How a paladin should treat his mount

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
should be.

The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.

I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
(book) described how to manage it?

I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
comment/advice/tip too.

Thanx
Juza

 

[SPAM]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

I'm a lurker here but I thought I'd pipe in. Overall, as a DM I would
not let a Paladin get away with this.

The way I've both played it and run it is that the Paladin should have
a close relationship with his mount, as close as a friendship one can
have with an animal. The Paladin shares an Empathic link with the
Mount... and ill-treated or mostly-ignored mount would be upset and the
master would know about it.

I've seen no hard and fast rules for Paladin's and Mounts but the
interpretation amongst my players is the Mount is a gift from the
Paladin's deity and should be treated accordingly with respect. I would
wager that among the Paladin's code of conduct is a set of rules
applied to proper treatment of one's Mount, which would include paying
attention to it and keeping it well at all costs.

A Paladin using a deific gift of a Magical Beast to him for his
accomplishments as purely a meat shield smacks of disrespecting the
intention of the gift, the purpose of the mount, and the empathic link
the Paladin shares with the Mount.

At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
before he is able to have one again.

=====
Death Quaker!
http://www.deathquaker.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
> At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
> up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
> before he is able to have one again.

A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.

The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

WillC...@gmail.com wrote:
> s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
> > At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
> > up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
> > before he is able to have one again.
>
> A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
> regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
> purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.
>
> The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
> later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.

I see Gygax is alive and well...

Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
horse.

This kind of thing is typically a lot of fun for the DM, and a major
pain in the ass for the players. Just relax and let them play their
friggin' paladin.

The rules already make sure the paladin takes care of his warhorse,
with the 30-day clause if it dies. Just leave it at that and stop
making the player jump through hoops, unless you're sure they will
enjoy the side trek as much as you will.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount.

No, not IMO. I think that paladins, being the paragon of what is good,
should treat their mount as a friend/pet of sorts. Even really evil
types like blackguards aren't going to throw away their mount if it's a
fiendish servant (akin to the paladin/mount, with special abilities)
without good reason.

If the paladin loses the mount, it takes either 30 days or a level up
to replace. It's a special animal which can communicate with him.

> Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.
>
> Thanx
> Juza

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Set a Good Example:
Great paladins are more concerned with justice and charity than with
dishing out punishments and preaching about other people's moral
failings. In fact, since most paladins have high Charisma scores, they
tend to be very likable characters. How can you be very likable if you
treat your mount this way. One appropriate way to achieve that effect
is to be consistently honest and unselfish, and to place the welfare
and safety of others before your own, This includes your mount and
all living things that are not evil of course. Always Lead: Your
leadership should also have a cerebral element. You can and should
provide your party with moral leadership as well. Treating a mount this
way is reflecting how you would treat any animal or person for that
matter. Your mount should be treated like you would treat your friend.
BillytheGM
(If you have any more questions feel free to email me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>

The expression in english is "cannon foder".

> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

Personally I think it's rather ingenious. And he is protecting it by
sending it away when near death. I don't see a problem with it.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Does the Paladin have the mounted Feats? If so, then of course he's
going to use the mount during combat. Even if not, the mount is
expected to serve in combat. It is expected some bad guys would use
tactics and attack the mount. That's why a prudent paladin takes
Mounted Combat Feat to help offset this.

A very good tactic is for the Paladin to do a Spirited Charge against
an evil foe and using Smite Evil with the attack. If he also has Power
Attack and wields a heavy lance in two hands that piles on the damage.
He can already probably afford to take away 2 to attack he gained from
the charge. Presume a 16 Charisma, he can take another 3 off gained
from the Smite. Therefore, using his bonus to hit total of his normal
total had he not charged or smited he already has +30 to damage before
smite damage, strength damage, and weapon damage are determined. If he
was able to cast Bless Weapon, Bull's Strength, or even Holy Sword
beforehand, all the better. Why should the mount not be in combat?

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:

> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.

Huh-huh, huh-huh-huh-huh...

"My Paladin is looking for a good 'stable' relationship"

Huh-huh-huh...

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

> WillC...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>s...@deathquaker.org wrote:
>>
>>>At the very least, I'd have the Mount leave the Paladin--just not show
>>>up the next time he calls, even--and have him do a quest of atonement
>>>before he is able to have one again.
>>
>>A completely unrelated quest of atonement that offers no chance of
>>regaining the mount - but that is sufficiently distant to require the
>>purchase or rental of a suitable replacement.
>>
>>The paladin is then judged on his treatment of this new mount, which
>>later, if appropriate, becomes his celestial charger.
>
>
> I see Gygax is alive and well...
>
> Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
> in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
> Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
> interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
> horse.

OK, *I* was joking around... *YOU* are getting into illegal territory!
Didn't Google purge those stories a while ago?

:^)

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
>
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there somewhere
> (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And some DM
> comment/advice/tip too.

Oy! As a paladin I would be ashamed to behave that way! This is not a
dumb ox that pulls a cart -- it is a magically summoned (in 3.5 at
least) intelligent and powerful creature.

