrote:
> s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
> > At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
> > up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
> > before he is able to have one again.
>
> A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
> regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
> purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.
>
> The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
> later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.

I see Gygax is alive and well...

Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
horse.

This kind of thing is typically a lot of fun for the DM, and a major
pain in the ass for the players. Just relax and let them play their
friggin' paladin.

The rules already make sure the paladin takes care of his warhorse,
with the 30-day clause if it dies. Just leave it at that and stop
making the player jump through hoops, unless you're sure they will
enjoy the side trek as much as you will.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount.

No, not IMO. I think that paladins, being the paragon of what is good,
should treat their mount as a friend/pet of sorts. Even really evil
types like blackguards aren't going to throw away their mount if it's a
fiendish servant (akin to the paladin/mount, with special abilities)
without good reason.

If the paladin loses the mount, it takes either 30 days or a level up
to replace. It's a special animal which can communicate with him.

> Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.
>
> Thanx
> Juza
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Set a Good Example:
Great paladins are more concerned with justice and charity than with
dishing out punishments and preaching about other people's moral
failings. In fact, since most paladins have high Charisma scores, they
tend to be very likable characters. How can you be very likable if you
treat your mount this way. One appropriate way to achieve that effect
is to be consistently honest and unselfish, and to place the welfare
and safety of others before your own, This includes your mount and
all living things that are not evil of course. Always Lead: Your
leadership should also have a cerebral element. You can and should
provide your party with moral leadership as well. Treating a mount this
way is reflecting how you would treat any animal or person for that
matter. Your mount should be treated like you would treat your friend.
BillytheGM
(If you have any more questions feel free to email me)
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>

The expression in english is "cannon foder".

> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

Personally I think it's rather ingenious. And he is protecting it by
sending it away when near death. I don't see a problem with it.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Does the Paladin have the mounted Feats? If so, then of course he's
going to use the mount during combat. Even if not, the mount is
expected to serve in combat. It is expected some bad guys would use
tactics and attack the mount. That's why a prudent paladin takes
Mounted Combat Feat to help offset this.

A very good tactic is for the Paladin to do a Spirited Charge against
an evil foe and using Smite Evil with the attack. If he also has Power
Attack and wields a heavy lance in two hands that piles on the damage.
He can already probably afford to take away 2 to attack he gained from
the charge. Presume a 16 Charisma, he can take another 3 off gained
from the Smite. Therefore, using his bonus to hit total of his normal
total had he not charged or smited he already has +30 to damage before
smite damage, strength damage, and weapon damage are determined. If he
was able to cast Bless Weapon, Bull's Strength, or even Holy Sword
beforehand, all the better. Why should the mount not be in combat?

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:10:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:

> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.

Huh-huh, huh-huh-huh-huh...

"My Paladin is looking for a good 'stable' relationship"

Huh-huh-huh...

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:12:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

> WillC...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
>>
>>>At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
>>>up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
>>>before he is able to have one again.
>>
>>A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
>>regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
>>purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.
>>
>>The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
>>later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.
>
>
> I see Gygax is alive and well...
>
> Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
> in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
> Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
> interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
> horse.

OK, *I* was joking around... *YOU* are getting into illegal territory!
Didn't Google purge those stories a while ago?

:^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:53:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
>
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

Oy! As a paladin I would be ashamed to behave that way! This is not a
dumb ox that pulls a cart -- it is a magically summoned (in 3.5 at
least) intelligent and powerful creature.

My most recently played paladin would even avoid getting his horse into
situations where the creature's death was likely. A mounted charge is a
fun thing ... but losing the special mount is a very bad thing. He would
have the beast around whenever practical (traveling, resting, training)
and as long as possible (16hrs/day by 8th level) but Solomon rarely
appeared/assisted in underground tunnels or ancient temples. He was fed
lots of apples, well groomed (by the squire <g>) and was a formidable
and intimidating presence that was as well known as the rest of the
heroes in the party.

Maybe have the GM kill the horse to teach the player a lesson in how
precious they really are? Don't the other characters speak up or is the
whole party in agreement about how to treat the paladin's special mount?
I'd think the mount would have an opinion on this too -- remember, they
are much more intelligent than regular horses.

