Seems our discussions about holy knights continues...
According to the "rules," the mount is a gift by the patron Power when the character achieves 4th lvl, forging a special bond between the paladin and his/her steed. Although the animal is Neutral, it willingly serves the paladin given that the knight maintains his/her holy status.
That stated, I am toying with the idea of 'reusing and recycling' the bonded mount (war horse in this case) of an NPC paladin of Pelor. The NPC paladin in my campaign is going to perish an untimely death...an adventure hook...thereby leaving behind his bonded mount. Normally, I know that the animal would likely depart the adventuring party, nary to return. However, I am thinking of allowing the horse to serve as a mount to one of two PCs in my current party. Granted, neither of them are paladins, but both have Good alignment and are capable horsemen (appropriate proficiencies): one is a priest of Heironeous, the other a priest of Fharlanghn.
If I do allow this 'transition,' I would not treat the war horse as 'bonded' to them as she was to her earlier master, but I think it would be a neat and fitting plotline, and a COOL 'reward' to either of those PCs. The horse's stats and personality would remain the same, however. However, given that Pelor was the Power behind the paladin and his bonded mount, I wonder if this is a bit contrived...and I am personally a DM who dislikes contrivances in my game.
If I do plan to use the horse, what criteria would you, as DM, require in order to determine who the appropriate successor to Sir Owen would be for his war horse? As I stated, both priests are likely candidates...
Hm... It seems that your plan, as it stands, is a contrivance. However, you can make is not so by doing something like the following:
Farlanghn doesn't seem to share much of a portfolio with Pelor, but his alignment is closest (TN with good tendencies vs. NG). Heironeous' alignment is also very close (LG) and is a more appropriate god to sponsor a paladin-like cleric.
Pelor is on good terms with both gods and may offer the services of his fallen paladin's warhorse to a worthy cleric of such a friendly deity, if one of them proves to be such. Come up with some tests for the clerics or simply rank them in your own mind based upon which one behaves in the most paladin-like manner. Such props should consist of courage shown in the face of enemies by fearlessness and self-sacrifice, intolerance of blatant evil, lack of personal vices, and even the manner of their martial dress (for example wearing heavy armor vs. light armor).
You may have their respective gods encourage them in suttle ways to act more paladin-like, if you think they would do so. Basically, let the two players know that there is a potential reward for following the suttle hints their god is sending them, but do not let them know what the potential reward is. You may not even inform them that the other cleric is also receiving similar hints from his deity.
I think it is a great story. Since the horse is no longer bound to anyone either candidate would suffice. To think we have lost our friend, yet his mount remains behind to continue on his legacy. I was leaning towards the cleric of Heironeous, figuring their is a martial connection. However, I think we need to see what PC would Sir Owen have chosen to take his mount and continue his work.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
You might have the mount hang around if there is some sort of dying request made by the Paladin to his mount (NOT to the PCs), such that the mount is compelled to honor this final request and lead the PCs to where the Paladin wished (after which I would have the horse leave). The PCs will just have to be smart enough to figure out what is going on (or cast speak with animals if they can). When task is done, the horse goes bye-bye, as Pelor sends it off to do something else for HIS followers and not some other god's. I would use the horse for something like that, but not as a lame excuse to give whomever a 5+5 HD steed of kicking arse and taking names when they don't deserve one. Why? Because they are not a Paladin, do not have the bonded mount class feature, they do not even serve the same god that gifted the Paladin with the mount in the first place, and acquiring a bonded mount is supposed to be a momentous quasi-holy experience rather than be acquired as "a left-over".
Big thumbs down on the initial idea of giving a buffed up super steed to somebody who shouldn't have one for all of the reasons above. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
...According to the "rules," the mount is a gift by the patron Power when the character achieves 4th lvl, forging a special bond between the paladin and his/her steed. Although the animal is Neutral, it willingly serves the paladin given that the knight maintains his/her holy status.
...The NPC paladin in my campaign is going to perish an untimely death...an adventure hook...thereby leaving behind his bonded mount. Normally, I know that the animal would likely depart the adventuring party, nary to return...
-IRRC, your'e right about that for AD&D1 and AD&D2. I nevr thought of this before (because it never came up), but when the paladin's horse leaves, "nary to return," WHERE DOES IT GO?! It's not like it goes an collects unemployment. It's a horse. Ideally, I guess it would go find another paladin to serve. But in the meantime, why not hang around with the LG cleric of Heironeous? Particulalry if by hanging out with that cleric, it insures that it can meet their next master...
