How have you made the knighthoods important in your campaigns ?
~~~
Originally posted by Knight of the Lily
Why you bored them? You have three big Knighthoods. But it gives more Knighthoods. For example: Ergoth.
The knighthoods themselves have alot of potential(Game-Wise). I guess what bored me is how they were portrayed in the books. Over haughty, single-minded, close-minded, etc.
~~~
Originally posted by Knight of the Lily
Why you bored them? You have three big Knighthoods. But it gives more Knighthoods. For example: Ergoth.
Well, three if you count the Legion of Steel as a knighthood. Personally, I think it should be classified otherwise.
There are some minor knighthoods around too, such as the Order of the Gold Lance. However, this post is more about using the main knighthoods in the modern era.
The Knights of Solamnia are working on reclaiming their countryside, so there's all sorts of adventure possibilities there. Will they reclaim the High Clerist's Tower? Is it haunted? What of Khellendros' minions?
The Knights of Neraka aren't doing so hot. They just suffered a big defeat in the War of Souls. They're probably not too thrilled about Mina right now. They've also degenerated into a group of thugs. How will the Thorn Knights handle the return of the WoHS?
As for the Legion of Steel, there's tons of ideas here as well. With 3 of the dragon overlords out of the way, they can concentrate on the other two. Of course, there's still cleanup from the 3 dead ones as well. Will they amass their forces? And how will they react to the return of the gods? Will they protect sorcerers from the WoHS?
Personally, I'm a huge fan of the knighthoods. I feel that they're a large part of what makes up the flavor of Dragonlance.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Well, three if you count the Legion of Steel as a knighthood. Personally, I think it should be classified otherwise.
I'd say it's definately a knighthood. Especially now a days that they are starting to work more in the open. Anyway, they're a lot like the Knights of Solamnia in make up...they just have a much much larger clandestine side than the Knights of Solamnia do.
But, then again DH, the two of us are never going to see eye-to-eye on this.
The Knights of Neraka aren't doing so hot. They just suffered a big defeat in the War of Souls. They're probably not too thrilled about Mina right now. They've also degenerated into a group of thugs. How will the Thorn Knights handle the return of the WoHS?
In my opinion, i think not so. Ok many Knights of Neraka dont follow the codex. But Mina has not control all Knights. Some was in other countrys. But the problem is, all Knights the follow mina, have follow Takhisi. They have served Takhisi when they follow Mina. This is corect with the codex. Ok they have dont know that Mina is the avatar for Takhisi. But they have do what Mina/ Takhisi say with out check with the codex. That was the problem. That is why they loose. But the show with the draconians was low cost. So we have some Knights of Neraka. I think they are so strong how the Steel Legion. What they need is a second Steel!
Originally posted by Brimstone
I'd say it's definately a knighthood. Especially now a days that they are starting to work more in the open. Anyway, they're a lot like the Knights of Solamnia in make up...they just have a much much larger clandestine side than the Knights of Solamnia do.
But, then again DH, the two of us are never going to see eye-to-eye on this.
:heehee
We probably never will. Cam and I had a huge debate on it today. Went something like this...
CAM: Tastes great!
DH: Less filling!
Anyhoo, I figured that since the debate began again, I'd ressurect that old thread we had a while back discussing it. Feel free to continue the discussion over there, folks.
Beyond that, the very definition of a Knight is a noble mounted warrior. Few, if any, legionares are noblemen, less are mounted soldiers.
Sovereign Press has a book on the Knights on the drawing board, slated for a 2006 release I think.
I am working on a Knights of Solamnia resource for the Nexus. I've put up a short excerpt regarding the history of the Measure thus far, so I hope you'll check it out (and please send feedback, positive or negative).
Originally posted by adembroski
The Legion isn't a 'knighthood'. They don't value chivalry, they primarily work as a covert organization, and they have no "higher power" for which they serve.