FWIW. IMO.


- Sheldon
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 11:27:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
>
> Juza wrote:
>
>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his
>> mount
>> should be.
>
>
> Huh-huh, huh-huh-huh-huh...
>
> "My Paladin is looking for a good 'stable' relationship"
>
> Huh-huh-huh...
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Yup.
YHBT HAND
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 11:37:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
> in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
> Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
> interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
> horse.
>
> This kind of thing is typically a lot of fun for the DM, and a major
> pain in the ass for the players. Just relax and let them play their
> friggin' paladin.
>
> The rules already make sure the paladin takes care of his warhorse,
> with the 30-day clause if it dies. Just leave it at that and stop
> making the player jump through hoops, unless you're sure they will
> enjoy the side trek as much as you will.

While I personally find the described paladin's
behavior callous and un-paladiny, Laszlo hit the nail
on the head this time.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:45:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his
> mount should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during
> tought combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the
> expression exist in english too): when it is near death, than he
> dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there
> somewhere (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And
> some DM comment/advice/tip too.

It's an unfortunate side-effect of 3.5's "call-on-demand" special mount that
it can tend to be treated as a combat buff, summoned when needed and
dismissed when not. Certainly, it doesn't have to be played that way, but I
wouldn't blame the player too much for doing so.

If you want to change things, maybe change the mechanics for the mount. Have
it be always on the material plane, but give the paladin a Reduce Animal
power he can use, on his mount only, that can reduce it from Large to Medium
for <2 X Paladin Level> hours per day, divisible as he pleases. That way, he
can take the mount into dungeons, and it's easy to park, but he has to keep
it around and look after it.

If he still treats it as chattel, then try to take corrective steps. Bear in
mind that it's an intelligent and independent NPC, and as DM, you can 'play'
that character appropriately if necessary. If the mount feels abused, it may
refuse to help in any situation it doesn't consider worthwhile, and might
even leave the group.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 3:00:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Juza" <none> writes:

> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
face some *serious* repercussions.

In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
violation.

If you refer to earlier threads, I don't think a Paladin should be a
mindless do-gooder, but this is uncomfortably close to the edge for
me.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 3:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>"Juza" <none> writes:

>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>> should be.
>>
>> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
>> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
>> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>>
>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>face some *serious* repercussions.

>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>violation.

No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
created creature that can be removed from the field of
combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
who someone needs to try and save.

~P.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 3:17:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Patrick Baldwin <pax@osmium.mv.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>"Juza" <none> writes:
>
>>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>>> should be.
>>>
>>> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
>>> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
>>> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>>>
>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>
>>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>>violation.
>
> No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
> created creature that can be removed from the field of
> combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
> blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
> don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
> the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
> who someone needs to try and save.
>
In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
meat shield.

How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it. And deliberately so, IMO.

If this is persistent behaviour, I would definitely see this as a
violation of the 'Good' part of Lawful Good.

I must admit that in cases like this I tend to err on the strict side
of the Alignment rules though. I will not call you wrong if you don't
see a violation here, I'll just disagree with your interpretation.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:29:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
<mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>face some *serious* repercussions.

By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
lose?



Bill, omnipotent
--
weis3w3 at earthlink dot net

***

"I leap to the attack!" - any character Bill plays

I just wanna be a lover, not a red-eyed screaming ghoul...
Wizardry's my trade, and I was born to wade through gore...

What does not kill me is dead when I'm through with it.

***
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:23:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>> In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
>> meat shield.
>>
>> How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
>> being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
>> plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it.
>
> He is? I thought his *enemies* were doing that.
>
> So if I'm playing a wizard, and my friend is playing a
> fighter, and I suggest that the fighter should act as a
> tactical meat-shield for my wizard, my wizard is
> wrongfully inflicting pain on the fighter?
>
Silly example.

Fighters fight. Of course they will be in the front lines in front of
the wizards. That's what they do, that is their raison d'être.