-IRRC, your'e right about that for AD&D1 and AD&D2. I nevr thought of this before (because it never came up), but when the paladin's horse leaves, "nary to return," WHERE DOES IT GO?! It's not like it goes an collects unemployment.
The glue fact... er, I mean Holy Horsey Heaven, Billy<pats on head>.
-IRRC, your'e right about that for AD&D1 and AD&D2. I nevr thought of this before (because it never came up), but when the paladin's horse leaves, "nary to return," WHERE DOES IT GO?! It's not like it goes an collects unemployment.
The glue fact...
Seems like a rather unworthy fate for a faithful servant of Pelor. But at least the rest can be turned into Trigger sandwiches.
I still think that if the horse stayed with the party in order to find his (her?) next master, it would be fine. Presumably, though, that means that there's a 4th level Paladin of Pelor waiting at the end of the adventure.
Seriously though, if it's going to advance you plot-line, you can make it plausibly work for you and your players, and it won't unbalance the game, go ahead and do it. You know best what will work with you and your players.
The only caveat I would add is to think about any ways that it could be used by players that might negatively impact the campaign, as far as actual use of the mount or just setting a precedent. Doesn't sound like that would be a problem in your case but think about it anyway.
...they are not a Paladin, do not have the bonded mount class feature, they do not even serve the same god that gifted the Paladin with the mount in the first place, and acquiring a bonded mount is supposed to be a momentous quasi-holy experience rather than be acquired as "a left-over"...
-I'm always fond of "realistic" (or consistent) rulings.
I think Lanthorn already has the "paladin" and the "bonded issue" covered by simply not making the horse bonded. Same thing with the "momentous quasi-holy experience."
The hard part is the not serving the same god. But if the cleric of Heironeous is merely a stepping stone to get the horse to his (her?- is it a stallion, mare or gelding?) next master, that would be reasonable (note: the PC might not realize that they are just a stepping stone ). The same thing can happen with an intelligent sword who uses an imperfect charcter to get them into the hands of someone they consider fully worthy.
I had a similar situation to this IMC, but with conventional mounts. The deceased NPC had made out a will to leave them to his family a good distance away. When the adventure was over, the PC took it upon himself to take the horses to his comrade's next of kin. Once there, he got the leads for some mysterious happenings in Orlane, where he screwed everything up and got himself killed. But that's another story...
EDIT: I'd say that if the cleric just keeps Trigger forever, then it does come off as a way to give a cleric a cool horse. If he wants a cool horse, go buy one.
PS to the EDIT: The new paladin master would himself have to have gone to quite a bit of effort to get to where the PC's are. It is supposed to be a quest of sorts, after all.
Or even better... If you have a paladin from somewhere else whom you'd like to integerate into the party, this (the end of his search for his new mount) could introduce him to the group. From the horse's point of view, it sure beats the knacker's.
PPS: Again, the cleric is a temporary care-taker, not the "real" master, although he might not realize that.
"The hard part is the not serving the same god. But if the cleric of Heironeous is merely a stepping stone to get the horse to his (her?- is it a stallion, mare or gelding?) next master, that would be reasonable (note: the PC might not realize that they are just a stepping stone ). The same thing can happen with an intelligent sword who uses an imperfect charcter to get them into the hands of someone they consider fully worthy."
Now, that is something that I never considered! I understand Ceb's point (harsh as it may have come across...that's OK...I have clotted now ) because the 'bonded mount' is a God-given gift and one of the special 'powers' strictly of the paladin class. From an Options viewpoint, it is a 10 pt ability much like rangers 'buy' stealth abilities or (some) clerics can turn undead. So I understand his blunt rationale and can accept that it could be considered both unbalancing and, for the lack of a better term, 'inappropriate.'
Furthermore, there is that point which Cebrion noted in that the paladin served Pelor while the other two characters do not. Would Pelor 'allow' one of His holy knights' steeds to serve another Power? I guess, perhaps...if it ultimately served Pelor's whims...but ultimately, I suppose it makes sense that the mount would then go on to serve another paladin of Pelor in the end.
The conundrum, as you (Jamesdglick) stated earlier, is 'Where does the mount go?' Another good point. If the horse is still young enough, I guess it 'finds' another, worthy paladin master (granted that it survives long enough in whatever environment that it currently inhabits).
