PAS1 - The Heldannic Knights, Princess Ark(tm) Gazetteer: This is a successor to the old D&D(r) Gazetteer series. This new supplement focuses on the Heldann Freeholds and the chaotic knighthood that rules the nation. The Heldannic Knights have been long time foes of the Princess Ark. Includes an in-depth look at an order of knights in the D&D(r) Game, an expanded background and new powers for Clerics and Avengers.
(paladins get mentions in various products, and knights- in the form of nobility- get mention in various products, but Avengers never did).
Not completely true. Avengers are featured in CM1: Test of the Warlords ;)
:-) Jesper
Back in the old days we always played Chaotic=Evil and Lawful=Good, and for us, Avengers clearly represented evil knightly types, especially since they could control undead like evil clerics. Not that any avengers ever appeared IMC.
OTOH, I've seen many others interpret Avengers as Chaotic Good, Batman-type characters, using dubious methods in their fight for good. The term Avenger also lends itself better to this kind of character, while the Heldannic Knights have seemed more like Blackguard Paladins. Had they been dubbed Dark Knights instead it would have been more appropriate IMHO.
OTOH, if Avengers were supposed to be Chaotic Good street heroes, wouldn't that have been more appropriate as a Thief option?
Håvard
Håvard's got more than two hands. :D Actually I've always treated Avengers as Chaotic Evil, in fact I used to play one years ago he was also a 12th level werewolf but that's another story.
He's now one of the :88E: in my current 3.5e campaigns. Paladin of Slaughter/Werewolf Lord.
Regards
Gary
So are the Avengers supposed to be Chaotic? Or Lawful Evil in opposition to the Paladins Lawful Good?
I think that is strongly dependent on what Paladins are in the campaign.
If the Paladin is simply a warrior affiliated to a Lawful church, then the Avenger is his Chaotic counterpart, without much emphasis on the Good-Evil axis.
If the Paladin is Galahad-like Lawful Good, then the Avenger would be definitely evil, and then, in Mystara, probably Chaotic Evil (an agent of Entropy) rather Lawful Evil.
Myself, I go with Chaotic (but not necessarily good or evil) Avengers, but considering the HK Lawful (but not necessarily good or evil) Paladins (and Clerics, of course).
My actual theory is that the Paladin can exist without being devout to any kind of religious sect and/or immortal, merely serving the cause of Order and/or Good (LG or LN) in the universe. In this sense, the Paladin should be a 20 levels class as that presented in the PHB.
If we are talking about the Avenger as the counterpart of the Paladin, then he should be a 20 level class devoted to Chaos and/or Evil (CE or CN), not just the servant of a specific immortal or church.
This idea derives from the concept of the philosopher cleric, that is clerics who receive divine powers not from worshipping Immortals but from worshipping one of the two sides of the universal dualism: Order or Chaos (something that was allowed in Rules Cyclopedia and old red box).
THEN we could introduce the idea of 10 levels Prestige Classes dubbed Defenders of the Faith, which are indeed linked to a special church or religious order and can be grouped into Lawful (Justiciars), Neutral (Defenders) and Chaotic (Champions) blessed knights (following the example of the Defender kit introduced in Red Steel).
It is a tough question that we have debated a lot over the Italian boards, but so far we didn't reach a universal agreement.
Actually, there's no agreement to reach, since there are several different interpretations of Avengers and Paladins, which are not necessarily compatible -- e.g., some people may think that one of the two types of Paladins you are proposing does not belong in (their) Mystara, or may think that all Paladins/Avengers must belong to a Church (as per Companion rules), regardless of whether the Church itself is philosophical or not.
There are so many possible variants within the three basic types (Galahad, the AD&D Paladin and the OD&D Paladin/Savage Coast Defender), that your hopes of universal agreement seem rather optimistic :P
For OD&D users, I think it would be a bad idea to try and redefine the Avenger Class Option into what the Heldannic Knights are. Rather, I would just create a new Fighter Option named Heldannic Knight. Not sure what abilities and/or alignment requirements they should have though.