A Paladin's mount is just that, his *mount*, ie, what he
rides. Sending the mount to the front lines *merely* to absorb hits is
not the same as sending the Fighter to the front.

Asking the mount to do so, and the mount voluntarily absorbing damage
for the Paladin is also OK.

But purposefully sending someone in front who is worse at combat in
order to make them absorb damage *is* showing disregard for their
well-being, it *is* wrongfully inflicting pain on a sentient being.

Try again, I'd say.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:25:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> writes:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>
> By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
> lose?
>
In order to make a quick getaway? Sure, no problem.

In order to mount up and make mounted attacks? Sure, no problem.

In order to merely absorb damage? No, definitely a problem.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 6:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <igs9f112trseo0hr0kooasgvatm9qp1fdk@4ax.com>,
Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
> >Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
> >is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
> >strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
> >face some *serious* repercussions.
>
> By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
> lose?
>
>
>
> Bill, omnipotent

The paladin should summon his mount whenever he would ask for help from
a good friend and companion in good faith.

All you have to do is look at it from the horse's side of the deal. If
it looks raw on a regular basis, the paladin is not acting in good faith.


- Allen
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Mart van de Wege wrote:
> >>
> >> In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
> >> meat shield.
> >>
> >> How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
> >> being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
> >> plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it.
> >
> > He is? I thought his *enemies* were doing that.
> >
> > So if I'm playing a wizard, and my friend is playing a
> > fighter, and I suggest that the fighter should act as a
> > tactical meat-shield for my wizard, my wizard is
> > wrongfully inflicting pain on the fighter?
> >
> Silly example.
>
> Fighters fight. Of course they will be in the front lines in front of
> the wizards. That's what they do, that is their raison d'être.
>
> A Paladin's mount is just that, his *mount*, ie, what he
> rides. Sending the mount to the front lines *merely* to absorb hits is
> not the same as sending the Fighter to the front.
>
> Asking the mount to do so, and the mount voluntarily absorbing damage
> for the Paladin is also OK.
>
> But purposefully sending someone in front who is worse at combat in
> order to make them absorb damage *is* showing disregard for their
> well-being, it *is* wrongfully inflicting pain on a sentient being.
>
> Try again, I'd say.
>
> Mart

There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
of "guide" the above quote refers to?).
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
> happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
> that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
> people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
> a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
> of "guide" the above quote refers to?).

This seems to directly contradict the Handle Animal Skill.

Under train an animal...

"Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat
knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training
an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also "upgrade"
an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by
spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check.
The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's
previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs
are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don't
require any additional training for this purpose."

And attack, which is part of combat riding...

"Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to
a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will
comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids,
monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to
attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and
aberrations) counts as two tricks."

Note the DCs are for training it, not getting it to do it later...

I hadn't noted the part about only attacking generally humanoid
creatures and animals before either, which is an interesting note.

So according to this section you can order your warhorse to attack by
pointing at the intended victim.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 2:59:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:

> There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
> happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
> that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
> people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
> a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
> of "guide" the above quote refers to?).

The falling off a horse rules are relevant when a Paladin falls off
a horse.

Many mid-high level Paladin's ride intelligent celestial creatures
who look like horses and share a few characteristics with horses,
but being intelligent may make their own decisions on how to act
rather than acting like horses.

DougL
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 7:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>Patrick Baldwin <pax@osmium.mv.net> writes:

>> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>>"Juza" <none> writes:
>>

<SNIP>

>>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>>
>>>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>>>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>>>violation.
>>
>> No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
>> created creature that can be removed from the field of
>> combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
>> blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
>> don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
>> the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
>> who someone needs to try and save.
>>
>In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
>meat shield.

>How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
>being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
>plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it. And deliberately so, IMO.

So? It's not like you grabbed a kid off the streets, bolted
a handle to his back, and used him like a shield. This
creature is your magically created ally in the fight
against evil, and should be at least as ready to die
in the service of Good as you are, if not more so. As
long as you are fighting for the cause of Good, it should
be happy to help in whatever way it can. And if you
aren't fighting for the cause of Good, then get back to
work, slacker, you're a paladin for gods' sake!

