Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Knights of the Sword prestige class requires 1st level divine spells to qualify, as well as levels in the previous prestige Knight of the Crown prestige class as prerequisites. Knights of the Rose require 2nd level divine spells.
Now the consequence of this, is that it changes the old Knights of Solamnia. In the old days, the Knights of Solamnia were a noble caste, with one branch devoted to clerical life, namely the Knights of the Sword. They were thus an aristocratic order.
With the 3e stats however, they are a theocratic one. Since membership in the Knights of the Sword and Rose usually require cleric levels (since paladins are non-standard) you will find clerics in all three orders now. As well, since divine magic is a requirement for the two highest orders, it means the upper echelons of the knighthood are controlled entirely by divine spellcasters. In the old days, you could switch over to a Knight of the Rose before you gained spellcasting abilities, and most players did.
Now, I know you can play a Knight of Solamnia simply by being a fighter. I'm going to assume that you can also play a Knight of the Sword and Rose as a normal fighter as well. However, since most players and DM's will use these prestige classes when designing their knightly PC's and NPC's. Thus, it is a shift from aristocratic and chivalric to theocratic and pious.
If that is what you were going for, great. I'm not so sure I like it though. I have a feeling I'm going to tweak it so that the Knights of the Sword start gaining their spells after they enter that prestige class, and the drop the requirements for the Knights of the Rose. I'm afraid I prefer the aristocratic and chivalric mode.
I do look forward to the conflict of the mystics and the clerics in the canon however. After all, you can't have three patron dieties... and then have people that reject the gods to follow their own path in the same organization without there being some friction.
Oh, one more thing. You've also made it impossible for people to qualify for the Knights of the Rose and Knights of the Sword pre-WotL (no clerics, no mystics). Is there a variant rule to cover that in the DLCS, or will that be covered in the "War of the Lance" sourcebook next year?
Tanis was a Knight of Solamnia and he has no levels as a Knight.
The Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class is "required" by Wizards as it reflects them having undergone their test.
For the most part, the Knight prestige classes reflect those who follow the true "ideals" of the Knighthood, but every knighthood has members who are either specialists in other areas or who have the title, but did not choose to (or were unable to pursue because of the era of play) practice the ideals of the knighthoods.
Christopher
As for the Knighthood getting religious I dont think thats a bad thing. They were kinda holy rollers before anyway. I mean there order had 3 gods to pray to.
I also think that though I never saw a Knight of the Rose as a cleric I did see him as very Paladin type guy with all that first in last out stuff.
Any just my cp.
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Well you may beleive that Tanis was a Knight of the Rose (or such) but he was not. A knight of the Rose has that prestige class but I did see Tanis as a true hero just not a Knight type hero.
Actually, Tanis did become an honorary Knight of the Rose for his deeds during the War of the Lance, according to Legends.
Matthew L. Martin
A University may give someone an honorary PHD of Medicine but it doesnt make him a doctor.
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Heheh, honorary Knight. Well like I said Tanis was a true hero so he deserved to be recognized as such but there is a huge differance between the real thing and honorary.
A University may give someone an honorary PHD of Medicine but it doesnt make him a doctor.
Exactly, and thus you can have a "Knight of Solamnia" who is not a KoS prestige class ;)
You can be a Knight of Solamnia without being a KoS Prestige Class, but to be the KoS Prestige Class, you must be a Knight of Solamnia (fuzzy logic! :D)
Christopher
Yes, an honorary Knight would get respect for his deeds (thats how he got the title) but really all he has is a title. He wouldnt have any real power as a Knight of the Rose that worked his way up through the ranks and became a TRUE Knight of the Rose would.
Honorary is cool but meaningless and powerless. If you want to command Legions of Knights and wield the true power of a Knight of Solamnia then you must actually be one.
Just my steel piece worth
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Honorary is cool but meaningless and powerless. If you want to command Legions of Knights and wield the true power of a Knight of Solamnia then you must actually be one.
No...I'm pretty sure that Tanis, for all intents and purposes was a Knight of the Rose.
If I remember correctly, in Test of the Twins or Dragons of Summer Flame (can't remember which), Tanis threatens to pull rank on the knight he is talking too. To me, that says that Tanis is a full fledged knight, and there fore the perfect example of someone being a knight without having taking the prestige class. Laurana would be another one. Kharas even another.
