Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Do pages/squires/paladins have any sort of vows of poverty?

I think I remember an old rule that they could own a maximum of ten magical items; is such a restriction still in place?

Are there any further rules on, say, the amount of coin they can have or the like?

It's still in the FAQ of paladins - but this rule seems pretty darn outdated. Is it still being enforced?

Magical doesn't imply value (look at how stuck up that knight is, he has eleven 1 copper amulets!), and seems like an arbitrary mechanic to balance paladins from many code updates ago - and has no reasonable explanation IC besides some long stretches of logic.

If this is still a measuring stick for how a knight is suppose to act, can we get an official post on it? This has to be from the stone ages...right? Right? Please?

A paladin is expected to arm and armour themselves to a fitting standard and to keep their gear in good repair. They are expected to tithe a proportion of their wealth to their church and make use of their wealth for the good of others. The notion of poverty is not one which we actively require, though some faiths will have a higher regard for such roleplay.
(eg Ilmater)

In real terms, a paladin with hundreds of platinum in the bank is not breaking any hard and fast rules, but they may be missing some of the nuances of the roleplay.

As regards magical items, the interpretation which I advise knights to follow is that a paladin should restrict what they wear to 10 magical items or less but may own/store/hold more than that number with the intention of supporting their squires and other goodly causes. Again though, some faiths may look more favorably upon knights who do not overuse magic or who share their findings with others or who make devotions of these objects. (eg Mystra)

These are not stone-age rules, merely a useful means of highlighting roleplay over hoarding.
I recall a discussion with the Helps team last year which ended with our suggesting that the files be updated to reflect these more accommodating interpretations. Perhaps this is still pending.

Hviti wrote:Do pages/squires/paladins have any sort of vows of poverty?

The virtues listed up on the wall in the knight training area are Honesty, Generosity, Valour, Humility, Courtesy, Fealty, Honour and Chastity. The Paladin FAQ mentions Celibacy, Poverty, and Industry as well, though. There are ten formal squire lessons, each pretty much focused on a virtue, and one of them is definitely focused on material possessions: so yes, I believe knights do have a vow of poverty, after a fashion. Specifically, we are not to hoard, but rather take only what we need; however, we are expected to invest in armour, barding, training, our steed, and other things essential to our work, such as food and lodging. We are not to splurge, making due with simple foods and board, but quality is acceptable, even expected, and the lessons encourage deep investment in armour and barding. Any wealth that is available to us that we do not need is to be left where it lies or donated to a worthy cause. 10% of all earnings is a tithe to our church, not our own to keep.

Hviti wrote:I think I remember an old rule that they could own a maximum of ten magical items; is such a restriction still in place?

Horace wrote:It's still in the FAQ of paladins - but this rule seems pretty darn outdated. Is it still being enforced?

Magical doesn't imply value (look at how stuck up that knight is, he has eleven 1 copper amulets!), and seems like an arbitrary mechanic to balance paladins from many code updates ago - and has no reasonable explanation IC besides some long stretches of logic.

From the Paladin FAQ, which was updated about a month ago and I think reflects current (and somewhat changed and clarified) policy on magic items:

Horace wrote:If this is still a measuring stick for how a knight is suppose to act, can we get an official post on it? This has to be from the stone ages...right? Right? Please?

Despite my answering the above to the best of my ability, I would be keen to have greater clarity on this as well. I think knights *should* be restricted in this regard, but perhaps a restriction of the form "own no more than X magic items, use no more than Y at one time" would work better. It would still prevent Paladins from amassing hoards, push them to give away what they do not critically need, but also give them more leeway to find suitable recipients for such items that they must give away, as well as pragmatic flexibility (as when their main weapon is ineffective against a specific foe, for example).

Hviti wrote:Are there any further rules on, say, the amount of coin they can have or the like?

Yes - In a nutshell, we can keep a few month's expenses in the bank, in reserve. I consider this not just to cover potential dry spells, but also should a friend fall upon dire need. We can save up for "approved" expenses, like training and armour. But we should only take coin for what we need - not seek it for its own sake. Basically, no war chests - no big piles of riches. When you have a specific (and laudable) need for coin, you can work to collect it.

[Edit: Er - what Kelemvor said supercedes my own opinion - I just posted a bit after he did.]

I don't understand the reasoning...I mean, I don't have any idea how this can be an IC thing. If it is purely a mechanical balance issue, please say so and I'll drop it.

