Does anyone have a solution to the problem with the knight and his inability to attack good characters? The Knights inability to attack other good characters puts him at a severe disadvantage. It doesnt make sense to me that the Priest could attack the Knight but the Knight cannot attack him back. Does anyone have a good solution to this problem.

By rights, that Priest should have fallen from grace for attacking the Knight and lost all his abilities, but he didn't. Therein is the problem. Not the Knight, not the Priest... its about Alignment. Alignment is almost meaningless by skewed mechanics in Talisman. The Knight is forced to interpret Alignment in a way that no other character has to, even those whose special abilities and function are Alignment based... such as the Priest, Monk, and yes even the Prophetess. There is no fix for the Knight until there is a fix for Alignment's implementation in the game. The best you can do is try to apply an overall Alignment fix for actions taken by any Character that derives its special abilities through Alignment. Messy! And the same should apply to characters who start off Evil, and derive special abilities from that side of the Alignment Range.

Without the Alignment restriction, the Knight wouldn't be what he is ... well sort of. He's actually Chevalier or a Pallidin, depending on interpretation. I(n reality, Knight is a title of notoriety, social caste, and political position. It has nothing to do with Alignment except from very very narrow avenues of myth, legend, and folklore. Badly interpreted ones, that is.

The Knight in Talisman appears to be an amalgamation of the old Warrior character and a Paladin (with a mix of the French and original British interpretations of King Arthur's legend). He's overpowered like some other 4th characters, and the alignment restriction was thrown in in hopes of balancing this. It didn't work. You may wish to try stripping him of Prayer and Alignment related powers, then have him just operate like a basic Knight. But it probably still won't work.

Oh, and don't try making him live by the Chivalric code (which has nothing to do with Alignment) as an alternative. It won't work in Talisman.

Well, you could say that the "problem" is that he is so good... This is an incoveniance you have to deal with if you're playing the Knight who is actually a Paladin it seems.

Evil characters can attack whoever they want, that's the nature of evil, it's purely up to the individual and good characters will (ideally) act like good characters in the game. I'd suggest choosing gaming partners who won't choose a good character and start attacking everyone. A bit of role-playing if you like.

As an upholder of peace and justice why should your knight attack other good characters? I don't think there is a problem with this rule.

Galahad said:

If the Powers above and below are truly represented in Talisman as offering up special ability to those who server them... Evil characters who get powers through Alignmetn would just as quickly get a smack down for not serving Evils goal in the Talisman world. Evil wants control just as much as Good does, and that ain't going to happen by your interpretation. You are confusing Evil with Anarchy or other concepts as an excuse. Another reason why Alignment is fundamentally meaningless in Talisman, because even when Good is interpreted as meaning something roughly specific, Evil never is defined by those playing it.

And what's so Good about getting the Crown of Command and slaughtering everyone else in the Land? Again, Alignment doesn't work ... and neither do justifications in either direction. It's always been the most broken element of Talisman from 1st edition on.

I think your trying to be to realistic.

Talisman and its characters are Fantasy. In turn. A Knight could mean anything FFG wants it to mean. True, then are general rule relating to Fantasy characters, but who made those rules? and who can hold them true? because none of it is based on fact. Fantasy is made up.

FFG could have called alignment "Feeling" and had "Happy" and "Sad" when the same effect as Good and Evil. But the "feelings" term would be lame. Alignment does what it needs to for the game. I don't agree with the characters that can't change alignment. But, I'll live with it.

On another point, what if the Dark Cultist is on the crown and the Knight comes up too. What does the Knight do on his turn? He can't fight her like he should.

Torgock ,read my topic(problems with the knight)you'll find some usefull ideas from diffrent players that have been discussed already on the knight problem.Also you'll read about my horrid first game with the knight.

Unless you used the house rule that if a player attacks another player his alignment automatically moves one step toward evil. That way, a priest attacking the knight will become neutral straight away and the knight would therefore be well within his rights to smite him back (without changing alignment himself because his ability states he can't). Just now thought that up but I think it might be a good house rule to apply.

