Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

I understand that the game policy is to allow only two mounts or pets per character. I do not understand this limit really. I do understand that we are trying to prevent players from having a myriad of pets (to the point where they have a travelling a circus) but I believe that two is too few.

Now, let's put this in perspective: the Templars, the Poor Knights of Christ (their symbol was two men on the back of the same horse), allowed this according to a primitive rule given by the Council of Troyes in 1129 (this in addition to those rules already established by Hugh de Payens previously).

On Animals and Squires

51. Each knight brother may have three horses and no more without the permission of the Master, because of the great poverty which exists at the present time in the house of God and of the Temple of Solomon. To each knight brother we grant three horses and one squire, and if that squire willingly serves charity, the brother should not beat him for any sin he commits.

In summary, I am asking if a religious order charged with poverty (remember this is long before they became the founders of the first large-scale rudimentary banking system) was allowed to have three horses per knight why are players limited (de jure, if not de facto) to only two? I recommend that at least three be allowed in order to allow players to take, at least, the traditional model of battle mount, riding or baggage mount (palfrey), and some kind of pet if the owner pleases.

Part of me really wants to agree with this..

But at the same time, the staff did not like seeing players with even one Mercenary, much less two. I can see the reasoning behind this as it may be easy to upset the balance.

Perhaps purchasing a combat-oriented pet/mercenary could count as the minion, and the rest mounts?

I really don't know how it could be set up, just tossing ideas out there.

What I would worry about would be casters with buffs who are already powerful being able to buff up their entire NPC party giving them a pretty unfair advantage. Especially if they weren't limited to only two mercenaries.

You bring up a good point, Selveem.

There could be, however, (like you said) a limit placed on minions and allow more mounts. Or, conversely, place a limit on some minions themselves only allowing a certain number of them per PC (one). I look at it this way: horses get tired; there is no reliable "locker" for most people to put their things and you cannot burden the one pet you ride around; I believe you should be able to have more than one pet in addition to a mount if you want. So far as negatives: yes, this could be abused in a sense with the minion issue but you can put limits on that and still allow a character more pets.

I do not see a problem with this that cannot be mitigated pretty simply.

A simple solution would be taking a step back. Simply allow the third pet to be an actual pet and not a mount or a mobile mercenary. Limit through size and weight so that players end up with a dog or something else like a squirrel.

Easy. If there is enough uniformity in size and weight of "pet-type" mobiles then this is a good solution. Characters would be able to have two mounts and a pet.

The only consideration I would suggest would be for Wizards' familiars when they come back.

Since paladins and etc get a high charisma anyways, I shall direct you to a shameless plug of a suggestion I made before and hope it does not derail this thread:

http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... 722#p30722
http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... 723#p30723

No, that's interesting, but my primary concern is to address the things I mentioned above (a baggage horse not precluding a pet, etc.). If there is a concern in the game's administration with having more than one minion or henchman than that is for them to decide but, again, my primary concern is a third animal of some sort.