My most recently played paladin would even avoid getting his horse into
situations where the creature's death was likely. A mounted charge is a
fun thing ... but losing the special mount is a very bad thing. He would
have the beast around whenever practical (traveling, resting, training)
and as long as possible (16hrs/day by 8th level) but Solomon rarely
appeared/assisted in underground tunnels or ancient temples. He was fed
lots of apples, well groomed (by the squire <g>) and was a formidable
and intimidating presence that was as well known as the rest of the
heroes in the party.

Maybe have the GM kill the horse to teach the player a lesson in how
precious they really are? Don't the other characters speak up or is the
whole party in agreement about how to treat the paladin's special mount?
I'd think the mount would have an opinion on this too -- remember, they
are much more intelligent than regular horses.

FWIW. IMO.


- Sheldon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
>
> Juza wrote:
>
>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his
>> mount
>> should be.
>
>
> Huh-huh, huh-huh-huh-huh...
>
> "My Paladin is looking for a good 'stable' relationship"
>
> Huh-huh-huh...
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Yup.
YHBT HAND

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Look, most players playing paladins are interested in being the knight
> in shining armour, slaying evil and rescuing princesses or whatnot.
> Unless the player is an 11-year-old girl, they will generally _not_ be
> interested in exploring their deep and meaningful relationship with a
> horse.
>
> This kind of thing is typically a lot of fun for the DM, and a major
> pain in the ass for the players. Just relax and let them play their
> friggin' paladin.
>
> The rules already make sure the paladin takes care of his warhorse,
> with the 30-day clause if it dies. Just leave it at that and stop
> making the player jump through hoops, unless you're sure they will
> enjoy the side trek as much as you will.

While I personally find the described paladin's
behavior callous and un-paladiny, Laszlo hit the nail
on the head this time.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Juza wrote:
> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his
> mount should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during
> tought combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the
> expression exist in english too): when it is near death, than he
> dismiss it.
>
> I don't think this is the right way to treat a mount. Is there
> somewhere (book) described how to manage it?
>
> I would like to have examples of someone who plays a paladin. And
> some DM comment/advice/tip too.

It's an unfortunate side-effect of 3.5's "call-on-demand" special mount that
it can tend to be treated as a combat buff, summoned when needed and
dismissed when not. Certainly, it doesn't have to be played that way, but I
wouldn't blame the player too much for doing so.

If you want to change things, maybe change the mechanics for the mount. Have
it be always on the material plane, but give the paladin a Reduce Animal
power he can use, on his mount only, that can reduce it from Large to Medium
for <2 X Paladin Level> hours per day, divisible as he pleases. That way, he
can take the mount into dungeons, and it's easy to park, but he has to keep
it around and look after it.

If he still treats it as chattel, then try to take corrective steps. Bear in
mind that it's an intelligent and independent NPC, and as DM, you can 'play'
that character appropriately if necessary. If the mount feels abused, it may
refuse to help in any situation it doesn't consider worthwhile, and might
even leave the group.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Juza" <none> writes:

> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
> should be.
>
> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>
Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
face some *serious* repercussions.

In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
violation.

If you refer to earlier threads, I don't think a Paladin should be a
mindless do-gooder, but this is uncomfortably close to the edge for
me.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>"Juza" <none> writes:

>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>> should be.
>>
>> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
>> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
>> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>>
>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>face some *serious* repercussions.

>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>violation.

No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
created creature that can be removed from the field of
combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
who someone needs to try and save.

~P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Patrick Baldwin <pax@osmium.mv.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>"Juza" <none> writes:
>
>>> I would like to know how the "relationship" between a paladin and his mount
>>> should be.
>>>
>>> The paladin in our group practically calls his mount only during tought
>>> combats. He treats it as "slaughter meat" (I don't know if the expression
>>> exist in english too): when it is near death, than he dismiss it.
>>>
>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>
>>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>>violation.
>
> No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
> created creature that can be removed from the field of
> combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
> blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
> don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
> the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
> who someone needs to try and save.
>
In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
meat shield.

How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it. And deliberately so, IMO.

If this is persistent behaviour, I would definitely see this as a
violation of the 'Good' part of Lawful Good.

I must admit that in cases like this I tend to err on the strict side
of the Alignment rules though. I will not call you wrong if you don't
see a violation here, I'll just disagree with your interpretation.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
<mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>face some *serious* repercussions.

By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
lose?



Bill, omnipotent
--
weis3w3 at earthlink dot net

***

"I leap to the attack!" - any character Bill plays

I just wanna be a lover, not a red-eyed screaming ghoul...
Wizardry's my trade, and I was born to wade through gore...

What does not kill me is dead when I'm through with it.

***

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>> In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
>> meat shield.
>>
>> How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
>> being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
>> plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it.
>
> He is? I thought his *enemies* were doing that.
>
> So if I'm playing a wizard, and my friend is playing a
> fighter, and I suggest that the fighter should act as a
> tactical meat-shield for my wizard, my wizard is
> wrongfully inflicting pain on the fighter?
>
Silly example.

Fighters fight. Of course they will be in the front lines in front of
the wizards. That's what they do, that is their raison d'être.

