Total..er..partial..er somewhat chaos?

[IcyCool]

Or it's a lightweight, concealable, magical backup weapon that you can throw, use in a grapple, or cut your way out with when swallowed whole.

Yes, hence:

Most folks, if the item is not exactly what they want, will save it only to sell it so that they can eventually afford to have someone craft the item they really want. Some of those items may be useful in the interim, but eventually they will be exchanged for cash.

 

[Goldmoon]

That depends...are you lawful stupid? Lawful stoopid can never change the plan.

The DM was obviously trying to reduce the magical hardware that the party possessed, probably because of miscalcultions that he made resulting in an overpowered party. (Was the conflict in the alternate dimension a little too easy for the party/did he put a lot of time in creating the 'tough' encounter?) There are lots of ways to limit character power, but 'strip down to 5 items says the DM voiceover' is not even on my list.

Destroying the evil item, testing to see if it was magical, then taking it with as a mundane item sounds like a creative solution to a problem created by lack of imagination.

I wouldnt say the encounter was easy but none of us died and we didnt have any really lucky rolls that turned the tide of battle.

 

[irdeggman]

Assuming this is per 3.5 rules - the DM is already way deep into house-rules territory because of the Poke-mount property. So since the game is into house rules it is hard to figure out what is actually going on.

Not that per the rules you could have loaded up your "special mount" and sent him back to the celestial plane and upon the next calling of the mount he appears with everything he was wearing and carrying when last dismissed.

From the SRD:

Special Mount (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil (see below). This mount is usually a heavy warhorse (for a Medium paladin) or a warpony (for a Small paladin).

Once per day, as a full-round action, a paladin may magically call her mount from the celestial realms in which it resides. This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-third the paladin’s level. The mount immediately appears adjacent to the paladin and remains for 2 hours per paladin level; it may be dismissed at any time as a free action. The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the paladin may release a particular mount from service.

Each time the mount is called, it appears in full health, regardless of any damage it may have taken previously. The mount also appears wearing or carrying any gear it had when it was last dismissed. Calling a mount is a conjuration (calling) effect.

Should the paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

 

[Goldmoon]

Assuming this is per 3.5 rules - the DM is already way deep into house-rules territory because of the Poke-mount property. So since the game is into house rules it is hard to figure out what is actually going on.

Not that per the rules you could have loaded up your "special mount" and sent him back to the celestial plane and upon the next calling of the mount he appears with everything he was wearing and carrying when last dismissed.

From the SRD:

How does making the mounts property mine mean house rules?

 

[Wystan]

The mount would have the items and would technically not have to use the portal. The mount would go back to the plane it originates from and be able to be summoned with EVERYTHING at any point in the future, you know, like when you are already through the portal?

You could have put all the treasure on the mount and lost nothing in regular 3.5 rules.

 

[Goldmoon]

The mount would have the items and would technically not have to use the portal. The mount would go back to the plane it originates from and be able to be summoned with EVERYTHING at any point in the future, you know, like when you are already through the portal?

You could have put all the treasure on the mount and lost nothing in regular 3.5 rules.

*Slaps forehead* Now I really feel like an idiot. I never even thought of that. I am such a tard.....

 

[Wystan]

GM probably would have disallowed it. Seems like he was trying to remove treasure...

 

[Artoomis]

Thats what I said. How can that be considered a chaotic act? I was going to take the sword back, found out later I was limited on what I could take and made a plan to deal with it. Am I not allowed ot change my mind or alter a plan?

Sure you are, but "adaptability, and flexibility" and hallmarks of chaos. Again, it was not very chaotic, but very nicely fits there, doesn't it? At least by the book definition of chaos.

The very lawful approach would be to state that you have standing order to return evil swords to the church for disposal and so you must.

Straight from the SRD: "...On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability."

The very chaotic approach would be to state that the only important thing would be for the sword to be destroyed. The church may prefer to have it to destroy themselves, but I'll adapt to the situation and do what's right.

That's by D&D defintions of law and chaos.

Make sense?

To be very, very clear:

This was a minorly chaotic act, not even worthy of a slight progress towards neutrality, and most certainly not sufficient cause for loss of your paladin's powers.

 

[Goldmoon]

Sure you are, but "adaptability, and flexibility" and hallmarks of chaos. Again, it was not very chaotic, but very nicely fits there, doesn't it? At least by the book definition of chaos.

The very lawful approach would be to state that you have standing order to return evil swords to the church for disposal and so you must.

Straight from the SRD: "...On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability."

The very chaotic approach would be to state that the only important thing would be for the sword to be destroyed. The church may prefer to have it to destroy themselves, but I'll adapt to the situation and do what's right.

That's by D&D defintions of law and chaos.

Make sense?

To be very, very celar:

This was a minorly chaotic act, not even worthy of a slight progress towards neutrality, and most certainly not cause for loss of your paladin's powers.

OK, I see how it was a chaotic act but like you said, I dont see how it was responsible for the loss of my powers. If that were the case....

Paladin: "I think Ill have the roast mutton barkeep"
Barkeep: "Ok, sir give me just a minute"
Paladin: "On second thought, I would rather have the mincemeat pie"
*poof*
Paladin: What the hell? Im not a Paladin anymore?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Actually, what Artoomis is suggesting would be:

Paladin: "I'll have the roast mutton, barkeep, as I planned as soon as I thought of dinner."
Barkeep: "I'm sorry, sir, we just ran out."
Paladin: "I guess I don't eat tonight because I cannot adapt to the new information."
*poof*
Paladin: "What the hell? Im not a Paladin anymore?"
God: "Not eating was not part of your plan."

You cannot win in that case. Of course, he's not saying you'll lose your powers in the one instance, but if you erroneously plan enough meals, sayonara Paladin.