Pimping the Paladin's Ride

[Lord Pendragon]

I may be wrong but this is the what I was taught. Dragons are really smart, but they go around turning into other creatures (who arem't as smart) and have children with them. That is why there are so many half-dragon creatures. If dragons are willing to have children with dumb creatures (who aren't even of the same race as them), why shouldn't a paladin's mount have children with ordinary mares?

So you're using the ridiculously ill-conceived justification for the Half-Dragon template as the basis for determining the behavior of all supernaturally intelligent creatures?

Fair enough. It's your game. In my game I rarely use the half-dragon template, and when I do it's certainly not with the outrageous justification you've mentioned.

Btw, I mean no offense by my use of the words "ridiculous" and "outrageous." I don't think it's ridiculous or outrageous that you use that justification (if you do). I've just always found that justification itself impossible to swallow. Dragon's don't mate with horses in my campaign. If I want a half-dragon horse, I come up with some other background to explain it.

Perhaps he's saving himself for that special unicorn in the enchanted forest two valleys north.

Wouldn't that be a fun side-story! If I had a paladin in my current game, I'd totally yoink it.

 

[frankthedm]

I've just always found that justification itself impossible to swallow. Dragon's don't mate with horses in my campaign. If I want a half-dragon horse, I come up with some other background to explain it.

I agree with you that Wotc's justification of half dragons impossible to swallow on the scale that it is used. However I see little wrong with the occasional chaotic or evil dragon commiting a few crimes against nature. It is Nature's rath that would allow the crossbreeding though, not the dragon being fecund. I use minotaurs in a similar manner, they are all male and can only reprodce with bipeds and bovines. The original was a crime against nature, who sold his soul to a chauvanistic demon who looked like him, so that he could bread and not be a lone mule.

The template is also useful to stat up critters like a Kirin [half dragon unicorn, though the flight in non winged] and Outrages from the Mages that make Owlbears seem cute and fluffy.

 

[Falkus]

If dragons are willing to have children with dumb creatures (who aren't even of the same race as them), why shouldn't a paladin's mount have children with ordinary mares?

You are make a classic error of superiority. There is a very integral difference between standard horses and the paladins mount that does not exist between dragons and bipedal humanoids. Sapience. The ability to reason.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

While I agree that the half-dragon template sees far too much use for this explanation to account for, I've always thought it was supposed to answer the question: what do Gilthanas and Silvaras' kids look like?

I agree with you that Wotc's justification of half dragons impossible to swallow on the scale that it is used. However I see little wrong with the occasional chaotic or evil dragon commiting a few crimes against nature.

 

[RIPnogarD]

The argument of whether or not procreation is even possible aside. There would be no way, not even if the buyer of such services was the head of the paladin's order, that anybody could guarantee that the offspring would be used only for good. Short of devine intervention stating such a fact, (Odin:"The pony of your steed is destined to be ridden by only the pious of the world."). I would think that even then only one such mating would be acceptable to a true paladin that follows the code. (Odin said pony not ponies.) Whether or not the money raised from such an endeavor was going to a good cause... What about the pony? <(rhetorical question)
Quote from the 'Code of Conduct':
Help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends).

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

But that's just it. It's not a horse anymore. A horse is an [Animal]. A paladin's mount becomes a [Magical Beast].Humans still have the basic instincts of an ape, but human sexuality is far more complex than instinct.

Darmanicus touched on this, but I thought I would add my 2 cents...

Human sexuality is brutally simple-minded, if "mind" can be said to apply at all, outside of the medial preoptic area. Many species have sexuality and gender relations just as "complicated" as human sexuality.

And, for the record, I know college professors who date certified morons. The intelligence score difference is hardly the most important consideration, particularly to a male. As someone who has worked with horses, the paladin's mount would be HAPPY to oblige. Really, REALLY happy, I assure you.

Plus, look around the internet a bit Creatures that supposedly have human intelligence scores and animals get it on more than one would think.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And, for the record, I know college professors who date certified morons. The intelligence score difference is hardly the most important consideration, particularly to a male. As someone who has worked with horses, the paladin's mount would be HAPPY to oblige. Really, REALLY happy, I assure you.

Unless you've worked with horses as intelligent as human beings, your experience has no bearing on the discussion. You're attesting to the attitude of ordinary horses, and I've never argued that an ordinary stud wouldn't be really REALLY happy to provide stud service to any number of mares. We're not talking about an ordinary stud.

And the difference in intelligence scores between a dimwitted woman and a college professor is also a pointless comparison. A) being a college professor is no proof of intelligence (as anyone who's been to college can attest.) And B) we're not talking about the mere difference between a smart sentient and a dull sentient. We're talking about the difference between a sentient and a non-sentient.