But nothing of the code of chivalry associates with it, nothing in canon associates with it, it's just an arbitrary mechanic that for all purposes had to be made up some where along the way to solve something in game with an ooc restriction to the class - which is fine, I can understand that perfectly - I've done it myself plenty of times as a game master. But is it the same problem that it use to be? Have things changed at all since it was in place?

Just because it's the way it's always been, doesn't mean it's still necessary solely to keep with continuity in a mud - where suspension of belief is darn near a prerequisite of the medium. I think it'd better serve the nature of paladins to change it to, not owning more than X - but just leaving it at that, so as not to limit what a paladin could directly need use of on his person and still not amass hoardes.

For my suggestion - preferably something higher than 10...like 15 or 20 or something. It only matters what you possess. Basing it off of what is worn means nothing more than you're hiding the rest of what you own. Own being the key word.

edited: misread Raona's

http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5260
Some notes on the paladin code I made last year

The previous administration wrote:This is how we decided to take the ten magic item rule. Yes we have more slots than DnD but we decided to stick with the ten anyway for a number of reasons.

One of which is PLAYERS set too much store by eq, so a paladin needs to make the effort to follow the rules. The holy symbol will not count towards the ten. An amulet of communication does count towards the total - it is a magical device which allows you to reach into the heads of others.

Second in DnD you get a full set of armour, and say it has an apply to improve ac by 2. It improves his over all ac by 2. On FK said paladin gets sleeves, armour, leg guards etc all with an ac improvement of 2. They add together to improve his ac by 8.

The point is for this ruling is game balance for TSR, try to keep within the vow of poverty for a paladin. Owning very expensive magical items does not fit with this ethos. However they must be well dressed so buying non magical good quality armour is what a paladin has to do. I think also relying too much on magic rather than your gods blessing to fight and protect yourself is another reason.

There will be no discussion on this topic.

The above was the requirement in place before I took over as the Imm responsible for all things paladin.

Horace wrote:Just because it's the way it's always been, doesn't mean it's still necessary

I'd like to note that the way it is now is not the way it has always been. However, much of what prompted the original decision could be said to still apply today.

It's odd that I thought 10 worn and the remainder stored or shared as your RP dictates was a more amenable interpretation than a clear cut-off point of owning X items.

Odd in so far as I felt it more in keeping with our aims to assume that players would follow the spirit of that rule and let it guide their roleplay. Whereas the other take on this might be that the player would simply wear the best 10 at any given time and keep everything else hidden away.

That the rule is more OOC than IC I do not deny, but such things have an IC worth on a MUD that they might not have in tabletop. Being the notional DM for paladins I felt that was the case, but as with most things I am open to discussion.

So, I think at this point I'd like to hear some opinion on the various combinations and how past and present Squires and paladins view this rule.

Hm, perhaps it's just me, but I think this may just be outdated.

Kelemvor, I remember when Paladins were powerful. Very powerful indeed. They had things like enhanced damage (if I remember correctly), a nice assortment of offensive and healing spells. They were the wrath of their Gods.

I can remember characters such as Aedwyn who didn't NEED more than three items to make an evil character quake.

With the recent changes to the way AC works and how melee combat works, I believe this is something that now should be dropped.

ICly, it should be a choice, in my opinion. The 'hardcore' Paladins could follow this 'optional' rule, but it would be their choice.

That the rule is more OOC than IC I do not deny

Thanks Kelemvor - I appreciate the straightforwardness. It's very easy for me to swallow an ooc guideline set by admins, it's more difficult to follow an IC law when it's hard to make sense of.


As a current squire, I (Tyson), was surprised mostly because the only vow of poverty I've heard of, like that, was one for a prestige class that ended up giving giving AC bonuses because of it. Though I have always viewed Paladins in FR to be of an extremely charitable in nature...I've never viewed them in such a way as to fore go their own protection as some sort of sacrifice when unnecessary.

On that same token, if the paladin was in a situation and a party member had their scalemail ripped off - I could easily see them tear off their +9 breastplate and throwing it to them. Going along with this, I see their charitable nature to be one of seeing their items used for the greater good. If they have come across an unusual amount of magical weapons, they may only keep 2 total and give the others to someone who either earned it through bravery/good deed/etc or to someone who could use it much more than they themselves could use it.

From an in character perspective, which Kallias' admittedly will need to learn more as he matures...I see the character progression of my paladin almost eager to part with magical items of luxury - things that he could do himself or with the help of his god. Things like endless water, fire, potions of spells he can cast, flying when not necessary, items of attributes they can magically enhance on their own...I could see him turning these items over to people he may see as needing that luxury. This goes as well for platinum too, which in FK I have a harder time giving out because it always feels like a pay off...so it's usually a gift to someone who brings it up first or who clearly need the coin. I don't envision choosing to live in such poverty that they more or less become monks in a monestary...I see them more as a sport star who makes tens of millions and chooses to live in a middle classed means, giving up most of his earning to charity.