But...I very much like your idea, Jamesdglick, about using the current PC, whomever that may be, as a 'stepping stone' to a true and worthy paladin of Pelor. This sounds like a good compromise and a potential adventure hook unto itself and would not be unfair or unbalancing if the mount (in this case, it is a mare named Vallah) 'served' with a non-paladin PC for a 'short duration.'
Great idea. Like it. Glad I posted this query, and the reason why I 'bother' you all...
Now I have to decide which PC is the better 'intermediate'. Or perhaps let the situation unfold on its own, and see which PC 'takes the reins.' Pun totally intended. Sorry.
James had a good compromise as a stepping stone. However, whnos to say the horse serves either of the two remaining PC's. The mount may choose either at anytime to continue Sir Owen and Pelor's will upon the group. Besides whose to say the mount is bonded for life. Perhaps the horse loses 1+1 HD upon the loss of the paladins life. The mount served his purpose well. What if any purpose the mount serves is up to you. I think anything can be explained story wise. So stick to your guns if you wish. As you can always alter the way it ends if things should go awry.
Wow. Good thing I didn't go with the original "You bloody idiot! What are you thinking?!" post.
I'll just say this extra: Lanthorn- read your 2e Complete Paladin's Handbook. There is a whole section on bonded mounts in there (and how they don't even serve their own Paladin "master" for more than 10 years). Bonded mounts are not exactly a gift, and they are certainly not a commodity to be handed off to whomever. They are a companion and aide to the Paladin's (and their god's) cause, kind of like like Baldric is to the Black Adder (only the bonded mount can expect to get better treatment).
And, every time the Cleric of Heironeous spouts off about how awesome H is, people are going to notice the horse...
"Is that horse shaking its head and rolling its eyes? And what is he scratching on the ground with his hoof? It says, 'He means well, but PELOR is da man.' Wow. He got slapped down by an Intelligence 7 horse (which is smarter than that half-orc over there). That's brutal." _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Ceb, no permanent harm done. You've given good advice to me in the past, which I appreciate, so 'big thumbs down' written earlier is no big deal (<sniff> <sniff>).
I have perused my handbook about bonded mounts, but will do so again. What opinions (YES, I am asking) do you have with respect to the idea about the bonded mount serving 'in the interim' with a PC as a potential adventure idea/hook for a future paladin master? Or perhaps even something pertinent to Pelor, as the bonded mount was sent by Pelor to aid one of His holy knight servants?
If the Paladin servant is dead, the horse really doesn't have a reason to stick around. Unless... If the Paladin dies curing the course of completing a service that benefits Pelor, and the horse can continue helping others to complete said task, then the horse might stick around. Once that task is complete though the horse should go, as Pelor has other Paladins servants who may have just turned 4th level and are wanting a suitable steed.
If you want other characters to have access to special mounts, especially bonded mounts that they can't just go out and find or buy, then tailor them to the character and the god they serve. More importantly, make the character pay for the benefit, and I don't mean in gold or magic, but in XP. Like a 10% XP penalty. If you plan to do it though, make it worth the XP sacrifice, as in have the critter's abilities ramp up just like those of a bonded mount. 3.5E does a better job at this than 2E, so I suggest checking out how they do things in 3.5E if you are not familiar with it. You can see it HERE (scroll down to the bottom) in the 3.5E SRD. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
As an aside (but relevant to the initial campaign question), horses seem very important for the Aerdi and other Oeridians Great Migrations. In addition to Sargent's dirawaen, the use of the horse seems integral to their great journeys and conquests.
IMC, I've connected this to Fharlanghn and Ehlonna although I never decided whether the Flan already owned horses (likely yes, from the olve?), or if they were brought to the Flanaess by the Oeridians and Suel.
But in the past I definitely determined that most humanoids incapacity to train and keep horses are one reason for their marginalization.
All's to say that the Fharlanghn worshiper could have especial cause to care for the NPC mount.
As an aside (but relevant to the initial campaign question), horses seem very important for the Aerdi and other Oeridians Great Migrations. In addition to Sargent's dirawaen, the use of the horse seems integral to their great journeys and conquests.
IMC, I've connected this to Fharlanghn and Ehlonna although I never decided whether the Flan already owned horses (likely yes, from the olve?), or if they were brought to the Flanaess by the Oeridians and Suel.
But in the past I definitely determined that most humanoids incapacity to train and keep horses are one reason for their marginalization.
All's to say that the Fharlanghn worshiper could have especial cause to care for the NPC mount.
