Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lanx Mar 16, 2010 14:10:36	Alrighty, as stated in another thread in my campaign we kinda accidently opened a rift to the astral plane, the rift ended up closing but not before a few baddies got out, one of which was a Nightmare, we managed to defeat everything else that came out of the rift but the Nightmare managed to gallop off into a forest, later while our Paladin was creating magical items for us (its a 2 party group, I'm playing that Inevitable Half Elf Rogue MC Bard Daggermaster build in the char op board) the Nightmare returned, saw me, and engaged. We previously did a knowledge check on it and determined that it would submit to a would be master rather than death, so I used my first turn to bluff for combat advantage, got it, through the use of that build, the level were at and the abilities I have access too, I was able to beat the thing into submission before it got in an attack (Snap Shot (minor), Sly Flourish + sneak attack, action point, stunning strike, its turn, stunned, my turn again, low strike (minor / slowed), standard sly flourish + sneak attack (crit with bloodiron daggers, Critical Opportunity (another crit) and this thing basically submitted to me right then and there and let me approach it.... anyway thats besides the point and perhaps a little bragging :P ANYWAY, so now I have this Nightmare for a mount which is an evil creature by nature, though now under my control (I'm Chaotic Neutral)... should or will this cause alignment issues with our Lawful Good Paladin?
#2 nikitadarkstar Mar 16, 2010 15:11:19	erdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aslong as your character don't change aligment then I'd say no. The paladin probably wouldn't trust the nightmare, would advice against letting it live. (possibly try to kill it by himself) and generally not want the thing around, but unless your character starts to slip towards evil I don't see why there would be a conflict between the rogue and paladin, since I assume they've known eachother for some time and such. NPC's however might react abit badly to it ofcourse. :p
#3 Krusk Mar 16, 2010 18:04:03	Sounds a lot like 4e to me, but if it's not ignore me. In 4e, a paladin can totally travel with evil PCs and allies. Back in 3.X he could not. I'd say provided you vouch for the nightmare, and explain "Hey, it does what I say, and nothing more. We can use this evil beast to fight evil. Heck it will even reduce the risk to a good aligned horse or whatever mount I would typically take." That said it completely depends on how your paladin is playing his LG. Is he playing evil is evil, and evil needs to be killed? If so you have your answer there. Is he playing shades of gray? Can evil things be reformed? Can an evil thing ever do a good thing?
#4 salla Mar 16, 2010 19:08:34	I'm not sure if it's 3rd or 4th ... he mentions several obvious 4e mechanics, then says he's 'chaotic neutral', which doesn't exist in 4th.
#5 Lanx Mar 16, 2010 19:44:57	Sorry, its 4th Edition, and yes I'm chaotic neutral, the DM has implemented some aspects from older version into the including the alignments to add a few more story / character building options. It's a homebrew campaign, not really following any module's, the DM also uses some magic items to add flavour and monsters that suit the story from 3.5 that don't have a 4E version yet and uses a monster building template to make it balanced.
#6 humanmind Mar 17, 2010 17:14:10	I think the majority of this issue lies with how the DM presents the Nightmare to the party. If it is simply a beast that you have tamed then there should be little to no problem. If the DM continues to play it as a Nightmare then you may have a problem. It may obey your commands but it may also have a different interpretation of those commands. It is very much still evil, and I doubt you could turn an astral being against its alignment. You might find it viciously killing innocent people all because you asked the Nightmare to teach them a lesson (not that I'm assuming your foolish enough to give such an order). The DM would be well within his rights to do his best to screw you over with the mounts evil acts, because the Nightmare would most likely be trying to turn you towards evil. I'd be very careful if I were you. Hope this helps.
#7 kouk Mar 17, 2010 20:51:24	In the first place they only ally with Evil creatures, by the book, so submitting to your character even to save its life is a bit unusual. Ask the DM how he/she views the Nightmare. Is it an animal who just likes the taste of human babies when available, or does it make little schemes to injure and kill other entities for fun? Although, it did come back just to attack you so ... If the Paladin thinks it's OK for an evil beast of burden, that's up to the Paladin to tell you. If he wants to kill it immediately, he should make that clear. I assume a lot is based on how the DM describes it as being aside from just the alignment descriptor. Although I certainly wouldn't want to leave it alone with the inn's stablehand ...