Things like armor bonuses, whether it from rings or armor or amulets or bracelets...I couldn't see them choosing not to wear because of their generous and modest nature. This is mostly because, while a paladin can fill his own water skins, start his own fires, boost his own strength, cast his own spells, climb his own hills, and make his own food - he can't make his physical armor any better. It's an item that he can't duplicate...there is no physical sacrifice he can make to shed the "luxury" of having that item.

While I can see the understanding in the quote you provided, of the rules before you took over, I just think that it can be viewed as a sacrifice to a spartan lifestyle (humble, not luxurious) as opposed to a sacrifice of armor class for being hit more. With classes changing all the time, I personally would like the stress to be put on the /kind/ of magical items a paladin has, as opposed to how many magical items they have.

Magical beanbag chairs of flight - *sad* see what our tithes to Helm get us?
Magical armor - *excited* see what our tithes to helm get us!

At least, in my eyes, that's how I see things.

I also think there should be exceptions for special items that were gifts. If a paladin was given a rare item from someone he respects, I could see him keeping it worn to honor the giver. That doesn't mean, however, that if the item was an item of luxury that he'd use the item whenever he could possibly use it. And probably many faiths would have different views on what is frivolous magic use and what isn't...but that makes things even more complicated so I choose to ignore that until I'm slapped with it IC

However, all these views are how I see paladins in general in FR. I never played a lot of 2nd edition FR, so the TSR mechanics I rarely followed. That probably explains the different viewpoints. Obviously I'll go along with whatever is decided, I just want to see if we can come up with a solution that fits the OOC needs of the rule without the stress on magic item adherence of the current guideline.


Edited: I really want a beanbag chair of flight

Okay, I realize, Kelemvor that you invited comment from squires and paladins, but I hope you'll pardon an old D&D paladin player's comments.

I see paladins in the Forgotten Kingdoms as all falling into the "Divinate" kit. (I am referencing the 2d Edition The Complete Paladin's Handbook, because I played the 2d Edition and that's my point of reference.) These are the church knights. The book describes them as "devoutly religious" and explains they "serve as the military branch of their church".

The kit description goes on to explain that these paladins are charitable. They "insist that the party share its treasure with destitute familes and impoverished communities" and offer charity to paupers. These knights must also tithe either 20% of their income or a mininum tithe, whichever is greater, to their church each month. These knights can, however, build strongholds. That's the rub. They are charitable but obviously not sworn to poverty.

Now FK is a different animal, and it's yours (the administration team's) to change as you see fit, but I think that -outside of specific church doctrine like you cited with the Ilmatari- limiting magical items may be a disservice to a class that's become underpowered (as Selveem indicated). My suggestion would be, shortly, to keep the restriction where there is an in character reason for doing so but otherwise to reject it as a blanket rule.

As the player of a paladin, I have to say I don't really understand the 10 magical item limit. I understand all the other vows and restrictions but this one... I don't know, it's always just been off to me. A paladin is supposed to arm himself with serviceable equipment, and invest heavily in his armor and weapons. If he comes across a +5 sword of smiting and currently has a mundane longsword of steel, he wouldn't be doing his duty if he passed the sword up, since it would obviously help him smite the smitables. But if he already had 10 pieces of magical armor, he'd have to pass up that sword. And I don't really know why.

I mean other vows have their reason. A vow of chastity to avoid conflicting loyalties and distractions. A vow of poverty because wealth benefits the most when it is not hoarded. A vow of fealty because you must serve your church's best interests. A vow of honest to hold yourself to that higher moral standard that truly reflects the paragon of a servant of good. And so on and so forth. But really I can't justify the not using more than 10 magical items rule.

Paladins go through long and rigorous training. Not just anyone becomes a paladin, and we've had plenty of people drop out in the past. I like to think that an OOC rule like this isn't necessary to check the paladin players, as the IC training and the OOC time they put into their RP speaks well about their judgment in playing their characters. If they are hoarding, let their church approach them and punish them or take whatever action necessary, because that breaks the poverty vow.

Basically I feel that this rule is unnecessary for two reasons, one it is not easily justified ICly and two with the effort and time that players put into making a paladin we should trust that they're going to stay to their vows and not need an OOC rule like this to prevent it.

Is it truly at the point that ten is not enough?

I don't think I've ever had more than 3 at one time on any character, counting holy symbols and amulets.

