This is the thread about roleplaying Knights of Solamnia and the changes they go through during the various ages of Krynn. Please throw in your thoughts about Knightly behavior and what should be the problems of being a Knight as well as the benefits.
I'd also love to hear how you would seperate Knight's personalities so they don't all become Sturm clones.
If I run during the War of the Lance I make sure to stick with the idea that the Knights of Solamnia are not much cared for at all. Citizenry turning their back on them, that kind of thing. Make the knight feel like he needs to earn the trust of the people, because he really does need to earn it.
I use a strict version of Chivalry for the code and measure, leaving little room for alteration. I add a few things in there as well, but kinda like to think of a Knight of Solamnia (and in some respects Neraka) as a fast and loose Paladin.
If you look at the literature, very few of the Kinghts ever seemed to live up to the Oath and Measure. This suggests to me that it's just as proper to play a Knight of Solamnia as a deeply flawed person who tries but fails (or maybe doesn't even try) to live up to the ideal.
Yup. I once played a Knight of Solamnia who prided himself on how closely he followed the Measure... to the point of hubris.
I like to run in the most modern era, and since they had left the series off with the Knights of Solamnia in a good light, most well behaived and set in to the Code, thats how I reflect it. I cast a shadow of doubt and distrust onto those that fell under Mina's influence, stripping higher ranking members of title and land, and blocking promotion of the lower members.
If I run during the War of the Lance I make sure to stick with the idea that the Knights of Solamnia are not much cared for at all. Citizenry turning their back on them, that kind of thing. Make the knight feel like he needs to earn the trust of the people, because he really does need to earn it.
I use a strict version of Chivalry for the code and measure, leaving little room for alteration. I add a few things in there as well, but kinda like to think of a Knight of Solamnia (and in some respects Neraka) as a fast and loose Paladin.
Which is why I like Pre-cataclysm campaigns set thousands of years before the Cataclsym because in those day's the Knights were not as 'encased' in what they would become and were still being what they were to become legends, not following themm
So, basically I'd see the early knighthood very close to the ideals with a heavy idealistic touch seeing to the proper education of future rulers and as a fraternity which would support its members in staying fast to the ideals and resisting the lure of power. Ironically set one could say the knighthood had to serve as self-aid group like some anti-alcoholics for the powerful ;)
Along came the protection of land and peoplle against external dangers and foes.
Some further clues:
Vigilance, loyalty, benevolence and charity for the poor, resolution, bravery, truthful and steadfast in one's convictions, willing to self-sacrifice if a need arises.
Well.
Regards
M's Claw
I don't believe the Knights of Solamnia have ever actually 'ruled' Solamnia, depsite all things. They more act as gaurdians of the lands, but are hardly rulers of them. Sure Knights have their individual keeps and there are parts which are more or less under Knights Control (ie, Sancrist, The High Clerists Tower, Vingaard Keep before the WOTL), but to the most part, the rest of hte lands are under control of individual lords whom are protected by the Knights.
My two cents....
I don't believe the Knights of Solamnia have ever actually 'ruled' Solamnia, depsite all things. They more act as gaurdians of the lands, but are hardly rulers of them. Sure Knights have their individual keeps and there are parts which are more or less under Knights Control (ie, Sancrist, The High Clerists Tower, Vingaard Keep before the WOTL), but to the most part, the rest of hte lands are under control of individual lords whom are protected by the Knights.
I disagree, I like the think of the Solamnic Knights as more of a Roman Republic, with half the backstabbing. They are one of those nations that I truly believe puts the power in the peoples hands, and that lead to the knights being mistrusted for so long. The people had to take control of the system and did not know how to, and so they blamed the knights for it.
I think I remember that there were a whole bunch of nobles joining Vinas in his cause. At the same time, there were definitely nobles ruling the eastern provinces at the time of the rose rebellion.
The time following the cataclysm shows as well as the details given on palanthian history that there always were nobles ruling in fact. The knighthood was primarily built to defend the land and to uphold the ideals of the foundation of Solamnia. Thus they became the dominant factor when it comes down to the foreign politics (signing different scrolls) just because their organization was the key factor in this area. In the same time we know of the structure of the knighthood, that the Knights of the Rose were an order restrcted to ruling families. That leads to the following: While the knighthood never actually was in charge of the rule, nobles who - in concordance with the ideals of freedom and justice - ruled the land in a more paternal and benevolent way leaving the people the utmost liberty and freedom whenever possible were often knights as well. One can imagine that the views of the ruling body of the knighthood on how to properly behave would have repercussions on noble's style just because those "measures" came from their orderly superiors or at least fom the respected representatives of the knighthood. There certainly was a heavy influence of the knighthood on theruling of the land not by right but as a matter of fact in a educational and scholary way.
That would explain as well why the kingdomship got somehow lost over the course of history and the knighthood became more and more the dominant factor in politics and the unifying power in Solamnia with local and regional nobles who were or weren't knights at the same time. The High Clerist's Tower demonstrates as well that the knighthood obtained its proper real estates and domains who were under the direct rule of the knighthood [like some monasteries in medieval Europe gaining feudal estates] while in other regions the rule was done by nobles who often happened to be knights as well.
Regards
M's Claw
I disagree, I like the think of the Solamnic Knights as more of a Roman Republic, with half the backstabbing. They are one of those nations that I truly believe puts the power in the peoples hands, and that lead to the knights being mistrusted for so long. The people had to take control of the system and did not know how to, and so they blamed the knights for it.
Well that goes both way's. I believe that in Solamnia is a nation that gaurantee's personal freedom (Silvanesti, Istar, Ergoth) all had some form of slavery, thus ensuring that many an escaped slave would probably head for Solamnia or Quanlinesti for freedom. Anyway it is clear that whether it was Palanthus, Solanthus, Kalaman, etc, in the day's before the cataclysm, and including Tarsis, that they pretty much followed whatever Lords of the Cities that there were, and that while there was a Garrison of Knights there to protect and overwatch, it was a relationship more close to the Jedi Knights of the Galactic Republic.....they step up to defend and protect the Republic when needed and step back and the let the people run things when not needed.
This would have endeared them to the population, yes. But also when the Cataclysm did happen and the Knights were expected to save everyone, that it turned the people against them.
This is kinda going along with roleplaying the Knights properly. Is it just me, or do the Knights of the Sword kinda get ripped off an abilities? I mean, take a look at the Knights of the Crown and Knights of the Rose. Both of them get some very nice abilities. What do you all think?
If I am looking at it with pure crunch in mind, yeah, I would have to agree with you. But there are a large number of things that go into being a sword knight, just like any other knight. Besides, the DM of the particular group may not feel that the Sword knight proved themselves enough to become a Rose, and so they are stuck with the Sword PrC. And then again, if you don't want the crunch, just be a knight without the class.
Make a long story short(er), I agree they lack the ability punch the others have, but its still a good PrC.Even if you take away the spellcasting capability of a Rose Knight?
When I first saw this PrC, I was surprised that it wasn't cut in half (ie, +1 caster level every even level--or every odd level, just not both ;)).
The Roses might be better in terms of the game, but there is just something special about the Knights of the Sword, there are not many out there in novels or modules though are there?
I have only read the Dragonlance Chronicles again recently, and they mention in Dragons of Winter Night only one Sword Knight, and that is Brian Donner. As far as modules go, I haven't had the privelage of reading one in quite sometime.