#8 Lanx Mar 17, 2010 22:08:37	When I asked the DM initially if I tamed it, would it mean it just would submit to me and continue evil ways, and the DM responded... well, its an evil creature by nature so you wont really know until its put to the test... tho so far since I tamed the Nightmare it hasn't really acted out, I've rested/slept without tieing it down and it stayed, I left it outside a temple of Pelor with LOTS of people around without tieing it up and it didn't go anywhere or do anything, the Paladin said as long as it stay's in line he won't, perhaps I gave it such a beat down that its afraid to go against me? thinking about itI believe the DM gave us the opportunity to tame it for a couple reasons A) to see if the Paladin would try it (he likes to test our Paladin's righteousness / alignment from time to time) and  B) were very likely to encounter a couple red dragons in our current path to the BBEG and the rider of the Nightmare gains a significant fire resist.
#9 uglyvan Mar 18, 2010 2:24:31	just to say your Nightmare has a free will; for it is a very potent creature he shall lead your group to good encounters; but beware of his high morale (if you ever played Ad&d you know what morale deals with); from Ad&d 2.0 DMG: Morale     The old saying, "the best defense is a good offense" is clearly true in the AD&D game. And the best way to avoid suffering damage is to beat the foe so badly he wants to crawl under a rock or, better yet, run away. That's where morale checks come in.     The gnoll in front of Beornhelm smashes a mace against the fighter's shield, just as the searing heat of lightning clips all the hair on the side of his head. Instantly, the heat is followed by the booming thunderclap in his ear. All the while, some vile little creature is trying to gnaw on his shin! It's really enough to ruin an adventurer's day. But, Beornhelm is cool, calm and in control--because the player running him says so. The same can't be said for the monsters.     In almost all situations, players should be the ones who decide what their characters do. A DM should never tell a player, "Your character decides he doesn't want to get hurt and runs from the fight," unless that character is charmed and therefore controlled by the DM.     A suggestion that a character might want to retreat, advance, open a chest, or whatever, is all right, but a DM shouldn't force a player character to do something by simply insisting. Only under the most unusual circumstances--charm, magical fear, or other forced effects--should the DM dictate the actions of a player character.     Monsters and NPCs are an entirely different matter, however. The DM makes their decisions, trying to think like each creature or non-player character, in turn.     In combat, thinking like a creature mainly means deciding what actions it takes and how badly it wants to fight. As a general rule, monsters and NPCs are no more eager to die than player characters. Most withdraw when a fight starts to go badly.     Some panic and flee, even casting their weapons aside. If they think they can get mercy, brighter foes might fall to their knees and surrender. A few bloodthirsty or brainless types might fight to the death--but this doesn't happen too often. These are the things that make up morale, things the DM must decide, either through role-playing or dice rolling. The Role-Playing Solution     The first (and best) way to handle morale is to determine it without rolling any dice or consulting any tables. This gives the biggest range of choices and prevents illogical things from happening. To decide what a creature does, think about its goals and reasons for fighting.     Unintelligent and animal intelligence creatures attack and most often for food or to protect their lair. Few ever attack for the sheer joy of killing.     Those attacking for food attack the things they normally hunt. A mountain lion, for example, doesn't hunt humans as a rule, and it doesn't stalk and attack humans as it would a deer. Such creatures normally allow a party of adventurers to pass by unhindered. Only when the creature is close to its lair does the chance of attack come into play. Animals often fight to protect their territory or their young.     When they do become involved in combat, animals and other creatures rarely fight to the death. When hunting, they certainly try to escape, especially if they are injured. Their interest is in food. If they can't get it easily, they'll try again elsewhere. Most often, it is only when pressed, with no avenue of escape, or perhaps when its young are threatened, that an animal will sacrifice its own life.     Of course, in an AD&D game, a creature can attack and fight to the death when that will make for the most drama and excitement. For example, say a group of characters spot a grizzly bear blocking the path ahead of them. Instead of wisely waiting for it to shamble off, the party foolishly puts some arrows into it. Enraged, the beast attacks the party with berserk fury, causing serious harm and teaching them an important lesson before it dies.     Intelligent creatures have more complicated motivations that the need for food and shelter. The DM decides what the creatures want. Greed hatred, fear, self-defense, and hunger are all motivations, but they are not worth dying for.     As a guideline for intelligent creature and NPC motivation, consider the actions of player characters. How often do they fight to the death? Why would they? At what point do they usually retreat?     Certainly, NPC adventurer parties should behave similarly to player characters. After all, their concerns are much the same as those of the player characters--getting cash and improving themselves. They are not very interested in dying.     On the other hand, members of some fanatical sects may willingly sacrifice themselves for the cause. Even so, a few have been known to reconsider at the last minute!     The morale of NPCs and intelligent creatures should also jibe with known facts about his, her, or its personality. If an NPC with the party has been portrayed as cowardly, he probably won't willingly march into the jaws of death. One noted for his slavish loyalty, on the other hand, might stand his ground, dying to protect his friends or master. There are many choices, and the AD&D game works best when a person, not the dice, makes the choice.