The exception, I think, is a full suit of armor on Quey. But does that truly count each piece toward your limit, or does it count as one?

Each piece counts. So if you have a magical breastplate, a magical helm, and magical boots that's 3. Including your amulet and holy symbol you're at 5. Throw in your nice sword and shield and that's 7, leaving three for any bracers, bracelets, rings, necklaces, or misc you might wear. So it's actually easier than one might think to have more than 10. I could easily go over 10, but I forgo a few magical pieces of armor in favor of mundane ones.

Jaenoic wrote:Paladins go through long and rigorous training. Not just anyone becomes a paladin, and we've had plenty of people drop out in the past. I like to think that an OOC rule like this isn't necessary to check the paladin players, as the IC training and the OOC time they put into their RP speaks well about their judgment in playing their characters. If they are hoarding, let their church approach them and punish them or take whatever action necessary, because that breaks the poverty vow.

I would tend to agree with Jaenoic here. Paladins take a large RP investment; giving them an arbitrary mechanical limit doesn't seem to do very much, other than put them at a possible disadvantage/making them have to consider then 10 item limit and juggle amulets with weapons or armor to keep to that rule.

Does the holy symbol count as a magical item any longer.. i didnt belive them to give any stats or such anymore..

Horace wrote:I don't envision choosing to live in such poverty that they more or less become monks in a monestary...I see them more as a sport star who makes tens of millions and chooses to live in a middle classed means, giving up most of his earning to charity.

I think this is one place where the paladin's faith comes into it. At the extreme ends of the scale, the Lathanderites lean towards the "philanthropic celebrity" type and the Ilmateri tend to be more like monks. I suppose part of the problem is that paladin orders are both military and religious (so we don't have any real-world comparisons to draw, not these days anyway). As soldiers and leaders they're expected to be armed and armoured well; as models of the lawful good alignment in their respective faiths, they shouldn't be living luxuriously or excessively. There has to be some sort of balance.

I have to admit I have no idea what bearing all that has on the 10-item limit, since I couldn't tell you off the top of my head how many magic items any of my characters owns (or how consistently those items get used).

If I said how many Selveem actively uses, it'd make people sick.

I would like to see maybe more diversity in Paladin orders though. I appreciate that Sir Feinn has taken so much time in training all the Paladins, but once their trained, is it possible that they can then splinter into their respective roles?

I could see the Paladins of Ilmater possibly abstaining from the possession of various protective items that are very powerful so as not to tempt greed, but I couldn't see a Paladin of Torm giving up his +5 Breastplate just to prove that he's not greedy.

Maybe that will help clear up some of the vows? Maybe vows will be based on which faith you choose?

Since you brought them up, historical examples vary greatly as well. On the one hand you have Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival (Parsifal) is a total profiteer. He even kills someone for their armor. Chretien de Troyes' characters aren't much better, but these are the archetypical figures of our popular conception of knighthood and, specifically, paladins.
The real-life paladins, the monastic orders, are a different story. St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Praise of the New Knighthood (Liber ad milites Templi: De laude novae militae), the document that created a rule for the Templars, has this to say:

You cover your horses with silk, and plume your armor with I know not what sort of rags; you paint your shields and your saddles; you adorn your bits and spurs with gold and silver and precious stones, and then in all this glory you rush to your ruin with fearful wrath and fearless folly. Are these the trappings of a warrior or are they not rather the trinkets of a woman? Do you think the swords of your foes will be turned back by your gold, spare your jewels or be unable to pierce your silks?

What do you expect from a group that grows from one of the most severe monastic communities though? Their emblem was two men on a horse because they were too poor to have one each. Though, in time, they developed modern banking and got so wealthy that King Philip IV, the Fair, of France rounded them all up to get out of debt (arguably).

What's the point? Historical examples go all kinds of ways. You have extreme sects like the Templars who enforced poverty and then you have men who went crusading to Jerusalem and turned a profit with new lands and titles. The paladins of the real-life tradition differ greatly, I'd argue that those in FK should also.

Edit: Selveem posted while I was writing, I think, but he brings up a good point. Shouldn't each order have its own rule to operate from? The FMs could write such a thing like St. Bernard did, or a senior paladin in the order could. It would allow for more personality.

I feel as though I am swimming against the tide, here, but...