Good point about Fharlanghn. In the Pantheon of the Aerdi and Great Kingdom article I've been working on forever I have Fharlanghn having been a much more important god during the migration period. It's noted that the Oeridians were horse nomads. I like to think of them as Scythians, Parthians, Sarmatians, etc, who relied more on heavy armor and lances than horsebows.
On the Flan having horses, it's noted in the Into the Bright Desert article in DNG # 98, that the survivors of the destruction of the Flan kingdom of Caerdiralor landed in what would one day be the Bright Desert and were hunted by the native nomadic Flan horse tribes.
...But...I very much like your idea, Jamesdglick, about using the current PC, whomever that may be, as a 'stepping stone' to a true and worthy paladin of Pelor...
...and...
Argon wrote:
...James had a good compromise as a stepping stone...
...glad to help. It looks like even the big meanie might be on track:
Cebrion wrote:
If the Paladin servant is dead, the horse really doesn't have a reason to stick around. Unless... If the Paladin dies curing the course of completing a service that benefits Pelor, and the horse can continue helping others to complete said task, then the horse might stick around...
...so I'd be inclined to put a feather in my cap and a notch in my crossbow. However, going back to my original question of "where do they go" (assuming the answer is not the Heavenly Knacker & Butcher Shop), I checked my D&D 3.5 PHG last night. There, it states that paladin horses are summoned creatures. They appear or disappear as the paladin requires, and that if the horse dies, it returns to the "celestial realm in which it resides," leaving any gear it may have been carrying behind.
Shows you how much I've dealt with paladins since converting to D&D 3.5.
My recollection may be off (and I don't have the AD&D PHGs anymore), but I'm pretty certain that it didn't work that way in AD&D 1 or AD&D 2. For a paladin to earn the services of a special mount required a mini-quest, at the end of which he would be united with his trusty destrier. If my memory is right, then my plan is consistent with the rules you [Lanthorn] are using. So, as your PCs take care of the horse (and take advantage of it's services in teh meantime), a worthy paladin will be on his way, seeking his destined steed. But it blows the H377 out of that part of my idea for anyone playing the newer stuff. There's no need, since all the newly worthy paladin has to do to get the horse is twitch his nose and say "abracadabra".
But even D&D 3.5 doesn't say anything about what happens if the paladin dies. One might argue that if the summoner dies, then the summoned creature goes back from whence it came. But that doesn't always hold true, since demons and elementals will sometimes kill their summoner and then stick around. I guess it would be up to the needs of Pelor.
Cebrion wrote:
...And, every time the Cleric of Heironeous spouts off about how awesome H is, people are going to notice the horse...
"Is that horse shaking its head and rolling its eyes? And what is he scratching on the ground with his hoof? It says, 'He means well, but PELOR is da man.' Wow. He got slapped down by an Intelligence 7 horse (which is smarter than that half-orc over there). That's brutal."
1) D&D 3.5 gives paladin horses an INT of between 6 and 9. It should be like dealing with a dedicated familiar or an intelligent magic item. (...Now I have to re-check the rules on familiars...).
2) I don't think the horse would neccessarily cut a cleric of a friendly religion off at the knees (it's rude), but on the other hand, the level of coutesy expected of a paladin might not be expected of his horse...
mtg wrote:
...All's to say that the Fharlanghn worshiper could have especial cause to care for the NPC mount.
-No argument there. I don't think Vallah has alignment restrictions on who's allowed to curry comb her.
I've been pondering at length on this interesting dilemma, considering all perspectives and the extensive collection of ideas and suggestions.
In 2e, I don't think that the bonded mount is a summoned creature from, let's say, a Mount spell or any of the various Conjuration/Summoning effects. The paladin should have some special quest, the Player's Handbook and Complete Book of Paladins both note in order to earn the steed.
When the paladin dies, or the steed has served its allotted time (decade), the animal meanders off, but doesn't vanish or fade as with a conjured creature. However, there is the good point...WHERE does it go? Does it wander aimlessly in the meadows, avoiding becoming prey for all manner of predators? Does it join a wild herd of horses? Is the 'holy' war horse somehow drawn to the nearest holy site (church, cathedral, shrine) of the patron Power? hhhmmmm... I've given these all thought and consideration.
As a sidenote, I was wondering how bonded mounts start. No, no, no...not like that! I mean, do they start off as 'normal' horses and are then specially bred and trained? Kinda like how regular folks are trained and divinely imbued to become paladins? I could see the parallels between how the bonded mount and the holy knight develop. Do churches and temples specifically seek out the best 'horse stock' for their paladins' mounts? Or are these animals all wild in nature? Perhaps either, or both? Interesting notion...