Actually, they do value chivalry, they place a great deal of stock in their own code (the Legacy), and fully half of the organization is out in the open and established in free cities such as Ak-Khurman. It's important to remember that they borrowed most of their basic structure from the Solamnics and (to some extent) the Nerakans, including a strong sense of justice, respect, and virtue. It's also the Solamnics from whom they learned the use of clandestine cells and underground networks, tools the Solamnic Knights had been using for over 400 years since the Cataclysm.
They're knights, all of them, some of them from noble houses and tired of the rigid traditions of the Solamnic upper echelon, others from lower birth and seeking to serve the same cause for good as the Solamnics but not permitted to take the Knight's Trial. The Legion of Steel isn't just a group of rangers and rogues hiding in the dark - they're a military order in their own right, forged from the memory of Steel Brightblade and tempered by the courage and determination of Sara Dunstan and her allies.
Cheers,
Cam
It's an almost impossible argument because it depends on your definition of a "knighthood".
To be honest, Knighthood has nothing to do with honor, chivalry, or anything along those lines. It means one thing... it's an association of knights. So what's a Knight?
The literal definition.
A knight is the lowest form of nobility. Some are land owners, some are not. All are warriors, as that is there role. Knight comes from the norman word cniht, which means horseman.
By this definition, the Legion is NOT a knighthood.
But there is also the romantic definition...
That a knighthood is an organization of people so dedicated to a cause that they are quite willing to give their lives. This usually includes a code of ethics, sometimes based on traditional chivalry, but not always.
By this definition, they are a knighthood.
My personal definition of a knighthood is likely a tad different than some people's.
I feel the concept of honor has been bastardized as we've moved through the Fifth Age in Dragonlance. It's really been drug through the mud over and over. Between the Solamnics inviting a dark elf-ex Nerakan to become a Knight of Solamnia, to the Clandestine Circle, and even as far as actually considering a MERGER with the Nerakans (rediculous!), it's obvious to me that people are really incorperating far too much modern thinking. It seems like most of the authors are going "Chivalry is stupid" and trying to "fix" the knighthood. I don't think that's what Tracy Hickman had in mind when he wrote the intro to the Solamnics in DLA.
They were too ridged, but I don't think he ever meant for them to abandon chivalry. They seem to be starting that. What throws me off, however, is that the two knight characters in War of Souls seem to care little for Chivalry. I actually wish they were both Legionairs. It would justify their behaviour better.
On the other side of the coin, every book about knights seems to have the one guy who's still stuck in the "THE MEASURE IS EVERYTHING" rut. Too many Derek Crownguard clones. Why can't we just have an average type of guy... a good knight, someone who tries to be honorable, and even if he fails, we can respect him for his efforts. We have yet to see a real knight sense Sturm and Steel! No, I take that back... Medan too.
As for the Clandestine Circle... this is, I think, the logical progression of the Solamnic Knighthood. I don't think knights take up the assignment lightly. They likely pray for days on it. It's a hard thing... you are about to sacrifice a lot of your own honor, as you've viewed it to this point. You'd almost feel like you were turning your back on your oath, but you also know that for the sake of that oath's survival, it's something that must be done. The Templars had their own version of this, which was unknown even to the Master of the Temple. I'm sure many of the Knights of Solamnia who are asked to enter the Clandestine Circle wrestle with a lot of the same emotions that the Knights who were forced into hiding after the Cataclysm did.
Anyways, off on a rant. Sorry about that.
What about Gerard uth Mondor? What about Linsha Majere? What about Odila Windlass?
I'd say these three are admirable examples of Solamnic knights. I'd have any of them guard my back any day of the week.
Originally posted by QuentinGeorge
Why can't we just have an average type of guy... a good knight, someone who tries to be honorable, and even if he fails, we can respect him for his efforts.
What about Gerard uth Mondor? What about Linsha Majere? What about Odila Windlass?
I'd say these three are admirable examples of Solamnic knights. I'd have any of them guard my back any day of the week.
None of three really make me think of Sturm. They seem more like Legionairs, really. They're not bad people, mind you, but they don't come off as perticularly chivalrous.
BTW, I had addressed Odila and Gerard in the previous post.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by adembroski
It's an almost impossible argument because it depends on your definition of a "knighthood".