But the measure, at least at that time made no distinction. And Tanis could have ordered the Grand Master around, since Tanis was the oldest Knight being well over a hundred years.
This was in the Legends Trilogy before Lord Soth's attack, because Tanis wanted to face him.
I mean paladins are powerful classes but not one guy in my group wants to play one as they are SO restrictive. They can't do this or that, not always fun.
Im sure the Knighthood has similiar restrictions (atleast they did).
As for Tanis well maybe he just thought he could pull rank. Threatening and doing are very differant things. I can threaten to beat jackie Chan to a bloody pulp but the odds of me actually doing that are pretty damn slim.
If a politician is given the honorary rank of Major the army for some great dead that he provided for them I doubt he could walk into a military situation and say captain stand down Im in charge here (Yuck).
Tanis wouldnt even have a full understanding of how the Knighthood worked and how the troops were trained to act in certain situations since he was never trained to know as he is not a true knight trained in the Knightly ..blah blah blah I think you know what I mean.
Honorary is a great honor and its the way the Knighthood shows their highest lvl of respect to a NON-KNIGHT. I can see a Knight listening to and maybe even doing as asked by Tanis just out of respect for his past deeds.
Ok, thats my coin worth
Tanis was a knight.....but did not have the PrC. He did threaten to pull rank....And Laurana was appointed General of the knights of Soamnia during the war of the lance.....but she most certainly did not have the PrC. Was she a knight? Hell yes. The KoS seem to like putting the stamp of approval on people who didnt actually join. My question is....in the DLCS...is there a in game reason why all races are allowed to be KoS now?
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Well there is no way Ill let a PC play whatever class they want then become a Knight with all power and such. Knights give up alot of freedom that other players get to take for granted. they have to get something for all they give up.
I mean paladins are powerful classes but not one guy in my group wants to play one as they are SO restrictive. They can't do this or that, not always fun.
Im sure the Knighthood has similiar restrictions (atleast they did).
As for Tanis well maybe he just thought he could pull rank. Threatening and doing are very differant things. I can threaten to beat jackie Chan to a bloody pulp but the odds of me actually doing that are pretty damn slim.
If a politician is given the honorary rank of Major the army for some great dead that he provided for them I doubt he could walk into a military situation and say captain stand down Im in charge here (Yuck).
Tanis wouldnt even have a full understanding of how the Knighthood worked and how the troops were trained to act in certain situations since he was never trained to know as he is not a true knight trained in the Knightly ..blah blah blah I think you know what I mean.
Honorary is a great honor and its the way the Knighthood shows their highest lvl of respect to a NON-KNIGHT. I can see a Knight listening to and maybe even doing as asked by Tanis just out of respect for his past deeds.
Ok, thats my coin worth
Tanis could command neone with a lower rank than him cos of one thing. The knights of Solamnia are honor-bound. If the captain of a group of knights told them to attack a village just because he said that the vilage was evil, they had to do it. if they didnt, they'd b dishonored unless they proved him to b crazy or wrong
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
My question is....in the DLCS...is there a in game reason why all races are allowed to be KoS now?
Well...here's another catch 22 (like the WoHS). In the write-up section of the Knights of Solamnia it says only Humans and Half-elves are allowed to join the ranks of the Knights of Solamnia.
However...in the actual pre-requisits for the PrC...there is no mention of race.
So the precedent is there for the DMs...but it's not exactly a stringent rule, either...living up to the complete openness of 3e.
I of course will be sticking with the idea that humans and half-elves are the only ones allowed with out extrenuation circumstances (is that even a word?).
Pretty much, the DLCS gives the canon explinations, but leaves everything open for the DM to make his own decision. Which is how it should be, IMHO. :D
I doubt anyone will agree with me as most people on this board seem to have a real fascination and love for Tanis. I saw Tanis as cool and a guy that accomplished alot but still just an honorary Knight. I can see Knights following him if there commanders were all slain and so they would gravitate towards an experienced warrior.
Every rule, everything in any DnD book is left to the DM to change as he will. The rules are guides and nothing more. As long as you are having fun in your group then you are playing it right.
Ok, cya till another topic comes up,hehe
Oh, I still think a map should have been in the boxed sets showing the changes to Ansalon.:D
Originally posted by Hammerhand
I know about them being honor bound and obeying superiors but I don't see Tanis as a REAL superior but just a guy that was given an honorary title. I see honorary as the key.
