Pimping the Paladin's Ride

Flip side of the coin: How does a paladin keep this from happening in the first place?

"I am Gorsia, holy warrior of Tyr, and this is my ... trusty... *Where'd he go??*..."

(strange noises [and much screaming from a local lord] from the nearby stable)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

And here I was hoping for a thread about adding cool things to the paladin's mount.

Here's an experiment:

1.) Cast feeblemind on an attractive person of the paladin's race.
2.) (assuming the save is failed) Tell the paladin said person's parent's will donate lots of money to the temple if he produces a grandchild from her.
3.) The horse probably feels the same way.
 

Darmanicus said:
AND? The only difference is the magical bit considering a horse IS a beast.
You're confusing standard usage with a game term. With regards to standard usage, yes, a horse is a beast. In game terms it is absolutely not. It's an [Animal]. Indeed, 3.5 did away with what used to be the plain [Beast] monster type. My point is that a paladin's mount is fundamentally changed by act of becoming a paladin's mount, and is no longer a normal horse. As was pointed out above, it's type may not change, but "treated as a Magical Beast" is good enough for me. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And what does the magical thang do? Grants smiting, DR, resistance......NOT a change in personality. If anything it's an alignment thang!
I disagree. The magical "thang" increases the creature's intelligence by (in this case) 7 points, and allows it to comprehend things such as mathematics, history, subterfuge, language, and much more.

And not change the creature's personality? How can it not change the creature's personality, when that creature can now comprehend morality and express free will? How can it not change the creature's personality when it can now argue philosophy, discuss theology, and define it's own ethics?
Profound statement to say the least!!! It's not far more complex at all, in fact I'd go as far to say as sexuality and insticts are very much interwined but this point is irrelevant anyway.
Irrelevent? How so? It's entirely relevent. We're talking about the sexuality of the paladin's mount, versus its instincts. You seem to believe that even though the paladin's mount gains sentience, it remains a slave to its instinct. I, on the other hand, believe that--like us--such a creature could and would supplant raw instinct with sentient choice.

The paladin's mount might not be a Puritan about sex, but to say that its intelligence has no bearing on its sexuality is a fallacy, IMO.
Just remember that the increased intelligence doesn't mean a hell of a lot, it's not as though they've graduated with honours thru Cambridge University or something!!!!
Why should I remember an assertion I find erroneous? Increased intelligence does mean a hell of a lot. It means everything, in fact. I think you need to remember that we aren't talking about an animal that's become a little easier to train. We're talking about an animal that's become self-aware and thoughtful.
In fact all that's happened is that they've become a smarter animal.
You say "all" like it means nothing, but again I think you aren't recognizing the change in paradigm we're dealing with. It's not the difference between a 1 Int and a 2 Int. It's the difference between the understanding of a dog, and the understanding of a human being. We're talking about a warhorse that can understand concepts such as tomorrow and envision what it means when you say "another continent." The two creatures, ordinary horse and paladin's warhorse, aren't living in the same universe.
Cr@ppy comparison, they were apes and he was human. A horse is a horse is a horse. Our example, just because he was more intelligent, wouldn't put him off at all, he'd be starting on the equivalent of the equine Karma Sutra if anything!!!
You must not have read my Planet of the Apes reference very carefully. Or perhaps you don't know who Estella Warren is. She's the model/actress who played the lead guy's love interest. i.e. a human of extremely low intelligence but high physical attractiveness. Hence the parallel to our current conversation.
'Much more involved'??? Please be more specific, I'm DYING to hear what could possibly be floating thru the poor stallions mind.........

"Cr@p man, I can't be doin' that fine filly at a time like this, I got me exams in the morning"!!!
It's a horse with battle stats and a couple of odds and sods, NOT a totally different creature.
Exams? *sigh* Intelligence is neither dependent upon nor a product of education. It's an inherent quality that changes how well an individual understands things. Let's drop the references to college and exams, since they're pointless in this discussion.

As to what I could see going through a warhorse's thoughts? Perhaps he doesn't want to sire a child he'll never see (horses are herd animals. He'd usually remain a part of the familial group.) Perhaps he's concerned with how well his child will be treated, without him being nearby to protect it while it matures. Perhaps he'd rather not sire a child into the slavery of being a human mount (far different from the partnership of paladin and special mount.)

Perhaps he's looking for love. He's aware enough to understand that concept now. The idea of a mate with which to share mental and emotional intimacy as well as physical.

Or perhaps he finds the idea of mating with a beautiful but essentially mindless body disgusting, much as I would find the idea of mating with a fully-grown woman who possessed the mind of an infant.
 

Lord Pendragon said:
Perhaps he's looking for love. He's aware enough to understand that concept now. The idea of a mate with which to share mental and emotional intimacy as well as physical.

Or perhaps he finds the idea of mating with a beautiful but essentially mindless body disgusting, much as I would find the idea of mating with a fully-grown woman who possessed the mind of an infant.

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

ColonelHardisson said:
I think it's the fact the paladin is providing his horse as a stud to the highest bidder that has me stuck. ... Perhaps he would try to breed exceptional horses for his order, if he has one, or for an order of knights whose ideals are similar to his.
Yeah I agree with you, not for profit but as a special boon to do good.
 

I would first see if the Paladin sits down with a bowel of buttered popcorn and watches cause he is living vicariously through his mount since he has a vow of chastity. :D

That aside, I frown on such things like that in my world. While it may be a normal thing in the real world to stud out a horse, if seems a bit Juvenile to request something like that from the DM and I am sure that it would be frowned upon from others in the Paladinhood. I could see other paladins thanking him for a celestial horse so they wouldn't have to take the feat, but that defeats the purpose of the feat.

Just to end the maddness, I would say that certain fluids are not compatible with non-celestail mounts and all celestail are male, solves the problem.

Of course, then you get the one wacky guy in the back who never pays attention when you read plot points or room descriptions who would say, "Hey, where did all the celestail horses come from if they are all gay," ugh, you can't win.
 

Tyler Do'Urden said:
Well, in that case, you can just summon up an Astral Deva and tell him to "go to work" on the herd...

hmm...

Then again, maybe not...

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Ok the negotiation that would come from this particular casting of Summon Planar Ally is just too funny to think about. Somebody's going to owe the celestial host a BIG favor. :lol:

Jack
 

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
magical beast husbandry?

I wouldn't allow it, and the mount probably wouldn't either, as it would be simillar to asking you to sleep with an ape.

Heck, we don't know; maybe his Paladin Mount's into furries....
 

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?
 

AZNtrogdor said:
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?

Thanks for that, I really couldn't be arsed to argue any more.

Btw Pendragon, you're right, totally got the wrong end of the stick with your planet of the apes reference. :confused:
 

Remove ads

Top