That's the biggest problem, really. I think it's why Trampas and I disagree so much on this one.
Really...I have two definitions of "knighthood." One for the real world, and one for Dragonlance.
I think I've pretty much said all I can on the subject (note resurrected thread). Suffice it to say, I agree whole heartedly with what Cam has stated above, too.
In my real world definition of a knight, only the Knights of Solamnia fit. In my Dragonlance world definition of a knight...all three orders fit.
I don't really know what more I can say.
For one, we hear nothing of a tier of nobility above them: No Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Barons etc.
Originally posted by vejono
And I think the Legion sounds more like the Harper Scouts from Fogotten Realms.
Only in purpose, not in form or function. I've never seen the Legion depicted as the Harpers. I sometimes think they serve the same purpose...they just don't go about doing things in the same way.
The Legion of Steel probably started out more like that...but as I said earlier...they've been working openly with garrisons and soldiers (ie knights) for almost 35 years now. They are strong enough now, that they don't need to hide their order.
But when dealing with the Dragon Overlords on their own terf...a little cautions is advised...even the Knights of Solamnia do that.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I think one of the problems you're going to run into here is that the Knights of Solamnia were never portrayed as being knights in the "we are the lowest form of nobility, holding land and serving as officers in our lord's armies" sense. Solamnia had nobles who weren't Knights of Solamnia, and membership in the knighthood wasn't a given. Solamnic knights are warriors in a fraternal order with a monastic code and a connection to the aristocracy by dint of many of their higher ranking members coming from noble families or owning estates. Only the knights of the Order of the Rose were ever required to be aristocracy, however - a low-born man with no blue blood whatsoever could become a knight of the Crown if fortune shone his way.
Cheers,
Cam
Yes, they have been potrayed as land holders many times. The Rose and the Thorn, Dragons of Winter Night, The Oath and the Measure, Lord Soth, the Last Will and Testement of Lord Gunther in More Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home, and when I, in confusion, went to Margeret Weis about it and asked, she said that yes, they do have a secular role similar to medieval historical knights.
The difference is that, because of their special role, they are given more power than most knights.
In the Tales of the Lance boxed set, the leader of Solamnia was listed as Lord Gunthar uth Wistan, clearly indicating that the Grand Master of the Knighthood was the official national leader of Solamnia.
The statement above about one's definition of a knight holds true. I'm sure we all look at the knighthood differently.
When we look at the various knighthoods, we have some background that shapes our vision of them, from history to Hollywood, and also our romanticized ideal stemming from fantasy novels.
I think, at times, we define the knighthood by the idealized form. Huma and Sturm are the model Knights of Solamnia. Steel and Medan are the same for the Knights of Takhisis. I'm not sure who the idealized Legionnaire is.
So all of this is shaping our view of what a knight is. In my mind, the Knights of Solamnia are your stereotypical "knights in shining armor". This isn't to say they're all like this, but this is the visualized ideal I have for them.
Likewise, the Nerakans are the antithesis of that. They are the evil, dark and corrupt version of the Solamnics. There's a sense of honor there. Note that I tend to think of the Knights of Neraka as they were during the Chaos War, not the wretched group of thugs they've degenerated into. What they've become are bullies who use the title of knight, although they are not true knights in their hearts.
When I look at the Legion of Steel, I can see many things that are like the various knighthoods, from structure to the idea of having a code.
What I don't get from them can't be quantified, and that's the sense of romanticism and gallantry that I get from the other knighthoods.
It's hard for me to think of the Legionnaires as the type who will charge into battle riding upon a fiery charger or on the back of a dragon and sacrificing themselves in battle against unsurmountable evil. I have a hard time envisioning Legionnaires saluting their opponents just prior to battle. Not to say that one or two here or there wouldn't, but I don't see that with the organization as a whole.
Don't get me wrong. The Legion is cool in its own right. They just don't convey that same flair of romanticism that I get from the two major knighthoods of Krynn. I can't quantify that, and that's certainly subjective. Yet that seems to be the dividing line for me.