So, since we are discussing all of this, I have also come up with a 3rd option. In the resident party serving with the paladin of Pelor is a priestess of Pelor. Ok, before you guys yell, "Lanthorn, why didn't you tell us this EARLIER?!" Well, because she is a city-dweller of Greyhawk City (and mid-ranking priestess of the Temple of Pelor therein) with NO horsemanship skills, including animal handling or riding. She is a mentor, friend, and quasi-paramour of the paladin in question, however, so I was thinking...
...maybe Vallah, upon the untimely death of her master, becomes the charge of the priestess at the Temple of Pelor UNTIL a suitable paladin of Pelor arrives...
FYI, I think if I tell you fine folks how and why the paladin dies, you will either be pissed off...or applaud.
...I've been pondering at length on this interesting dilemma, considering all perspectives and the extensive collection of ideas and suggestions.
In 2e, I don't think that the bonded mount is a summoned creature from, let's say, a Mount spell or any of the various Conjuration/Summoning effects. The paladin should have some special quest, the Player's Handbook and Complete Book of Paladins both note in order to earn the steed...
-That's what I thought for AD&D 2.
Lanthorn wrote:
...When the paladin dies, or the steed has served its allotted time (decade), the animal meanders off, but doesn't vanish or fade as with a conjured creature. However, there is the good point...WHERE does it go? Does it wander aimlessly in the meadows, avoiding becoming prey for all manner of predators? Does it join a wild herd of horses? Is the 'holy' war horse somehow drawn to the nearest holy site (church, cathedral, shrine) of the patron Power?
-The first two seem like pretty lousy retirement plans, considering that she is an intelligent creature (relatively- smarter than many people).
Lanthorn wrote:
...I mean, do they start off as 'normal' horses and are then specially bred and trained? Kinda like how regular folks are trained and divinely imbued to become paladins? I could see the parallels between how the bonded mount and the holy knight develop. Do churches and temples specifically seek out the best 'horse stock' for their paladins' mounts? Or are these animals all wild in nature? Perhaps either, or both? Interesting notion...
-I assumed a paladin's bonded horse would be sort of like a familiar. It may have started off as an unusually tough and smart critter by nature, but when it is "called," it is magically augmented to the extra hit dice, intelligence, etc. IOW, you won't just find a future bonded horse (or familiar) in it's augmented state before it is called.
They'd probably come from a variety of backgrounds. Some might be wild, and part of the paladin's quest might be finding and breaking/taming it. Others might have been trained as war horses, possibly by the church it will later serve. In part, the specific background might vary from deity to deity; a horse of St. Cuthbert might be pulling a plow somewhere. It could also vary from place to place. The paladin is supposed to go on a quest, but it doesn't have to be ridiculous. In a heavily settled area, there might not be that many wild horses to pick from. In Dry Steppes, wild horses might be a lot more common.
Lanthorn wrote:
...In the resident party serving with the paladin of Pelor is a priestess of Pelor. Ok, before you guys yell, "Lanthorn, why didn't you tell us this EARLIER?!"
-ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.
I DECLARE A HOLY WAR...
Lanthorn wrote:
... Well, because she is a city-dweller of Greyhawk City (and mid-ranking priestess of the Temple of Pelor therein) with NO horsemanship skills, including animal handling or riding...
-The default for the Flanaess seems to be that people can pretty much ride a horse (another plug for skills in D&D 3.5), but they have problems trying hard riding, like in combat or a high speed chase. If the priestess is at a temple, and her job WRT Valllah is merely temporary caretaker, that shouldn't be an issue.
Incidentally, I allow certain characters (and give certain NPCs) no profiency in riding (-4), but 4 skill points to use elsewhere. FWIW.
Lanthorn wrote:
...FYI, I think if I tell you fine folks how and why the paladin dies, you will either be pissed off...or applaud.
I think that I have found a working solution to my idea even though it has taken a very circuitous route! This is why I very much enjoy discussing these ideas openly with all of you. The sharing of perspectives, the active discourse, is what I think is the meat and drink of Canonfire! Thank you all!
Initially I was thinking of having the war horse serve one of the other two horse-savvy PCs (priest of Fharlanghn or crusader of Heironeous), but recent discussions have me leaning to the 'underdog' I had removed from the options list b/c she (priestess of Pelor) has absolutely no background, skills, or proficiency with horses. Just b/c she was a cleric of Pelor, I didn't think that should give her 'carte blanche' status. But...in light of the past few posts...I am thinking this could be the hook of a new plotline and to further develop the character (priestess that is) in her clerical duties.
