Paladins in dark sun and mounts - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Paladins in dark sun and mounts

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
May 21, 2005 0:43:45 For those of you willijnng to put paladins in dark sun . . .

So if you take paladins as lackeys to the SMs, kinda like templars, how would you change em? I was thinking of picking up the paladins of tyranny, and removing spellcasting a la complete warrior. But the idea of a mount doesn't seem to fit, so what would you do to tweak that? I was thinking maybe creatures from the black, cretures from the grey, apprentice templars or paladins, even bonded slaves. All of them have pros and cons, but i was wondering what someone else thought. What alternate ability would work and effectively replace a mount?

nic
#2
xlorepdarkhelm_dup
May 21, 2005 2:08:24 My idea on this topic was covered in my thread about the alternate rulings I use in my own campaigns. when it comes to the mounts - I left those in - I mean, there is Crodlu other mount options on Athas.
#3
star_gazer_02
May 21, 2005 2:08:27 Personally, I'd make them more akin to battle commanders and keep them (like Monte Cook said they should've been) prestige classes. Give them some spiffy summoning powers - there ought to be plenty of vile things available in the Grey and the Black - to make up for lack of a 'mount' and some abilities that help with leading people into battle.

However, they should keep the core concept of 'holy warriors', fighting for the honor of their rightful liege, monarch and god.

The 'paladins' of Athas should not make you afraid of what they are going to do to you, but what their minions will do... Seeing one across the battlefield should bring the fear of knowing that the people under him are absolute fearless fanatics and wise men should be running in the opposite direction - as fast as they can.
#4
xlorepdarkhelm_dup
May 21, 2005 3:03:16 I don't necessarily see them as military commanders. I see thm filling the role more of a secret police - enforcing their "god's" will throught the city, watching for anyone - including Templars, who could be potential problems to the Monarch. They have full authority, answer only directly to the Sorcerer-King himself, with no beurocracy tying up their ranks at all. They are completely devoted to their masters, and are gifted special abilities as a result.
#5
the_slayer_of_heroes
May 21, 2005 7:14:47 If you're trying to run them straight out of the player's, the only thing, in my opinion, that should be changed is the requirement to be Lawful Good. If they were only required to be Lawful, not necissarily Good, they could easily fit into the campaign world. As for mounts, i believe paizo recomends Kanks for medium paladins or Baazrags for small paladins, but there are plenty of other options. I, myself always prefer Mystaril mounts, but that's only when i'm a high enough level...
#6
terminus_vortexa
May 21, 2005 10:16:57 Why remove their spells? One need only say that they apply the energies granted to them by their sponsor SK in a manner different from the methods a Templar uses.
#7
xlorepdarkhelm_dup
May 21, 2005 14:31:33
Why remove their spells? One need only say that they apply the energies granted to them by their sponsor SK in a manner different from the methods a Templar uses.

I removed the spells fom mine, because I feel that there's already too many spellcasters on Athas. Templars, Clerics, Druids, Wizards (and I also add in Sorcerers). I guess that you could put in spellcasting, I just decided against it - it didn't feel right for my Dark Sun. I wanted classes that could concievably mesh with the ideas from the settin as defined in the novels and the 2E books - which meant kind of explaining why these characters weren't brought up at all before. With Sorcerers, I play it that people easily (and I do mean easily) confuse them with Wizards - even Wizards could get confused if they are unfamiliar with them. Paladins tend to be covert as the secret police of the Sorcerer-Kings, occasionally mistaken as non-spellcasting servants of he Templarate. Monks... well.... technically they were mentioned in the 2E materials.
#8
star_gazer_02
May 21, 2005 17:28:47 It could also be that they were brought up, and just didn't have any 'attention' brought to what they were. Remember, people aren't identified as rogue, fighter, or any other class very often in novels. There are better ways to show just who and what a character is than simple declaration. There are several templar characters in the books that could easily have been just as much a warrior as a templar.