Having thought some more on that, maybe it could go that if you are good or neutral and attack another good or neutral character then your alignment changes one step toward evil. If,on the other hand, you are good or neutral and you attack an evil character you stay as you are... because they are evil... and probably had it coming.

The Knight may attack another character, but only to Subdue him. For this he gets -1 to his strength for the battle.

Should the knight win, he make "demand" a donation of a object or gold to help him on his "quest" for the crown. -OR- he has the other good player doing penents and prayer, and must mis their next turn (rather than loose a life)

As normal, on the crown he may take a life.

JCHendee said:

Because only the person who is the strongest can rule the land Even if it means, that you must slaughter all heroes who want to try to take the Crown for themself..(And if you are good, ... it does not matter..( they are all greedy i say.. GREEDY

Anyway... what about the king? Sounds like he is not important anymore, or he does not his job

Velhart said:

The king is probably busy with his mother-in-law

Cheer

Old Master said:

Haha

That's why they have not made a king adventure card

We have a prince and princess but no king !!

I wonder if Knight + Anointed Robe will allow him to get Pray +3..

I have not take a look at both cards but i believe they have not the same text..

That would be a nice combo

Velhart said:

Not the same text but identical (almost) skill, so nope Knight can be blessed only once

What about Gladiator who turns Good + Armour + Anointed Robe. Armour saves in battle on 2+ ? Guess not. 3+ Armour save isn't bad though.

Dam said:

Polish The Cave expansion for 2nd Edition had this:

That's too good

this means that you only lose a life if you roll 1 ...

Velhart said:

Heavy Armor deducting 1 from movement rolls would actually be a benefit (assuming you always move 1?). From Temple you would get 1-2 to move 1 then hope for the same roll again to pray again. Amazon esp. would get tons of praying done.

Dam said:

Nope, 0 is 0. When Your movement speed is 0, You are encountering the space You already are in. Movement speed 0 isn't (at least for me) equal losing a turn.

The knight is awesome. If he can make it to the Temple or hit an Idol in the game's first 20 or so turns, he's guaranteed a win. There's got to be a drawback somewhere, and the fact that he can't attack about 1/4th of the game's characters is not a big one. Look at the Prophetess. She could attack any character (knight included), but she'd get her butt kicked, so she effectively "can't" attack him anyway. Same for the Priest. Some characters can't win an attack against 2/3rds or more of existing characters, the Knight can't start one against a smaller percentage. Fair's fair.

Nemomon said:

I don't know those polish rules, but it's weird if your movement is 0, that you encounter the space where you already stand...

Normally, you never encounter your own space, because your must move but this...

I agree with V. If you don't move, you don't encounter a space. However, that is not the same as missing a turn; you can still take other actions that come after movement... just as if you landed a space where you couldn't or didn't encounter anything. I think that's a more than fair trade off for the heavy armor advantage, and rolling minimum 1 has the obvious advantages (already pointed out) that should not be allowed.

However... I think 1-5 out of 6 is excessive for any armor by the way its used in Talisman. I would rewrite it to 1-4 and still keep the Combat deficit, eliminate the movement deficit, and still allow it to be used with well known Stackable Armor house rules as well.

Velhart said:

JCHendee said:

That's not Polish rules, that's my own interpretation. Your movement speed is 0 spaces per turn. After movement, You must encounter the space You already are in. Since You moved 0 spaces this turn, You moved to the space You already are in and You must encounter it (again). Whole interpretation depends, if 0 for You is a normal number of something or 0 means nothing. If nothing - You are forced to lose a turn. If it is a normal number like 2 or 5 - You can move 0 spaces and normally complete Your turn.

JCHendee said:

Well, City Expansion for 2nd Edition had such an armour:

That's why Heavy Armour got additional "2" to the score.

That's a very good armor then, for 2th edition !

I hope it will cost a lot of money..

So.. there is a chance that we see this armor for 4th R edition in the City expansion..?