1) Should not each order of Paladins have its own specific set of rules? On a purely IC basis, yes, perhaps. It depends on to what extent they are not only a knight, but a knight of so-and-so. But in that light one would also expect variations in possible alignments, variations in spells, flexibility on whom they interact with (Raona's greatest challenge as a knight has been, and remains, not being friendly to the evils), and the stark possibility of knights not getting along. I see (and am swayed by) strong IC and OOC arguments for keeping the Paladin class more uniform: less confusion about rules, no need to worry about 'balancing' out each faith, and a pretty solid guaranty that all paladins will get along and work together. I see that camaraderie as a huge RP bonus, and actively played out in the game right now. In FK, knights are defined more by being Paladins than by which faith they are in, and even so I find copious opportunities to customize Raona's RP in light of the fact she is a follower of Tyr. Put another way, you don't need customized rules for each faith to put the faith front and center in a Paladin RP. With extra code and imm support, the time could be spent to develop custom rules (and everything else) for each faith; but I feel the requisite time is better spent on other matters. The current system has the advantages of simplicity, less confusion about which rules apply to whom, and knights that all get along.

2) Does there really need to be a specific cap on magical items? I try to do a good job of RPing a knight...but I appreciate a hard limit. It forced me to give away things that, despite what I consider Raona's generous nature, I'd held on to. Things that did others more good than she. Things that, ICly, she should give away. The modification of the item count rule in the FAQ to include anything that flags as magical (holy symbol, amulet, and anything else) was motivated largely by an effort to have the rule be as simple as possible - if it flags as magical, it counts. The down side of a hard cap is that you can't wear magical armour everywhere and magical goodies as well. (Something the pain of which I've not felt yet, so perhaps I just don't understand.) I agree, ICly, that seems a bit odd - not necessarily logical in light of a poverty vow. But I do appreciate a rule that makes it clear to me that it's time to give away more stuff - time to share. Raona gives her silver to the beggar in the Deep every time she crosses paths with him, but giving away that magical gift from so and so is harder. Maybe it's just me, but I appreciate the rule-based push. Maybe a different number, 12 not 10 or something, but I like having a number there. Without a number, I'd probably have fewer magic items, and still constantly worry that I had too many. Who's to decide how much is appropriate?

3) Yadda yadda. Nice opinions...got any solutions? To my eyes, the new armour code, with location-specific magic protection, is the big change. A possible fix to this - though it would require code - would be to not allow a Paladin to wear magical armour, but allow their faith to provide enhanced protection. Or allow them to choose between magic and faith...that was what I was going to originally suggest, but it seems it wouldn't be IC for a knight of faith to ever choose magic over faith. But let's put it this way: Sir Lunchalot of Yondalla wears a magic lunchbox, a magic thermos, and five other things that flag as magical. His armour is mundane. Yondalla smiles on him for putting his faith in her, rather than magic (having less than ten magic items, and/or no magic armour), and bestows a +1 bonus on all of his armour. Then Sir Lunchalot finds the magic pipe of bubblegum, armguards of the salad bar, and a breastplate of extra stomach capacity, and dons them all. That brings him to 11 magic items worn. Yondalla sees he doesn't need her blessing with all that magic going on, and retracts her +1 to all armour locations. Sir Lunchalot is probably less protected now, but you can't argue with the RP value of a breastplate of extra stomach capacity, can you?

Edit: An exception might need be made for supplicated armour bits, if there is a no magic armour consideration...sigh...see how quickly it gets complicated?

Without a number, I'd probably have fewer magic items, and still constantly worry that I had too many

If that particular portion of the vow of poverty, to Raona,, means that to her magic = luxury regardless of the type...she can keep that ten limit rule for her. If that magic item cap was removed, you could wear whatever you wanted - if you sincerely believe you need that cap to be able to tell you when, as a player, you need to give away magical items...more power to ya, seriously. I don't see how a change would effect that, if you honestly prefer using it.

Who's to decide how much is appropriate?

I feel that the setting should - with regards to mechanical balance as well.

I think the notion that a paladin should balance his enchanted items (which can easily be divine magic enchantments) with the divine blessings of his god is a testament to what PC's had to create to justify the ruling, and sort of trickled down. Paladins don't fore go better equipment solely to be co-dependent with his god, he fore gos equipment because he no longer needs it (no hoarding you guys!)...they work to further the god's cause in any way their ethos allows.

If your paladin ever gets to the point where he believes he's showing too much individual power in his god's name, without granting his god the grace of being able to bless him - your paladin is probably ready for the demi-god application petition.

Just to clarify:

Are these the current rules regarding poverty/magical items that paladins should be following?

-use a max of 10 (magical) items at a time, but may possess more (preferably not a huge hoard)
-may have reasonable (but not excessive - not sure what exactly counts for this) amounts of coin