>If this is persistent behaviour, I would definitely see this as a
>violation of the 'Good' part of Lawful Good.

Obviously, YMMV. But I just don't see it.

~P.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 3:15:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Patrick Baldwin wrote:
>
> So? It's not like you grabbed a kid off the streets, bolted
> a handle to his back, and used him like a shield. This
> creature is your magically created ally in the fight
> against evil, and should be at least as ready to die
> in the service of Good as you are, if not more so. As
> long as you are fighting for the cause of Good, it should
> be happy to help in whatever way it can. And if you
> aren't fighting for the cause of Good, then get back to
> work, slacker, you're a paladin for gods' sake!

Within reason. This intelligent creature would probably be willing to
charge into danger in the fight against evil as long as the paladin was
aboard and joining the fray.

If the paladin and his cronies are drinking ale in the back ranks and
sending the horse to fight the battle on the party's behalf just to
absorb damage ... that's a different kettle of fish ... IMO.


- Sheldon
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.

On a related note I'd like to get an idea how people think a Ranger (or
druid) should treat his animal companion (and animals in general come
to that).
The ranger in question is meant to have an alignment of Chaotic Good,
if that has bearing.

Are these examples "OK" or "not on" and what would your reasoning be?

An Archery specialist Ranger using his companion to keep enemies at a
distance so that he can effectively shoot them (The enemies, not the
companion of course - an effective tactic, however one that puts the
companion at risk of injury).

Or how about "Pushing" a mount to reach somewhere faster - the overland
movement rules say that a mount can be made to "hustle" for 1 hour,
each hour "hustling" after that causes one point of normal damage and
causes the mount to become fatigued. So by hustling for a few hours
(causing several points of damage) and then casting cure light wounds
on the mount the ranger can travel a *lot* faster.
Example Motivation if relevant - he's been level-drained by a wight and
needs to reach a cleric capable of casting "Restoration" before the (1
day per cleric level) time limit runs out.

How about "Spurring" said mount - increases mount's base speed by 10ft,
but causes exponential damage (1 point on first round 2 points second
etc.)

Any other thoughts on Animal Companion/"Handled" Animal use?

Blath
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 7:41:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > So if I'm playing a wizard, and my friend is playing a
>> > fighter, and I suggest that the fighter should act as a
>> > tactical meat-shield for my wizard, my wizard is
>> > wrongfully inflicting pain on the fighter?
>> >
>> Silly example.
>>
>> Fighters fight. Of course they will be in the front lines in front of
>> the wizards. That's what they do, that is their raison d'être.
>
> What is it that you think WARhorses do?
>
>> A Paladin's mount is just that, his *mount*, ie, what he
>> rides. Sending the mount to the front lines *merely* to absorb hits is
>> not the same as sending the Fighter to the front.
>
> A paladin's mount is significantly *more* than "what he
> rides." It's an ALLY, much the same as...oh, I don't
> know...some other member of his party. A fighter,
> maybe?

If you can't see the difference between an ally fighting voluntarily
on your behalf and a sentient being being used to absorb hits, then I
suggest that we stop here.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
August 10, 2005 9:48:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 10 Aug 2005 08:27:21 -0700, aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>Juza wrote:
>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>> should be.
>
>On a related note I'd like to get an idea how people think a Ranger (or
>druid) should treat his animal companion (and animals in general come
>to that).
>The ranger in question is meant to have an alignment of Chaotic Good,
>if that has bearing.

One of the better examples of an animal companion that I've found is
that of Aargh the wolf in "Dragon & the George" series by Gordon
Dickson. He's your friend - he's not stupid. He doesn't do what you
want just because you want it, you have to convince him. And he might
have other business that is more important right now than your job.

In this philosophy, the companion would have to agree with the ranger
that the tactic is important/worth doing to do it.

-Godot
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:02:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> If it's good enough for your tank Dwarf friend to hold back the
> enemy, it's good enough for your animal friend. Buy it some armour if
> you want it to live longer.

Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
or mounts) have?

None of the listings in the Monster Manual list *any* proficiency in
any type of Armour.