That's fine...but the precedent is there with the example I gave (and B'naa detailed it for us
). Because Tanis was the oldest living knight, he could give orders to the Grand Master, and he knew it.If the Grand Master bowed to Tanis' wish by letting him go and fight Lord Soth...and can't see why it is you're still not believing us. I can understand if that's not how you want it in your game, that's cool. But this is how it is in the "canon" of Dragonlance. Which is all we were saying.
Originally posted by Hammerhand
I doubt anyone will agree with me as most people on this board seem to have a real fascination and love for Tanis. I saw Tanis as cool and a guy that accomplished alot but still just an honorary Knight. I can see Knights following him if there commanders were all slain and so they would gravitate towards an experienced warrior.
It's not that people don't have a fine appreciation for Tanis, which is a good thing in general, but that the novels support this viewpoint. As far as the Knighthood is concerned, Tanis has all the rights and priviledges accorded a Knight of the Rose, including rank and status. He got that by being a superlative hero in the War of the Lance, something most of the knights at the time of the War hadn't come close to accomplishing. A lot of the established knights weren't exactly hero material.
Laurana is made the Golden General and leads all of the Knights of Solamnia. After the War she's accorded incredible amounts of status and rank for her role in that conflict. If you're contesting this established history, then that's fine - but say so, rather than dispute the validity of honorary knighthood.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by ferratus
Thus, it is a shift from aristocratic and chivalric to theocratic and pious.
If that is what you were going for, great. I'm not so sure I like it though.
But I thought you were the one who was recently waxing appreciatively about the new side of your lover! ;)
But its all cool. I love this board. The people here are intelligent and as a rule dont just flame but discuss in an intelligent manner. I take my hat off to you guys. Never once was I called anything nasty for my views which often occurs on other boards when people disagree.
"Damn it, that was Honorary!," gunthar fumed.
"honorary or not, the measure makes no such distinction," tanis replied.
or something.
And remember, tanis basically singlehandedly saved the world, and ruined the Dark Queen's day. I'd say that counts for the quests of honor that the KoS are required to do. Paladine himself vouched for tanis, which covers the pious clergy part...
I don't get what your argument is.
Basically the Knights didnt realize that with Tanis's age he would get a tad more out of his title than they intended,hehe. Plus yes tanis did alot for the goodly races and that alone should grant him alot of say with any of the goodly races.
You have broken this poor Minotaur and I am now totally agreeing with you. err, any code against horned ones in your order?
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Basically the Knights didnt realize that with Tanis's age he would get a tad more out of his title than they intended,hehe.
I'd buy that.
And who knows...maybe the updated version of the Measure takes care of this. We don't really know...it's kind of nice, it allows the Measure to be what you want/need it to be at the time it is wanted/needed in a game.
At least when it comes to the nitty gritty details such as whether or not an Honorary Knight is aquired all the same rights and privlages that other Knights are.Or Tanis could be an exceptional case (well, he is that anyway...but you know what I mean).
Who knows...perhaps a future product could be a book about the Knighthoods, ala Heroes of Steel 5th Age suppliment (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, hint, hint) :D If we got such a book, it could detail the Measure, the Code, and the Legacy...all in one. It'd be great!!
Eww...I think I just drooled on my keyboard. heh heh
Originally posted by Hammerhand
I know about them being honor bound and obeying superiors but I don't see Tanis as a REAL superior but just a guy that was given an honorary title. I see honorary as the key.
I doubt anyone will agree with me as most people on this board seem to have a real fascination and love for Tanis. I saw Tanis as cool and a guy that accomplished alot but still just an honorary Knight. I can see Knights following him if there commanders were all slain and so they would gravitate towards an experienced warrior.
Every rule, everything in any DnD book is left to the DM to change as he will. The rules are guides and nothing more. As long as you are having fun in your group then you are playing it right.
Ok, cya till another topic comes up,hehe
Oh, I still think a map should have been in the boxed sets showing the changes to Ansalon.:D
It might have only been honorary, just like receiving a badge or smthing like that, but he had the title and all the powers that came with it. If he wanted he could use it. and that's what he threatened to do. The knights honorbond as they were, would have to obbey unless someone of the same rank of Tanis appeared and forbade them to do it
.Tanis was a honored with the title of Knight of the Rose for his deeds. Since he was recognized by the Grand Master as being that rank he would be officially part of the lists and if you were part of any order lower than the rose you would have to acknowledge Tanis as a superior. For to do otherwise would be to dishonor a Knight (Tanis) and disagree with a superior (Grand Master).