A Paladin's mount is just that, his *mount*, ie, what he
rides. Sending the mount to the front lines *merely* to absorb hits is
not the same as sending the Fighter to the front.

Asking the mount to do so, and the mount voluntarily absorbing damage
for the Paladin is also OK.

But purposefully sending someone in front who is worse at combat in
order to make them absorb damage *is* showing disregard for their
well-being, it *is* wrongfully inflicting pain on a sentient being.

Try again, I'd say.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> writes:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>
> By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
> lose?
>
In order to make a quick getaway? Sure, no problem.

In order to mount up and make mounted attacks? Sure, no problem.

In order to merely absorb damage? No, definitely a problem.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <igs9f112trseo0hr0kooasgvatm9qp1fdk@4ax.com>,
Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:00:54 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
> >Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
> >is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
> >strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
> >face some *serious* repercussions.
>
> By that definition, the paladin should never summon his mount when he might
> lose?
>
>
>
> Bill, omnipotent

The paladin should summon his mount whenever he would ask for help from
a good friend and companion in good faith.

All you have to do is look at it from the horse's side of the deal. If
it looks raw on a regular basis, the paladin is not acting in good faith.


- Allen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Mart van de Wege wrote:
> >>
> >> In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
> >> meat shield.
> >>
> >> How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
> >> being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
> >> plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it.
> >
> > He is? I thought his *enemies* were doing that.
> >
> > So if I'm playing a wizard, and my friend is playing a
> > fighter, and I suggest that the fighter should act as a
> > tactical meat-shield for my wizard, my wizard is
> > wrongfully inflicting pain on the fighter?
> >
> Silly example.
>
> Fighters fight. Of course they will be in the front lines in front of
> the wizards. That's what they do, that is their raison d'être.
>
> A Paladin's mount is just that, his *mount*, ie, what he
> rides. Sending the mount to the front lines *merely* to absorb hits is
> not the same as sending the Fighter to the front.
>
> Asking the mount to do so, and the mount voluntarily absorbing damage
> for the Paladin is also OK.
>
> But purposefully sending someone in front who is worse at combat in
> order to make them absorb damage *is* showing disregard for their
> well-being, it *is* wrongfully inflicting pain on a sentient being.
>
> Try again, I'd say.
>
> Mart

There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
of "guide" the above quote refers to?).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
> happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
> that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
> people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
> a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
> of "guide" the above quote refers to?).

This seems to directly contradict the Handle Animal Skill.

Under train an animal...

"Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat
knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training
an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also "upgrade"
an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by
spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check.
The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's
previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs
are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don't
require any additional training for this purpose."

And attack, which is part of combat riding...

"Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to
a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will
comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids,
monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to
attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and
aberrations) counts as two tricks."

Note the DCs are for training it, not getting it to do it later...

I hadn't noted the part about only attacking generally humanoid
creatures and animals before either, which is an interesting note.

So according to this section you can order your warhorse to attack by
pointing at the intended victim.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:

> There is a line in the PHB (albeit at the end of the section on "what
> happens if you fall off a horse" and nowhere near the Paladin section)
> that says "Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat". How do
> people play this with the Paladin's special mount: is the empathic link
> a valid substitute for a Ride roll (to guide with your knees, the sort
> of "guide" the above quote refers to?).

The falling off a horse rules are relevant when a Paladin falls off
a horse.

Many mid-high level Paladin's ride intelligent celestial creatures
who look like horses and share a few characteristics with horses,
but being intelligent may make their own decisions on how to act
rather than acting like horses.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>Patrick Baldwin <pax@osmium.mv.net> writes:

>> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>>"Juza" <none> writes:
>>

<SNIP>

>>>Showing blatant disregard for the well-being of another sentient being
>>>is *very* close to crossing the line of Lawful Good. Depending on how
>>>strict you define the borders between alignments, this Paladin could
>>>face some *serious* repercussions.
>>
>>>In my case, I'd have warned the Paladin player about it, and should he
>>>persist, I *would* hit him with the consequences of an alignment
>>>violation.
>>
>> No alignment violation at all in my book. It's a magically
>> created creature that can be removed from the field of
>> combat with trivial ease, unlike your normal, flesh and
>> blood companions. Every hit the horse takes is one they
>> don't, and when it's close to dying, you send it back to
>> the demi-plane of horse, as opposed to your companions
>> who someone needs to try and save.
>>
>In other words, you use an intelligent, nay *sentient*, creature as a
>meat shield.

>How is that not disregard for the well-being of another sentient
>being? Regardless of whether or not the mount can heal on it's native
>plane, you're *still* inflicting pain on it. And deliberately so, IMO.

So? It's not like you grabbed a kid off the streets, bolted
a handle to his back, and used him like a shield. This
creature is your magically created ally in the fight
against evil, and should be at least as ready to die
in the service of Good as you are, if not more so. As
long as you are fighting for the cause of Good, it should
be happy to help in whatever way it can. And if you
aren't fighting for the cause of Good, then get back to
work, slacker, you're a paladin for gods' sake!

>If this is persistent behaviour, I would definitely see this as a
>violation of the 'Good' part of Lawful Good.

Obviously, YMMV. But I just don't see it.

~P.