Would the ranger/druid/paladin have to spend the extra feats their
mount/companion acquires as they gain HD on Armour Proficiency?

Or would all GM's say that a Warhorse or war-trained Riding Dog is
assumed to have these feats already?

Regards,

Marc
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silverm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> tussock wrote:
> > If it's good enough for your tank Dwarf friend to hold back the
> > enemy, it's good enough for your animal friend. Buy it some armour if
> > you want it to live longer.
>
> Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
> or mounts) have?
>

Also, does the Evasion/Improved evasion granted to Companions/mounts
work when they are wearing medium/heavy armour (or are encumbered, like
when someone in heavy armour is sitting on top of them).
The rules as written don't say that they stop working, like they do for
the rogue, I guess I'd like to know whether people thing that was
intentional or an omission.

Thanks,

Blath
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:27:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 10 Aug 2005 09:34:48 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> This makes a bit more sense. I can see a warhorse or even trained
> attack animal (exception of pit bulls, but they are crazy) running off
> if their master was taken out.

I wouldn't bet on that with any dog aggresive enough to make a useful
attack animal. They're pack animals, so if their master falls they
could very well stay in the fight to defend him. Besides, dogs, once
they are actually fighting, are often very reluctant to leave unless
they're getting utterly creamed.

The combination of these factors means that unless their master flees
dogs will probably keep fighting, once they're engaged.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> tussock wrote:
> > If it's good enough for your tank Dwarf friend to hold back the
> > enemy, it's good enough for your animal friend. Buy it some armour if
> > you want it to live longer.
>
> Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
> or mounts) have?
>
> None of the listings in the Monster Manual list *any* proficiency in
> any type of Armour.
>
> Would the ranger/druid/paladin have to spend the extra feats their
> mount/companion acquires as they gain HD on Armour Proficiency?
>
> Or would all GM's say that a Warhorse or war-trained Riding Dog is
> assumed to have these feats already?
>

I've always wondered about this. There's never any penalties listed
for mounts, etc wearing any armor up to and including heavy armor. It
appears to be assumed. But 3 feats for training an amial as a 'combat
mount' seems a bit much. If it's that easy, why the hell have armor
proficiencies in the first place?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:46:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Juza wrote:
>
>>I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>>should be.

Just to piggyback. The mount acts in the service of a Paladin, it
will do whatever is required to that end. If the Paladin in question
isn't doing his job, he won't have the mount long anyway.


> On a related note I'd like to get an idea how people think a Ranger (or
> druid) should treat his animal companion (and animals in general come
> to that).

Like an extremely stupid and violent person with whom you have a
good rapport. You took it adventuring for a reason, so while you're
there ensure it makes best use of its abilities, 'cause it really hasn't
got a clue.

> The ranger in question is meant to have an alignment of Chaotic Good,
> if that has bearing.

Not really. Evil PCs are free to have the odd friend, and even to
treat them honestly and with respect, as long as the friend does the
same; Good people just act that way to everyone.
The animal doesn't understand Good and Evil, it's just trying to do
what you want it to.

> Are these examples "OK" or "not on" and what would your reasoning be?
>
> An Archery specialist Ranger using his companion to keep enemies at a
> distance so that he can effectively shoot them (The enemies, not the
> companion of course - an effective tactic, however one that puts the
> companion at risk of injury).

If it's good enough for your tank Dwarf friend to hold back the
enemy, it's good enough for your animal friend. Buy it some armour if
you want it to live longer.

> Or how about "Pushing" a mount [...]

That's what mounts are for, to get somewhere faster. If you're
worried about the damage, heal it. We know it's /willing/ to take the
damage, that's what the skill check is for.

> Example Motivation if relevant [...]

Not really, the animal certainly doesn't understand. If you need to
be somewhere at a certain time, push the thing. If you need it healthy
afterward, heal it.

> How about "Spurring" said mount [...]

Ditto.

> Any other thoughts on Animal Companion/"Handled" Animal use?

Companions can be seen as spiritual agents of nature (as a
paladin's mount is an agent of benvolent society) come to follow you as
you go adventuring; if it wasn't willing to get hurt it wouldn't be there!