Now I am leaning away from the former two choices in favor of the priestess who will maintain the war horse in her care at the Temple (or stables nearby) until the 'time is right' for a new master (paladin of Pelor, and not necessarily from her Temple!) to claim Vallah. I see many different possibilities, especially to further refine and define the various (unforeseen? overlooked?) potential duties of a cleric. One of them could be to maintain a bonded mount while also judging if potential knight candiates are 'worthy' of such a Divine ally...
-Lanthorn
note: No, Sir Owen isn't gonna die by falling off his steed...he could be so lucky...
But even D&D 3.5 doesn't say anything about what happens if the paladin dies. One might argue that if the summoner dies, then the summoned creature goes back from whence it came. But that doesn't always hold true, since demons and elementals will sometimes kill their summoner and then stick around. I guess it would be up to the needs of Pelor.
Though it may not be very relevant to Lanthorn's 2nd Ed. rules preference, I want to point out that in 3.5e a paladin's warhorse may only be summoned for up to 2 hours per day per paladin level. Thus, no matter how high level, the paladin is, if he dies, his warhorse will eventually return to its home plane when its summoning time limit is reached.
Lanthorn wrote:
FYI, I think if I tell you fine folks how and why the paladin dies, you will either be pissed off...or applaud.
My money goes for having all four limbs cut off, yet continuing to fight using head-butts and bites.
DISCLAIMER: May reveal information some people don't already know about some of the 'dark folk' dwelling in the City of Greyhawk. Potential spoiler alert, but doubt it.
Sir Owen is gonna end up the victim of Old Mother Grubb as the (luckless) paladin of Pelor noted in From the Ashes and The Adventure Begins. Yes, I am a cruel, sadistic, SOB DM. When I read that passage LONG LONG ago, it sat there and festered. Now that I have PCs in the right vicinity, at the right time frame, and approximately at a level where Old Mother Grubb won't completely annihilate them (I intend for her to 'toy' with her prey first, should the PCs actually delve below her House of Fortune to confront her), I wanted to create an adventure surrounding that poor, ill-fated situation. So, there ya have it. Sir Owen is merely a springboard, a ruse, bait if you will, to get the PCs to topple the undead monster lurking in the Old City. I constructed the current adventure partly to introduce him to my player, for his characters to develop a relationship with Sir Owen (including the priestess of Pelor!), then, ultimately, he will be 'sacrificed' as a subsequent adventure hook. Yup, that's how I roll...or is that role? I like plots that unfold like the layers of an onion. Seldom is anything what it seems in any of my games.
Back to Vallah, the war horse. Since poor Sir Owen is going to become Old Mother Grubb's snack (I will reintroduce him back to the party, as a perversion and corruption of everything that Pelor reviles: a vampire!), his war horse won't get the chance to receive any 'final words' from him. However, as this thread has developed, I intend to have Sir Owen's beloved, trusted steed help the party to track down the paladin's final pathway...leading the party to the den of the vile undead creature that slew (and ultimately, 'turned him'). Kinda like that scene in one of the old Bram Stoker vampire movies (starring either Frank Langella or Christopher Lee, I don't recall now) where a white stallion was pawing at the earth, the resting place of one of the undead monsters. That gave me inspiration for Vallah to do something akin to that. But, in this case, I plan to have her lead the party (when they discover the paladin is missing) to The House of Fortune.
Granted that the party survives their (harrowing? I intend to make it very Gothic in nature) encounter with the vampire witch and her minions, that still leaves the issue of the now-orphaned bonded mount. With all the great ideas and suggestions whizzing about, I am now inclined to have the priestess of Pelor (again, should she survive) become the temporary caretaker of Vallah until a new, worthy master/mistress rises to claim the noble steed.
Ok, your turn. Be gentle. I may be a nasty, cruel DM, but I am a nice guy. No, really...
Glad the discussion has helped Lanthorn. It's neat returning to CF! and finding a small group of friendly and dedicated folks collaborating.
smillan_31, I like your vision of Oeridian horse nomads a la the Scythians, Parthians, Sarmatians, etc., and thanks for the reminder about the "Into the Bright Desert article in DNG # 98 [regarding] the survivors of the destruction of the Flan kingdom of Caerdiralor ... [who] were hunted by the native nomadic Flan horse tribes."