So yes damn right he could pull rank in the day...but let's say if he found enchanted plate armor that could only be worn by someone in the Order of the Rose my ruling would be he could not use it....for I would say he has the clout of the title but the essence of the title he has not unless he has a level of that prestige class, Grand Master and Measure be damned.
Tyrol
Can anyone with the DLCS or AOM books clear this up?
HS
but yes i remember that line.
and i've always thought it right that elves should be able to be paladins.
Originally posted by entrari
i thought only humans can be paladins?
but yes i remember that line.
and i've always thought it right that elves should be able to be paladins.
In the 3rd edition D&D rules, anybody can be anything. At one point, when paladins were a cavalier sub-class, Silvanesti elves could be paladins but not cavaliers, something which was explained away by saying "the Silvanesti are a race of extremes and would never settle for just being cavaliers when they could be paladins".
Now of course you can have minotaur paladins, gnome paladins, gully dwarf paladins... so long as the DM lets it in the game, you're set. According to the DLCS, however, they're a nonstandard class and are appreciably rare on Krynn.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Stormprince
A prestige class does not a Knight of Solamnia make.
Tanis was a Knight of Solamnia and he has no levels as a Knight.
The Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class is "required" by Wizards as it reflects them having undergone their test.
For the most part, the Knight prestige classes reflect those who follow the true "ideals" of the Knighthood, but every knighthood has members who are either specialists in other areas or who have the title, but did not choose to (or were unable to pursue because of the era of play) practice the ideals of the knighthoods.
Christopher
I realize that you can play a knight without the prestige class. What I said was that "the true ideals" of the knighthood has changed from an aristocratic mold to a theocratic one.
Witness:
Now, I know you can play a Knight of Solamnia simply by being a fighter. I'm going to assume that you can also play a Knight of the Sword and Rose as a normal fighter as well. However, since most players and DM's will use these prestige classes when designing their knightly PC's and NPC's. Thus, it is a shift from aristocratic and chivalric to theocratic and pious.
Now I'm just assuming nobody actually reads what I've written. I have to repeat myself over and over and over...
So that's settled then. Straight from the horse's mouth. The flavour text of the Knights of Solamnia have changed.
Yes, it does seem a little odd to me that divine spells are a requisite to get into Sword and Rose. I always figured those were where one picked up the divine spells in the first place, rather than the second. But I'm not all that bothered by it. I still haven't seen the Sword and Rose special abilities, so it doesn't really irk me. Maybe those 2nd level divine spells can be picked up in Sword, in which case - well, it's just fine. Otherwise, things become a little weird.
However, I have to disagree that the Knighthood's ideals have at all changed. Knights of the Rose always had the ability, with time, to cast spells. Just like Knights of the Sword do. So what's changed? Knights of the Rose now are supposed to be better at it than Knights of the Sword, it seems. That seems fine to me.
I dunno. The Knighthood's always had a touch of the divine to it. They're like the paladins of Ansalon (yeah, I know, they're not really paladins, and there are paladins. But still).
So no, I don't think it's any more theocratic than it was before. Why can't they be both aristocratic AND theocratic, anyway? More of one, less of the other at times. The Knights ain't always been as pious as they should. But it's there. Let them be holy, noble warriors. It's their schtick.
The ensuing years, when their spiritual faiths were restored to them and their numbers were swelled, saw a shift back to the piety and grace they once had. They suffered losses due to the Chaos War and many of them turned to mysticism, but it was a mysticism locked into the ideals and passions of their old gods, for the most part - a mysticism driven by noble goals and the flower of chivalry. At all times, Paladine, Habbakuk and Kiri-Jolith inspired them in their absence.
With the close of the War of Souls and return of the gods, the Knighthood may once again flourish. True knights, those closest to the ideals of Vinas Solamnus, embrace their divine patrons and are restored to their full power. Others, perhaps disillusioned or unsure, still wear the badge of knighthood but might need more convincing or time to understand the significance of the events of the War of Souls.