If /characters/ are worried about their animals stress levels,
they're probably already doing something about it. Pretend the character
knows when his horse is sad, how to make it feel better, and deals with
it as best as he's able.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:52:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >
> > A paladin's mount is significantly *more* than "what he
> > rides." It's an ALLY, much the same as...oh, I don't
> > know...some other member of his party. A fighter,
> > maybe?
>
> If you can't see the difference between an ally fighting voluntarily
> on your behalf and a sentient being being used to absorb hits, then I
> suggest that we stop here.

If you can't see that a PC fighter "meat-shield" could
be accurately described either as "an ally fighting
voluntarily on your behalf" OR "a sentient being being
used to absorb hits," then I agree, we should just stop
right here.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:54:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> > Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
> > or mounts) have?
> >
> I've always wondered about this. There's never any penalties listed
> for mounts, etc wearing any armor up to and including heavy armor. It
> appears to be assumed. But 3 feats for training an amial as a 'combat
> mount' seems a bit much. If it's that easy, why the hell have armor
> proficiencies in the first place?

My current take on this is that, because animals normally have less
freedom of movement in their limbs (a horses foreleg would move about
less, and in fewer directions that a human arm for example) then it is
easier for armoursmiths to craft armour for them that requires no
proficiency to use.

But yeah, as Tussock says below, rules-wise it's probably just a fudge.

Last couple of things that are puzzling me though -

Ideally I'd like my animal companion to "Fight defensively" when it is
performing the "blocking" function I mentioned. Is there any way to do
this? (Such as modifying the "defense" trick so that it always "fights
defensively" when it is performing it).

Also, is there any way to control where your animal attacks "from"? for
example I may want it to attack from a certian square to give an ally
flanking, or I might not want it directly in front of me when
"blocking" one square off to the side would work just about as well and
mean I don't have to deal with a cover penalty when shooting the enemy.
Would you have "Go there" as a separate trick? or do you just allow
Rangers in your games to control where their animals end up?

Thanks,

Blath
August 12, 2005 6:27:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:52:33 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > A paladin's mount is significantly *more* than "what he
>> > rides." It's an ALLY, much the same as...oh, I don't
>> > know...some other member of his party. A fighter,
>> > maybe?
>>
>> If you can't see the difference between an ally fighting voluntarily
>> on your behalf and a sentient being being used to absorb hits, then I
>> suggest that we stop here.
>
>If you can't see that a PC fighter "meat-shield" could
>be accurately described either as "an ally fighting
>voluntarily on your behalf" OR "a sentient being being
>used to absorb hits,"

Having played a number of Fighters, and been treated as both "ally
fighting voluntarily" and "sentient being used to absorb hits" by the
party spellcaster, I can say that there is a clear difference in the
actual playing.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > > Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
> > > or mounts) have?
> > >
> > I've always wondered about this. There's never any penalties listed
> > for mounts, etc wearing any armor up to and including heavy armor. It
> > appears to be assumed. But 3 feats for training an amial as a 'combat
> > mount' seems a bit much. If it's that easy, why the hell have armor
> > proficiencies in the first place?
>
> My current take on this is that, because animals normally have less
> freedom of movement in their limbs (a horses foreleg would move about
> less, and in fewer directions that a human arm for example) then it is
> easier for armoursmiths to craft armour for them that requires no
> proficiency to use.
>
> But yeah, as Tussock says below, rules-wise it's probably just a fudge.
>
> Last couple of things that are puzzling me though -
>
> Ideally I'd like my animal companion to "Fight defensively" when it is
> performing the "blocking" function I mentioned. Is there any way to do
> this? (Such as modifying the "defense" trick so that it always "fights
> defensively" when it is performing it).
>

I'd say an animal normally only fights this way if backed into a
corner. I don't see why you couldn't train it to fight this way
though.