Plus, look around the internet a bit Creatures that supposedly have human intelligence scores and animals get it on more than one would think.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that's an aberration and generally considered a disgusting taboo, pretty much in every human culture (AFAIK). I'm not sure it proves anything on the subject at hand...

 

[Wolv0rine]

Pendragon> You're still making the assumption that this increase in intelligence somehow grants the horse more than intelligence. You seem to be gifting it with specific moralities and preconceptions that don't neccesarily come with intelligence and/or sentience. From my PoV you seem to be wanting to turn a horse into a horse-shaped-human, instead of trying to figure out how sentience and intelligence might affect a horse. Sure, the fact that a normal mare has a lesser perspective and intelligence might be a factor, but what about the fact that the horse is now intelligent enough to know he's a horse? He's smart enough to know that all other differences aside, those are his 'people'. And there's still the way that equine mating works to be considered; especially the part where when a mare goes into heat, the male is pheromonally enticed to want to mate with her.

Let me present this as an alternate illustration to your Human:Ape analogy... An intelligent, otherwise upstanding man can still be lured into cheating on his wife with an attractive young girl who is extremely willing and desiring of him. The idea of cheating on his wife may be repugnant to him, but the natural allure to his baser instincts can still overcome that attitude and lead him to follow his more animalistic urges regardless.

Thus the intelligent paladin's mount might just find that, even if he would normally be insulted by the prospect of mounting a female of his own species, once she goes into heat he may find his own reproductive process overcoming that attitude.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Pendragon> You're still making the assumption that this increase in intelligence somehow grants the horse more than intelligence.

No, I'm not. I'm asserting that once you reach a certain threshold of intelligence (Int 3, in D&D terms,) you cross a very specific and important boundary between a semi-conscious animal, and a fully cognizant being.

You seem to be gifting it with specific moralities and preconceptions that don't neccesarily come with intelligence and/or sentience.

The specific moralities I am gifting the warhorse with are the moralities of the warhorse's alignment. Lawful-Good, you'll remember. Hence my supposed possible motivations for why the warhorse wouldn't want to father a child on a particular mare. As I've said, I'm not asserting that the warhorse would share Puritanical beliefs regarding mating, but neither do I necessarily believe a sentient horse has no sexual qualms, simply because unintelligent horses have none.

From my PoV you seem to be wanting to turn a horse into a horse-shaped-human, instead of trying to figure out how sentience and intelligence might affect a horse.

You are free to believe that. I think I've already shown that this is not true. The fact that I believe the warhorse may have reservations about mating hardly proves that I want to make him into a human-shaped-like-a-horse.

Sure, the fact that a normal mare has a lesser perspective and intelligence might be a factor, but what about the fact that the horse is now intelligent enough to know he's a horse? He's smart enough to know that all other differences aside, those are his 'people'.

I am asserting that, once he becomes sentient, they aren't his people. In the movie 2001 when the astronaut is transformed, he's no longer part of the human race. He's transcended humanity. In the same way, the paladin's mount has transcended being a horse, becoming far more.

And there's still the way that equine mating works to be considered; especially the part where when a mare goes into heat, the male is pheromonally enticed to want to mate with her.

Let me present this as an alternate illustration to your Human:Ape analogy... An intelligent, otherwise upstanding man can still be lured into cheating on his wife with an attractive young girl who is extremely willing and desiring of him. The idea of cheating on his wife may be repugnant to him, but the natural allure to his baser instincts can still overcome that attitude and lead him to follow his more animalistic urges regardless.

I don't disagree with this. I can completely see an intelligent animal following his instincts. But we're talking about an intelligent Lawful-Good paladin's mount here.

The married man can be enticed to cheat on his wife, yes, but his free will, granted by his sentience, can allow him to reject that enticement. Why should the warhorse be any different?

Thus the intelligent paladin's mount might just find that, even if he would normally be insulted by the prospect of mounting a female of his own species, once she goes into heat he may find his own reproductive process overcoming that attitude.

I think you undervalue the power of willpower. You may believe willpower is powerless in the face of base animal mating instinct. I do not.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think you undervalue the power of willpower. You may believe willpower is powerless in the face of base animal mating instinct. I do not.

Then you are wrong.

This is not an opinion. This is fact. There are biological imperatives that animals follow (and despite what most people want to think, humans ARE animals), even in the face of death, to say nothing of dishonor. I will keep this to animal evidence, as I don't really feel like getting into the moral argument that will come up from discussing the human studies...

For many of the mammals that have them, pheromones dictate certain functions. Regardless of her willpower, a young marmoset will not sexually mature until the dominant female stops releasing pheromones that inhibit it. No matter how well trained a guard dog is, when a female in heat wanders by, he will go after that.

A "lawful good celestial warhorse" might kick himself in the morning when he can engage his hindsight, but that mare is getting impregnated.