Regardless, there's no reason why, say, the Shadow King's paladins couldn't be secret police, whilst Hamanu's paladins could be battle commanders and the Oba's paladins were holy warriors of a more familiar sort. There're a ton of possiblilties.
#9
zombiegleemax
May 23, 2005 12:02:26 just give them a suit of armor created by the SK and an enchanted steel sword, with those kind of advantages who needs spells out there. kinda like sending a pro football player into a pop warner game.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 21, 2005 0:43:45	For those of you willijnng to put paladins in dark sun . . . So if you take paladins as lackeys to the SMs, kinda like templars, how would you change em? I was thinking of picking up the paladins of tyranny, and removing spellcasting a la complete warrior. But the idea of a mount doesn't seem to fit, so what would you do to tweak that? I was thinking maybe creatures from the black, cretures from the grey, apprentice templars or paladins, even bonded slaves. All of them have pros and cons, but i was wondering what someone else thought. What alternate ability would work and effectively replace a mount? nic
#2 xlorepdarkhelm_dup May 21, 2005 2:08:24	My idea on this topic was covered in my thread about the alternate rulings I use in my own campaigns. when it comes to the mounts - I left those in - I mean, there is Crodlu other mount options on Athas.
#3 star_gazer_02 May 21, 2005 2:08:27	Personally, I'd make them more akin to battle commanders and keep them (like Monte Cook said they should've been) prestige classes. Give them some spiffy summoning powers - there ought to be plenty of vile things available in the Grey and the Black - to make up for lack of a 'mount' and some abilities that help with leading people into battle. However, they should keep the core concept of 'holy warriors', fighting for the honor of their rightful liege, monarch and god. The 'paladins' of Athas should not make you afraid of what they are going to do to you, but what their minions will do... Seeing one across the battlefield should bring the fear of knowing that the people under him are absolute fearless fanatics and wise men should be running in the opposite direction - as fast as they can.
#4 xlorepdarkhelm_dup May 21, 2005 3:03:16	I don't necessarily see them as military commanders. I see thm filling the role more of a secret police - enforcing their "god's" will throught the city, watching for anyone - including Templars, who could be potential problems to the Monarch. They have full authority, answer only directly to the Sorcerer-King himself, with no beurocracy tying up their ranks at all. They are completely devoted to their masters, and are gifted special abilities as a result.
#5 the_slayer_of_heroes May 21, 2005 7:14:47	If you're trying to run them straight out of the player's, the only thing, in my opinion, that should be changed is the requirement to be Lawful Good. If they were only required to be Lawful, not necissarily Good, they could easily fit into the campaign world. As for mounts, i believe paizo recomends Kanks for medium paladins or Baazrags for small paladins, but there are plenty of other options. I, myself always prefer Mystaril mounts, but that's only when i'm a high enough level...
#6 terminus_vortexa May 21, 2005 10:16:57	Why remove their spells? One need only say that they apply the energies granted to them by their sponsor SK in a manner different from the methods a Templar uses.
#7 xlorepdarkhelm_dup May 21, 2005 14:31:33	Why remove their spells? One need only say that they apply the energies granted to them by their sponsor SK in a manner different from the methods a Templar uses. I removed the spells fom mine, because I feel that there's already too many spellcasters on Athas. Templars, Clerics, Druids, Wizards (and I also add in Sorcerers). I guess that you could put in spellcasting, I just decided against it - it didn't feel right for my Dark Sun. I wanted classes that could concievably mesh with the ideas from the settin as defined in the novels and the 2E books - which meant kind of explaining why these characters weren't brought up at all before. With Sorcerers, I play it that people easily (and I do mean easily) confuse them with Wizards - even Wizards could get confused if they are unfamiliar with them. Paladins tend to be covert as the secret police of the Sorcerer-Kings, occasionally mistaken as non-spellcasting servants of he Templarate. Monks... well.... technically they were mentioned in the 2E materials.
#8 star_gazer_02 May 21, 2005 17:28:47	It could also be that they were brought up, and just didn't have any 'attention' brought to what they were. Remember, people aren't identified as rogue, fighter, or any other class very often in novels. There are better ways to show just who and what a character is than simple declaration. There are several templar characters in the books that could easily have been just as much a warrior as a templar. Regardless, there's no reason why, say, the Shadow King's paladins couldn't be secret police, whilst Hamanu's paladins could be battle commanders and the Oba's paladins were holy warriors of a more familiar sort. There're a ton of possiblilties.
#9 zombiegleemax May 23, 2005 12:02:26	just give them a suit of armor created by the SK and an enchanted steel sword, with those kind of advantages who needs spells out there. kinda like sending a pro football player into a pop warner game.