Cheers,
Cam
I prefer a knighthood based on aristocratic codes of honour, but that's just me.
As well, the Rose Knights weren't always clerics. Way back in 1e they were combat monsters, able to use any weapon you gave them. This became redundant in SAGA and 3e since the warrior classes in both game systems could already use many more weapons. So SAGA recast them as paladins.
Myself, I've always veiwed the Knights of Solamnia this way:
Knights of the Crown: Career military soldiers. Some fight in elite units, while others command squads of foot soldiers. Most common place to find commoners or minor nobles.
Knights of the Sword: Monastic warriors who are sequestered in fortress-abbeys, such as the High Clerist's Tower. They function as a last line of defense, spiritual leaders, and keepers of the peace in a constabulary fashion.
Knights of the Rose: Knights errant and champions of the state in their younger years, while they take over their family estates when they are older. They are responsible for administering the laws of Solamnia, in a judicial and executive fashion, outside of the various city-states (who have their own senators and Lord Mayor).
Does this match what I'm supposed to be thinking about the Knights of Solamnia?
Originally posted by ferratus
For the record, I don't mind that you've changed the Knights of Solamnia to make them more pious. After all, it seems that everyone involved with Sovereign Press and the Whitestone Council has a consistent vision thematically about what the Knights, which is the most important thing.
I prefer a knighthood based on aristocratic codes of honour, but that's just me.
I see a bit of both, really. The Sword Knights especially have a sense of spiritualism about them, and all three orders revere Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, and Habbakuk.
At the same time, they have a definitive code of honor, which is used in matters of government. For example, I could easily see a trial being decided by determining what was in a knight's heart.
As well, the Rose Knights weren't always clerics. Way back in 1e they were combat monsters, able to use any weapon you gave them. This became redundant in SAGA and 3e since the warrior classes in both game systems could already use many more weapons. So SAGA recast them as paladins.
In the Tales of the Lance boxed set, Sword Knights gained paladin abilities, but there was no mention as to whether this continued as they advanced as Rose Knight or not.
Myself, I've always veiwed the Knights of Solamnia this way:
Knights of the Crown: Career military soldiers. Some fight in elite units, while others command squads of foot soldiers. Most common place to find commoners or minor nobles.
Knights of the Sword: Monastic warriors who are sequestered in fortress-abbeys, such as the High Clerist's Tower. They function as a last line of defense, spiritual leaders, and keepers of the peace in a constabulary fashion.
Knights of the Rose: Knights errant and champions of the state in their younger years, while they take over their family estates when they are older. They are responsible for administering the laws of Solamnia, in a judicial and executive fashion, outside of the various city-states (who have their own senators and Lord Mayor).
Does this match what I'm supposed to be thinking about the Knights of Solamnia?
I'm not sure that I see it exactly that way, but I think you have the basic spirit.
Crown Knights are basically the loyal soldiers, their lives dedicated to service. Sword Knights are represented by the virtue of courage, and are more of your spiritual leader types. Rose Knights are represented by the loyalty of justice, and are the leaders of the Knights of Solamnia.
That's a "bare bones" look at things, but you get the idea.
For some reason, I could have sworn that my Knight of the Rose (in the computer games based off of 2nd edition Dragonlance Rules) could use spells...and I never advanced in level as a Sword Knight.
Personally...I don't see why a Knight of the Sword has to have a pre-requisite as being able to cast devine spells. I think the only class pre-requisite should be blah blah levels in KotC (plus all the other stuff).
So yeah...it would appear that the Knighthood does seem to be more a theocracy these days than an aristocracy.
I also noticed that Knights of the Crown no longer worship Habbakuk and have moved strictly to Kiri-Jolith worship (of course they still Honor all the gods of good...but only worship KJ). That's too bad.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The Sword Knights especially have a sense of spiritualism about them, and all three orders revere Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, and Habbakuk.
Not any more...at least according to the DLCS. Habbakuk is outta there.
Actually I was kinda hoping that...well...I don't know what. Mishakal really can't lead the knighthood, and Majere definatly couldn't lead an organization designed for making war. And no knight could willingly follow Branchala and retain their pride. heh heh
Perhaps Habbakuk said it's just not the same with out their father...so he gave sole "ownership" to Kiri-Jolith. I don't have too much trouble with this change...especially given the point in history when it changes.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Perhaps Habbakuk said it's just not the same with out their father...so he gave sole "ownership" to Kiri-Jolith. I don't have too much trouble with this change...especially given the point in history when it changes.