#10 uglyvan Mar 18, 2010 2:34:26	MORALE is a general rating of how likely the monster is to persevere in the face of adversity or armed opposition. This guideline can be adjusted for individual circumstances. Morale ratings correspond to the following range:  2-4             Unreliable  5-7             Unsteady  8-10           Average 11-12         Steady 13-14         Elite 15-16         Champion 17-18         Fanatic 19-20         Fearless edit:however I disagree with a fanatic having 17-18 morale code of conduct: a fanatic is rather unsteady; we could easily build a stat named code of conduct (or nobility) 1-6     -1 coward 7-14     0 peasant 15-16   +1 lord 17-18   +2 cavalier 19-20   +3 warlord 21-22   +4 paladin  23     +5 King  24     +6 Emperor  25     +7 Celestial Emperor
#11 fugacityfixyoursite Mar 18, 2010 17:31:05	With an INT of 5, how evil could he be? Seems like that alignment just means in the wild he'd tear around burning villages and stomping people to death. But if you've broken him he should be tame-r, I'd think.
#12 uglyvan Mar 19, 2010 4:29:56	here a description of the Nightmare (from Ad&d 2.0 Monstrous Manual): Nightmare CLIMATE/TERRAIN:          Lower planes FREQUENCY:                        Very rare ORGANIZATION:                 Solitary ACTIVITY CYCLE:             Any DIET:                                        Carnivore INTELLIGENCE:                  Very (11-12) TREASURE:                           Nil ALIGNMENT:                        Neutral evil NO. APPEARING:                 1 ARMOR CLASS:                    -4 MOVEMENT:                         15, Fl 36 (C) HIT DICE:                               6+6 THAC0:                                    13 NO. OF ATTACKS:               3 DAMAGE/ATTACK:            4-10/4-10/2-8 SPECIAL ATTACKS:           Burning hooves SPECIAL DEFENSES:          Paralyzing cloud MAGIC RESISTANCE:        Nil SIZE:                                         L (6' at shoulder) MORALE:                                Elite (13-14) XP VALUE:                             2,000           sorry can't help more, I thought morale had direct influence on Monster Level (in Ad&d 1.0 there were 10 monster levels, plus some minor (level 0.5 or 1/2, and level 0.25 or 1/4 as I remember) (monster levels were used to build up encounters, relative to players levels) so here, according to MM from Ad&d 2, the nightmare is worth One full level increase from PC Level 1 to PC Level 2; a typical PC Level 1 encounter brings 15xp or so (for Monster Level 1/4) whereas at Monster Level 10 (called Encounter Level X) it bringed (??) an easy 10.000 xp to 25.000 xp (at the extreme); a high-level PC climbs each 220.000 (for a Thief) to 375.000xp (for a Wizard); now can morale code be merged with Wisdom?
#13 MrCustomer Mar 19, 2010 12:31:19	ANYWAY, so now I have this Nightmare for a mount which is an evil creature by nature, though now under my control (I'm Chaotic Neutral)... should or will this cause alignment issues with our Lawful Good Paladin? The rules in 3.5 is very specific, a Paladin cannot knowingly employ, or associate with an evil alligned creature. RAW, the Paladin could not abide by the Knightmare's presense. Also as there is no absolute guarantee on the knightmare's behavior, or the possibility of it escaping, the Paladin would be right in putting it down. That doesn't totally illiminate the Nightmare as a mount however, you could as an alternative, have a Cleric cast Atonement on the mount, or use a magical item that changes it's allignment. With an INT of 5, how evil could he be? Seems like that alignment just means in the wild he'd tear around burning villages and stomping people to death. But if you've broken him he should be tame-r, I'd think. Evil enough, even as a mount it could do some grievious evil. Leave it in the stables and it could trample the stableboy to death, or riding through town and a woman with child walks into the road and the horse isn't at all interested in stopping, the evil allignment makes this a dangerous mount to be using. And it is evil, just because it chooses to submit at the moment, doesn't mean that it won't suddenly turn on the party should they show a sign of weakness.
#14 Krusk Mar 20, 2010 11:45:43	The rules in 3.5 is very specific, a Paladin cannot knowingly employ, or associate with an evil alligned creature. RAW, the Paladin could not abide by the Knightmare's presense. That doesn't totally illiminate the Nightmare as a mount however, you could as an alternative, have a Cleric cast Atonement on the mount, or use a magical item that changes it's allignment. And it is evil, just because it chooses to submit at the moment, doesn't mean that it won't suddenly turn on the party should they show a sign of weakness. We have determined it is 4e. That is not a bad idea, and maybe something similar could be researched as a custom ritual for this game? Ask the DM about it, I think it would be pretty neat. This is also neat, and probably true. I guess it would be a risk your character would have to weigh.