BTW, check out Wolverine's write-up on the Legion of Steel on the Nexus.
Legion of Steel Article
Originally posted by adembroski
Yes, they have been potrayed as land holders many times. The Rose and the Thorn, Dragons of Winter Night, The Oath and the Measure, Lord Soth, the Last Will and Testement of Lord Gunther in More Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home, and when I, in confusion, went to Margeret Weis about it and asked, she said that yes, they do have a secular role similar to medieval historical knights.
Knights of Solamnia who still hold ancestral estates and manors in Solamnia do so not because they are members of the Orders, but because they are heirs to their own noble houses. Solamnia has nobility and aristocracy that are not members of the Orders, and there are many knights of Solamnia that do not come from noble houses.
The knighthood has land of its own, belonging to the Orders and parceled out by the heads of the three Orders, but this is about as close to manorialism as you get. There certainly isn't a feudal structure in place by which a monarch that owns all the land hands out estates to vassals, which would typically have knights as the lowest ranking vassals. If a knight has secular power in Solamnia it's by virtue of his family, not his knightly role.
In the Tales of the Lance boxed set, the leader of Solamnia was listed as Lord Gunthar uth Wistan, clearly indicating that the Grand Master of the Knighthood was the official national leader of Solamnia.
It doesn't say this at all. It lists three knights, including Lord Gunthar, as representatives of the government of Solamnia, but the text goes on to describe the connection between the various governors of the Solamnic states and the three Orders which serve to protect Solamnia from opposition forces. These regions are governed by individuals like Amothus of Palanthas, and occasionally by individuals who are both nobles and knights. It's easy to see where this can be confusing, but it's best to separate a specific character's role as a knight from their possible role as a landed noble.
Cheers,
Cam
To my mind Solamnia does NOT hold land from a legal standpoint right now, and has not in any significant amount sense the Cataclysm. I think the turmoil after the cataclysm resulted in a severing of the ties between Solamnia and the Knighthood that has not yet been fully repaired.
But I feel that prior to the Cataclysm, the Knighthood did play a very strong secular role as I described earlier. Lord Soth is a good example in which Soth is shown hearing complaints from commoners.
I feel that the pre-cataclysm knighthood is similar in a lot of ways to the classic Arthurian knighthood. Not ever knight is a land holder, and not all land is held by Solamnic Knights, but they do play a major role in Solamnian politics.
After the cataclysm, such ties are broken. Sancrist becomes a true feudalism (every entry for Sancrist I've seen lists it at a feudalism), with the Grand Master acting the part of a King in that heirarchy, but Solamnia essencially becomes an semi-anarchal confenderation. I don't that without the Knighthood there is anything that holds together, say, Coastlund and Heartlund.
Originally posted by adembroski
IBut I feel that prior to the Cataclysm, the Knighthood did play a very strong secular role as I described earlier. Lord Soth is a good example in which Soth is shown hearing complaints from commoners.
I agree they had a significant secular role, but Lord Soth heard complaints from commoners because he was a lord, not because he was a Rose Knight. Joining and rising among the ranks of the Knighthood prior to the Cataclysm was probably every young Solamnic noble's goal in life, as it would earn them glory and honor among their peers, much as becoming a Round Table knight or one of the Queen's Knights in Malory's Arthurian saga was a prestigious and noble aim, or joining the Purple Dragon knights in the Forgotten Realms' Cormyr was the goal of many brave warriors under King Azoun. But, none of these were the reason the knight in question was a member of the ruling class.
Cheers,
Cam
Essencially that some knights have a direct role in government and some don't, depending on their social rank prior to entry, and the assignment given them by the knighthood. They are not an essencially governmental body, but play a role none the less due to the fact that many of their members ARE nobility.
Originally posted by adembroski
Essencially that some knights have a direct role in government and some don't, depending on their social rank prior to entry, and the assignment given them by the knighthood. They are not an essencially governmental body, but play a role none the less due to the fact that many of their members ARE nobility.
That's exactly my point, yes.
Cheers,
Cam