I like it. Habbakuk was always a weird diety to be the third member of the triad anyway.
Besides, as a nature diety he probably has his hands full undoing what the Overlords and Takhisis have done to Ansalon.
Terry - You're right in that Habbakuk is a bit odd as a nature deity, but remember as well that gods have multiple aspects.
Gods often appear differently to different people. Ask a dwarf, a gnome, and a kender how they see Reorx, and they'll all give you a different answer.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Now of course you can have minotaur paladins, gnome paladins, gully dwarf paladins... so long as the DM lets it in the game, you're set. According to the DLCS, however, they're a nonstandard class and are appreciably rare on Krynn.
Cheers,
Cam
Okay, since as of the moment I do not have the precious DLCS (although it should be arriving any minute!) this raises a question. You say that the DLCS states that there ARE paladins on Krynn, but they are extremely rare? Is that the way it goes? Or is it that they are nonexistant? I really hope they are officially. I remember that in Hickman's Anvil of Time adventure Lord Soth was a paladin. Anyhow, I guess what it is that I want to know is according to the DLCS, are there paladins on Krynn at all?
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
I believe it says that Kiri-Jolith is now the key deity venerated by the KoS, although other good gods are venerated as well. I'm sure Habbakuk is still very much in the picture, although not as much as Kiri-Jolith.
It says specifically that Knights of Solamnia worship Kiri-Jolith (even in the Diety section under "Worshipers"). Habbakuk is never mentioned anywhere (at least in Chapters 1-4...which include the PrCs and the Deities sections) as having any affiliation what so ever with the Knights of Solamnia. So...it's either a change for the 5th Age...or it's a retcon.
Either way, it seems the official stance is that he's gone from the KoS. heh
Originally posted by Harakiri Battosai
I'm at work so I may be wrong but i seem to remember them being treated as kinda "Ehhh, not really. But if you want to use them go ahead."
That was the same impression I got. They don't have their own Sub-heading...they get a side bar (the only PHB class to do that). It's really odd...I don't understand why, either. But, ah well.
(psst! Personally, I would much rather it have been Bards in there and not Paladins) heh heh
Originally posted by Harakiri Battosai
I'm at work so I may be wrong but i seem to remember them being treated as kinda "Ehhh, not really. But if you want to use them go ahead."
What I would really like is a definite on this one if you please.
What Sovereign Press should have done, is simply to say "Paladins are very rare on Krynn, being the personal champions of the gods themselves. Any paladin your character want to play will be almost unique, acting as a knight errant." This pretty much allows them to be interweaved into the campaign setting without needing to provide any setting information support.
After all, they control the official adventures and NPC stats, so all they have to do to enforce a low paladin flavour in official sources is simply not write them. I'm a little baffled as to why they felt they needed to express a slight note of disapproval for any character that wants to play a paladin. I mean, it isn't like they'll ever see him. ;)
Originally posted by ferratus
Personally, I am greatly annoyed at the confusion about Paladins. I think Sovereign Press assumed they were being clever when saying that "Paladins were non-standard" but it wasn't so clever, since now everyone is confused. Heck, I was confused for a long time myself.
What Sovereign Press should have done, is simply to say "Paladins are very rare on Krynn, being the personal champions of the gods themselves. Any paladin your character want to play will be almost unique, acting as a knight errant." This pretty much allows them to be interweaved into the campaign setting without needing to provide any setting information support.
After all, they control the official adventures and NPC stats, so all they have to do to enforce a low paladin flavour in official sources is simply not write them. I'm a little baffled as to why they felt they needed to express a slight note of disapproval for any character that wants to play a paladin. I mean, it isn't like they'll ever see him. ;)
Um, that's kinda what we did say, Terry.
We had to include them, so we did. However, we have other things planned for the chosen warriors of the gods :P
Christopher
Originally posted by ferratus
Personally, I am greatly annoyed at the confusion about Paladins. I think Sovereign Press assumed they were being clever when saying that "Paladins were non-standard" but it wasn't so clever, since now everyone is confused. Heck, I was confused for a long time myself.