For 3.5, likewise, I think both a 20-level Paladin and a bunch of PrCs as suggested by DM are appropriate for a Mystara campaign, especially the Defender Types. It all boils down to gaming style and individual preference how much one would like to include though. Being as lazy and rules phobic as I am I stick to the 3.5 core classes only and leave the rest to the realm of roleplaying...
Håvard
In OD&D the division between paladin, knight and avenger never made any sense. Or the wnole concept of special powers for high-level fighters.
- First of all, "Knight" confused the social category (in-game-world) and the technical category of the game together. It was like alignment languages all over again. ("Hullo, I'm a neutral knight from Karameikos. Move aside you Ochalean rabble and let me lodge rent-free in you castle"!). Tough luck if you were neutral - no special abilities!
- Second of all, it left landed fighters hanging out to dry. That was very weird.
(If you settle down, you don't get any goodies.)
- Third and most importantly: Even if you decide to remedy those clear misjudgements in game-design, one major problem remains. Special abilitites just make fighters too powerful.
That's why I had honestly forgotten those special classes, our group never even considered using them.
- First of all, "Knight" confused the social category (in-game-world) and the technical category of the game together. It was like alignment languages all over again. ("Hullo, I'm a neutral knight from Karameikos. Move aside you Ochalean rabble and let me lodge rent-free in you castle"!). Tough luck if you were neutral - no special abilities!
- Second of all, it left landed fighters hanging out to dry. That was very weird.
(If you settle down, you don't get any goodies.)
Landed fighters get a lot of extra experience and money from their lands, so the few extra powers (spells) of the Paladin/Avenger (considering that these powers are dependent on a church) are there just to make the non-landed version somewhat more balanced -- actually, until the Master set put a limit to the amount of XP you could get from domains, being a non-landed character wasn't much of an option.
As for Neutral warriors, the problem was that they had no option to join a church, which was later corrected by the Druidic Knight in VotPA.
For OD&D users, I think it would be a bad idea to try and redefine the Avenger Class Option into what the Heldannic Knights are. Rather, I would just create a new Fighter Option named Heldannic Knight. Not sure what abilities and/or alignment requirements they should have though.
IMO, Heldannic Knights in OD&D would be Paladins (which is not that different from Avengers, except for the alignment), but they could be Neutral as well as Lawful.
In OD&D the division between paladin, knight and avenger never made any sense. Or the wnole concept of special powers for high-level fighters.
- First of all, "Knight" confused the social category (in-game-world) and the technical category of the game together. It was like alignment languages all over again. ("Hullo, I'm a neutral knight from Karameikos. Move aside you Ochalean rabble and let me lodge rent-free in you castle"!). Tough luck if you were neutral - no special abilities!
- Second of all, it left landed fighters hanging out to dry. That was very weird.
(If you settle down, you don't get any goodies.)
- Third and most importantly: Even if you decide to remedy those clear misjudgements in game-design, one major problem remains. Special abilitites just make fighters too powerful.
That's why I had honestly forgotten those special classes, our group never even considered using them.
OD&D:
How about this: A Fighter of 9th level who has risen to the ranks of nobility and who choses to give up any claims to hold land, may chose between the following options:
- Champion of Faith: These, also sometimes called Paladins are champions of a particular church or religion. They must meet the alignment requirements of their patron, and gain the same special ability as clerics of that Immortal OR the ability to turn undead. If they have a wis score of 13 or more, they also get to cast clerical spells as per paladins from the RC.
- Questing Knight: These are Knights who swear no allegiance to any lord, but travel the land helping nobles and commoners alike, fighting bandits and monsters. They often earn a living as bounty hunters. They are popular among all people and are usually offered free meals and lodging wherever they travel. Their charisma bonus is doubled when making reaction rolls, and they may ignore all expeses concerning food and lodging.
- Druidic Knight: As per VotPA. Druidic Knights are not limited to Robrenn, but are found in all Druidic socities.
Håvard