IMC (though developed via GreyTalk), Ehlonnan riders constitute an old olven and Flan tradition that the Rovers of the Barrens inherited most famously.
Turning to the Lanthorn's musing about:
Quote:
When the paladin dies, or the steed has served its allotted time (decade), the animal meanders off, but doesn't vanish or fade as with a conjured creature. However, there is the good point...WHERE does it go? Does it wander aimlessly in the meadows, avoiding becoming prey for all manner of predators? Does it join a wild herd of horses? Is the 'holy' war horse somehow drawn to the nearest holy site (church, cathedral, shrine) of the patron Power? hhhmmmm... I've given these all thought and consideration.
I dislike 3xE's summoned paladin mount and realize I never DM'd a paladin character in that edition. If I did, I'd change that rule, replacing it with the earlier edition's take. (FWIW, Pathfinder provides an option between a Divine Bond with a paladin's weapon or its mount, http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html.
But addressing the main question, I would likely have a paladin's mount, who survived the erstwhile hero, either stay with the corpse to guard it, or go with the hero's surviving companions -- provided they planned to recover the hero's corpse for raising or burial. At that point I imagine the mount would be free to encounter a new paladin, be reunited with its former companion/master, or head off to pasture to enjoy a well-deserved (but no means guaranteed) life of its own.
(Of course, any church or landholder able to would want to possess such a creature in order to improve the stock of their herds!)
Thank you! It's been a LONG plot in the making...months in fact. MOST of them start that way, actually, until they FINALLY come to fruition. The discussion on these boards are actually helping me to refine some of my ideas, too.
In total agreement about disliking the 3.5 e rule on Paladin mounts. I never allowed a summons instead when of level the paladin would quest to gain said mount. Once the two meet their would be a bounding ritual which would make the two more cohesive with each other.
...And, every time the Cleric of Heironeous spouts off about how awesome H is, people are going to notice the horse...
"Is that horse shaking its head and rolling its eyes? And what is he scratching on the ground with his hoof? It says, 'He means well, but PELOR is da man.' Wow. He got slapped down by an Intelligence 7 horse (which is smarter than that half-orc over there). That's brutal."
1) D&D 3.5 gives paladin horses an INT of between 6 and 9. It should be like dealing with a dedicated familiar or an intelligent magic item. (...Now I have to re-check the rules on familiars...).
I know. Lanthorn is a "2E guy", so I gave him 2E stats (but with a link to the 3E stats for ideas).
Quote:
2) I don't think the horse would neccessarily cut a cleric of a friendly religion off at the knees (it's rude), but on the other hand, the level of courtesy expected of a paladin might not be expected of his horse...
The example is purposely ludicrous, but still illustrates a point. Humor is apparently lost on some people.
mtg wrote:
...All's to say that the Fharlanghn worshiper could have especial cause to care for the NPC mount.
It is a smart, enhanced horse in the service to a god, not a paraplegic. Horses survive in wild every day, and a smart one will surely not need any help either. Besides, any holy person would know that this steed is dedicated to a god, and subsuming another god's servant is as likely to happen as a a character saying, "Hey Paladin! For this adventure you will serve your god, but the next adventure you will serve mine." That is just not going to happen. Same with the bonded mount.
The horse going to another follower of another god is just plain bad. And, once again, it is giving a class feature to a character that shouldn't have it. Would any of you suddenly allow a Cleric to be able to use magic user spell scrolls just because he was friends with a Wizard and they used to talk about magic all of the time? I would hope not. Passing along a bonded mount to another character without that class feature is doing exactly the same thing. It is just plain bad. The horse can be useful for a bit, but it should move on to serve another follower of its own god shortly. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Ceb, keep the puns and 'ludicrous' examples flowing. They are amusing and garners a chuckle or two from this side of the monitor.
I also appreciate the 2e referencing.
...Sir Owen is gonna end up the victim of Old Mother Grubb as the (luckless) paladin of Pelor noted in From the Ashes and The Adventure Begins...
-I like having PCs play a role in "bigger" events. Since the campaign is currently set for late 577 to the beginning of 579 (depending on the exact location), and since I have access to everything up to the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer, and some of the LG adventure stuff, I can always have them meet "somebody" when they were still "nobody" or take part in a historical event.