What Sovereign Press should have done, is simply to say "Paladins are very rare on Krynn, being the personal champions of the gods themselves. Any paladin your character want to play will be almost unique, acting as a knight errant." This pretty much allows them to be interweaved into the campaign setting without needing to provide any setting information support.
Terry, I see no difference to your statement and the one quoted in on page 52.
Originally posted by Kipper
"Paladins may be allowed at the Dungeon Master's discretion, however, as rare champions of one of the good deities (such as Kiri-Jolith). A blackguard in such a campaign would be a champion of an evil diety."
The DLCS answered it. Sovereign press pretty much dealt with it exactly as you suggested, Terry. Why is there confusion?
Originally posted by Granakrs
The DLCS answered it. Sovereign press pretty much dealt with it exactly as you suggested, Terry. Why is there confusion?
Almost exactly, but the problem crops up with "may be allowed". That's where the confusion comes from, and why people are wondering whether or not paladins are in a dragonlance campaign.
Plus, people keep harping on the fact that Knights of Solamnia have replaced paladins... but they really haven't. The knights of Solamnia certainly have almost completely covered the 2e human warrior on a horse type paladin, but it doesn't really cover them for other races, or with other (but still lawful) codes and principles.
For example, what about the lawful paladin that fights dirty? ;)
Originally posted by ferratus
For example, what about the lawful paladin that fights dirty? ;)
Apologies for nitpicking, but I don't think that's really a paladin as the class goes... an ex-paladin, on the other hand... :D This is specifically why I don't like paladins as a core class; it's been said before, but I like paladins as a "DM option" class in DL. I actually hope that SovPress won't introduce paladin characters in the near future.
I suppose this is similar to Ferratus' argument that prestige classes shouldn't be tailored for one class. :D
It says may because some people might not want paladins in their DL, but there is no reason you can't have them.
1) Paladins Cast Divine Spells
2) Paladins Cast 1st through 4th spells
3) because of 1) and 2) Paladins can cast 1st level Divine Spells
3a) There selection is pretty limited though
I just interpert most KoS as being Paladins (with other classes Mixed in) until they can qualify to pick up the prestige class. And as long as Knights of the Sword pick up Divine Spells I've got no beef with a Divine Spells requirement for Knights of the Rose.....
Course I'm not getting my copy of the DLCS til around the 29th at best (can't get a copy easily in FL so mum's gonna have to ship me one from CA)
Originally posted by talinthas
God, terry, the book freaking gives examples of paladins from historical dragonlance. What more proof do you need? do you want them to just give a yes/no? if so, then YES PALADINS ARE A VIABLE CLASS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO PLAY ONE.
*laughs* I know, I'm just pointing out that it can be a little confusing, based on how they worded it.
Originally posted by Stormprince
Um, that's kinda what we did say, Terry.
We had to include them, so we did. However, we have other things planned for the chosen warriors of the gods :P
Christopher
The problem is you narrowed pally down to the knightly subtype.
Which isn`t what all pallys are.
And i consider every class etc under the fiat of the GM from Fighter to cleric.
Originally posted by waqqif
The problem is you narrowed pally down to the knightly subtype.
Which isn`t what all pallys are.
And i consider every class etc under the fiat of the GM from Fighter to cleric.
You know, if I were a paladin, which I'm not, I think being referred to as a "pally" would briefly inspire unlawful thoughts and a reach for my longsword.
But yes, paladins don't need to be knights. However, when you look at how their class has been constructed, you can tell they're heavily weighted in that direction.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
You know, if I were a paladin, which I'm not, I think being referred to as a "pally" would briefly inspire unlawful thoughts and a reach for my longsword.
Well, that's why neither of us are paladin's Cam. I think a Paladin of Mishakal would just let it roll off his back, and then worry about what he can do to stop the plague that some demented worshipper of Morgion unleashed.
But yes, paladins don't need to be knights. However, when you look at how their class has been constructed, you can tell they're heavily weighted in that direction.
Well, they do have a favoured mount it is true. But otherwise they are fighters who can smite evil, and cast a few holy spells. If you strip away the preconceptions you can do a lot with the paladin class other than a shining knight on a steed, which is what you have with the Knights of Solamnia prestige class.
Like I said, what about the paladin that fights dirty? It isn't unlawful to kick someone in the groin if that helps subdue them and bring them in to face lawful punishment.