How a paladin should treat his mount

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
42 answers Last reply
More about paladin treat mount
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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)
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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 ^*^
  9. 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 ^*^
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.

    ***
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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?).
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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."
  32. 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?
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  41. 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
  42. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games