1) I have a "standby" PC getting ready to take part in the Battle of the Loftwood;
2) The "main" PC is likley to end up with the two clerics who will be staking out Elredd in Slavers (I forget their names, since I haven't got that far yet). The cleric of Kelanen will be on her first major adventure, and the Gnome cleric of Murlynd (whom the PC has briefly and tangentially met) will still be a 3rd level cleric of Flandal Steelskin. The PC will be a key component to his conversion to the "new" demi-god;
3) A previous PC was raised on Blue Boar Road near the Green Dragon Inn, and briefly worked there when he was 15.
mtg wrote:
...Turning to the Lanthorn's musing about:
Quote:
When the paladin dies, or the steed has served its allotted time (decade), the animal meanders off, but doesn't vanish or fade as with a conjured creature. However, there is the good point...WHERE does it go? Does it wander aimlessly in the meadows, avoiding becoming prey for all manner of predators? Does it join a wild herd of horses? Is the 'holy' war horse somehow drawn to the nearest holy site (church, cathedral, shrine) of the patron Power? hhhmmmm... I've given these all thought and consideration.
I dislike 3xE's summoned paladin mount and realize I never DM'd a paladin character in that edition. If I did, I'd change that rule, replacing it with the earlier edition's take...
Argon wrote:
...In total agreement about disliking the 3.5 e rule on Paladin mounts...
-Yeah, as soon as I read it I thought about dooing that. But I really hate changing the rules. OK, I have an 8-page list of changes to the PHG, but most of them simply refer to officially optional classes, feats, skill uses, equipment and other rules that either the PHG or the DMG make specific mention to as being "acceptable." A little fuzzier are specific definitions for the profession skill and new character races. My most obvious changes are 1) Comeliness (WOG Glossography); 2) Changes and additions to weapons and armor (mostly AD&D2 C&T); 3) Lowered speeds for "hustle" and "run" because I JUST CAN'T STAND the D&D 3.5 rates (more in line with older "charge", "run" and "sprint").
Cebrion wrote:
...It is a smart, enhanced horse in the service to a god, not a paraplegic. Horses survive in wild every day, and a smart one will surely not need any help either....
-They also get eaten every day. Besides, the paladin's horse is probably a little rusty.
Cebrion wrote:
... The horse can be useful for a bit, but it should move on to serve another follower of its own god shortly.
-I figured that the "short time" would be the time it took the next worthy paladin to show up. But that could actually take a while. How many paladin's of Pelor hit 4th (?) level in the Flaneass in the course of a year? And some of those will find their steed of destiny elsewhere.
I figured that the "short time" would be the time it took the next worthy paladin to show up. But that could actually take a while. How many paladin's of Pelor hit 4th (?) level in the Flaneass in the course of a year? And some of those will find their steed of destiny elsewhere.
Jack Black wants that steed of destiny! Good point on who else would be available to use the steed at this point. Though the time will come and the steed of destiny will be ready.
It is a smart, enhanced horse in the service to a god, not a paraplegic. Horses survive in wild every day, and a smart one will surely not need any help either. Besides, any holy person would know that this steed is dedicated to a god, and subsuming another god's servant is as likely to happen as a a character saying, "Hey Paladin! For this adventure you will serve your god, but the next adventure you will serve mine." That is just not going to happen. Same with the bonded mount.
All good points, well taken, and funny!
Noting the interest a cleric of Fharlanghn might take in the mount was intended mostly to share another perspective on the god and his clerics vis-a-vis horses but also referred to ways I imagine some players might respond to the situation, e.g., "Oh no, Ernie's character died. What are we going to do about his corpse, loot, horse, etc."
I think you're right, Cebrion to caution against not treating the former paladin's bounded mount as its own NPC with its own ideas, motivations, etc.
I think I've pretty much decided that the mount will be under the care of the priestess of Pelor until the horse is 'called' to another master/mistress, or said paladin comes to claim her. This could be a good adventure hook unto itself. I am also interested in the role-play this could generate with the priestess, and perhaps give her a new 'clerical' responsibility that I never considered before.
As a sidenote, I would think that horses are considered sacred animals to the faithful of Fharlanghn given their importance to travel. That was one of the main reasons why I was (initially) considering having the priest of Fharlanghn in my party 'take the reins.'
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Ideally, I guess it would go find another paladin to serve. But in the meantime, why not hang around with the LG cleric of Heironeous? Particulalry if by hanging out with that cleric, it insures that it can meet their next master...
Now, that is something that I 
I understand Ceb's point (harsh as it may have come across...that's OK...I have clotted now 
Yes, I am a cruel, sadistic, SOB DM.