> Also, is there any way to control where your animal attacks "from"? for
> example I may want it to attack from a certian square to give an ally
> flanking, or I might not want it directly in front of me when
> "blocking" one square off to the side would work just about as well and
> mean I don't have to deal with a cover penalty when shooting the enemy.
> Would you have "Go there" as a separate trick? or do you just allow
> Rangers in your games to control where their animals end up?
>

I usually let everyone control thier animal's placement, but they play
them like animals and don't usually have them do things like that.
People can figure out where to go to flank with the animal. Again a
"flank" or "go there" trick shouldn't be too hard though, I think that
could be included in something else. You can easily train sheep dogs
to herd sheep which involves a lot of positioning.

I think they are a little stingy with the int points as well or with
the number of tricks one can teach. Some breeds of dog can be easily
trained to do a hell of a lot more than 6 tricks. I swear my german
shepard was a lot smarter than a lot of people I've met.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:33:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Ah yes, but what Armour Proficiencies do animals (or animal companions,
>>or mounts) have?
>>
>>None of the listings in the Monster Manual list *any* proficiency in
>>any type of Armour.
>>
>>Would the ranger/druid/paladin have to spend the extra feats their
>>mount/companion acquires as they gain HD on Armour Proficiency?
>>
>>Or would all GM's say that a Warhorse or war-trained Riding Dog is
>>assumed to have these feats already?
>
> I've always wondered about this. There's never any penalties listed
> for mounts, etc wearing any armor up to and including heavy armor. It
> appears to be assumed. But 3 feats for training an amial as a 'combat
> mount' seems a bit much. If it's that easy, why the hell have armor
> proficiencies in the first place?

It's just a fudge for PCs, so that certain classes won't use
armour. AFAICT you can do away with them, it would hardly matter if the
party arcanist threw on a set of leathers after he ran out of spells,
nor if a Rogue threw on some plate before a big battle (it'll still
screw his move, tumble, and stealth).
Keep shields as a seperate proficiency. Call normal shields a
martial weapon and tower shields as exotic and say if you want the AC
bonus you're at -4 to all attacks if not proficient.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:52:33 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>
> >
> >If you can't see that a PC fighter "meat-shield" could
> >be accurately described either as "an ally fighting
> >voluntarily on your behalf" OR "a sentient being being
> >used to absorb hits,"
>
> Having played a number of Fighters, and been treated as both "ally
> fighting voluntarily" and "sentient being used to absorb hits" by the
> party spellcaster, I can say that there is a clear difference in the
> actual playing.

Please, tell me what it is then. When were you a
voluntary "meat-shield" *not* being used to absorb
hits?

-Bluto
August 14, 2005 8:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:20:03 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>Kaos wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:52:33 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
>> <monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>> >
>> >If you can't see that a PC fighter "meat-shield" could
>> >be accurately described either as "an ally fighting
>> >voluntarily on your behalf" OR "a sentient being being
>> >used to absorb hits,"
>>
>> Having played a number of Fighters, and been treated as both "ally
>> fighting voluntarily" and "sentient being used to absorb hits" by the
>> party spellcaster, I can say that there is a clear difference in the
>> actual playing.
>
>Please, tell me what it is then.

In actual play, it's the difference between 'appreciation' and 'being
taken for granted.'

>When were you a
>voluntary "meat-shield" *not* being used to absorb
>hits?

When the focus is on 'voluntary,' not on 'being used.'

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 1:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:20:03 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>
> >Kaos wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:52:33 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
> >> <monarchy@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If you can't see that a PC fighter "meat-shield" could
> >> >be accurately described either as "an ally fighting
> >> >voluntarily on your behalf" OR "a sentient being being
> >> >used to absorb hits,"
> >>
> >> Having played a number of Fighters, and been treated as both "ally
> >> fighting voluntarily" and "sentient being used to absorb hits" by the
> >> party spellcaster, I can say that there is a clear difference in the
> >> actual playing.
> >
> >Please, tell me what it is then.
>
> In actual play, it's the difference between 'appreciation' and 'being
> taken for granted.'
>
> >When were you a
> >voluntary "meat-shield" *not* being used to absorb
> >hits?
>
> When the focus is on 'voluntary,' not on 'being used.'

Ah. Then what you call a "clear difference," I call
pretty fuzzy.

-Bluto
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:18:31 +0200, Juza wrote:


> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.


the term is "cannon fodder"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder
!