Idea for a paladin dragonslayer?


Advice

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

What do you think about making a paladin dragonslayer home brew kind of like the Undead Scourge in APG? How would you do it?

Yes I know that it limits somewhat but 2 thoughts here.

1) This is a dragonslayer game. Hence I would think there would be tons of dragons, dragonkind and draconians around. Maybe Im wrong and the dragons just have humanoids doing their dirtywork.

2) My character was brought to this world by his deity to break the iron control dragonkind has over the humanoids and to allow free worship of the deities (now only dragon deities area allowed to be worshipped). His wish is to be called to his deity when the last dragon grasp is broken either through a treaty or outright withdraw by dragonkind. Its not like hes planning on growing old here even if the dragons dont kill him 1st. He sees all dragons as evil, even the good ones. There are no just dragons in his eyes, just various degrees of brutality and ones that bully and hold domination over lesser races. So he would kill a silver or gold without worries. Of course, he would rather see the evil dragons die 1st because they tend to me cruel and merciless but he feels the good ones arent much better.

The generic paladin is useless against a non evil dragon.

What do you think? How would you consider homebrewing it?


Trade Smite Evil straight up for a Ranger's favored enemy class feature. Then you're all set. Easy and clean.


Sylvanite wrote:
Trade Smite Evil straight up for a Ranger's favored enemy class feature. Then you're all set. Easy and clean.

Cant see this being an even trade any way about it.

Smite evil does + cha mod to hit and ac.
Smite Evil gains +2 dmg/level
Smite Evil automatically bypasses DR

So when Cha goes up, so do the benefits.

Favored enemy = +2/5 lvs to hit, dmg and perception. This does not increase with stats.


Be an Inquisitor. They are more direct servants of Dieties than Paladins are.
Paladins are really tied into Cosmic Good vs. Evil, which it sounds like your character isn`t,
if they truly are so hung up on eradicating/overthrowing dragons regardless of good/evil.
The Undead Scourge isn`t really doing anything un-Paladin-like, they are just focused on one area of Paladin-hood (they don`t need to destroy GOOD Undead), while your character concept is clearly going against Paladin norms (seeking destruction of good beings), ie wouldn`t fit a Paladin variant or not.


Quandary wrote:

Be an Inquisitor. They are more direct servants of Dieties than Paladins are.

Paladins are really tied into Cosmic Good vs. Evil, which it sounds like your character isn`t,
if they truly are so hung up on eradicating/overthrowing dragons regardless of good/evil.
The Undead Scourge isn`t really doing anything un-Paladin-like, they are just focused on one area of Paladin-hood (they don`t need to destroy GOOD Undead), while your character concept is clearly going against Paladin norms (seeking destruction of good beings), ie wouldn`t fit a Paladin variant or not.

The world is set where dragons dictate and dominate everything. the evil exploit because they are evil and the "good" exploit because they see non dragons as helpless and greatly needing their "guidance". Extremely arrogant and basically considering humanoids to be expendable. The good vs evil exists for their society only.


Taason the Black wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:
Trade Smite Evil straight up for a Ranger's favored enemy class feature. Then you're all set. Easy and clean.

Cant see this being an even trade any way about it.

Smite evil does + cha mod to hit and ac.
Smite Evil gains +2 dmg/level
Smite Evil automatically bypasses DR

So when Cha goes up, so do the benefits.

Favored enemy = +2/5 lvs to hit, dmg and perception. This does not increase with stats.

The trade is that it works on exactly the creatures you want it to, unlimited times per day, and regardless of alignment.....which sounds JUST LIKE WHAT YOU WANT. You're right, that it doesn't seem even. It's not. Paladin's are designed to be THE BEST at dealing with evil. Rangers are designed to be the best at dealing with specific styles of creatures, and fighters are designed to be the best at dealing with any general fight. They each have a specific damage enhancing ability with varying levels of specificity involved. It seems like you're just looking for an excuse to change Smite Evil into "Smite What I Want," because it is pretty sweet WHEN IT APPLIES. If you start tinkering with the restrictions of when it applies, you start messing with the balance of things.

Quandary is right, though. Just be an inquisitor. You're not a paladin if you don't care about good and evil, which your character doesn't.

Edit: And btw, Smite Evil does not just gain 2 damage per paladin level. That's only vs. specific evil creatures, and only on your first successful attack.
Also, it's only good vs. one creature at a time and severely limited in applications per day. That's why it's more of a fair trade than it seems off the bat.


EDIT: miserad :D

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Why not base it off the Undead Slayer archetype? Something like the following, I would guess:

Smite Evil (Su): This functions as the paladin ability of the same name, but the dragonslayer does not deal 2 points of damage per level on the first successful attack against undead and evil outsiders. She does deal 2 points of damage per level on all smite attacks made against evil dragons.

Aura of Agility (Su): At 8th level, a dragonslayer emits a 10-foot aura of agility around her that heightens reflexes. Allies in this aura gain a +4 morale bonus to Reflex saves vs. Breath Weapons, while the dragonslayer herself gains Evasion, but only against Breath Weapon effects.

This ability replaces aura of resolve.

(There should be some sort of 3rd ability here replacing Aura of Justice, but I can't quite come up with one I really like.)


IMO,this is where Prestige Classes are supposed to come into play, they might need alittle work to fit into PF rules but 'the dragonslayer' PrC in Draconomiicon or 'Knight of the Scale' PrC in Dragon Mag. 296 are good for what your looking for.

Did you ever think of using a Cavilier instead of a Paladin. You could create a new order geared toward what you want and the challenge abilitity could be quite helpful verse any dragon alignment. The extra challenge bonus could be for attack or dmg bonus toward dragons +1 every 4 levels, the 3 order abilities all geared for fighting dragons, you can even make the bonus feats dragonslaying feats.


He sees all dragons as evil, even the good ones.

Now thats a problem for a paladin. Your character might THINK that that silver dragon is evil because it has wings and teeth instead of a "regular" body shape, but it is in fact a very powerful servant of good. Killing it, or even breaking into his legally occupied cave and assaulting it, IS an evil act. It doesn't matter if you THINK its a good act, you're wrong, you fall. D&D morality is not subjective, especially for paladins.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

He sees all dragons as evil, even the good ones.

Now thats a problem for a paladin. Your character might THINK that that silver dragon is evil because it has wings and teeth instead of a "regular" body shape, but it is in fact a very powerful servant of good. Killing it, or even breaking into his legally occupied cave and assaulting it, IS an evil act. It doesn't matter if you THINK its a good act, you're wrong, you fall. D&D morality is not subjective, especially for paladins.

I was under the assumption that a paladins code is based on his deities perceptions and terms. With that said, if his deity says go and free the people from the rule of the dragons, then that to me says all dragons. In this world, even "good" dragons arent great neighbors. They use the lesser beings as they see fit, as pawns because the dragon knows best type thing. So sacrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine because it benefits the society as the dragon sees it should be.

Its back to the age old question, if a group of humans slaughter an orc tribe because orcs are supposed to be evil yet no one has ever had problems with this particular orc tribe nor heard of said problems, are they still doing things in the name of good?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

an evil kingdom that never bothers you, sacrifices kids to the gods, encourages cannibalism, consorts with fiends and thinks murder is a fun pastime is perfectly eligible for being extinguished even if it keeps itself to its own borders. It is an Evil country, it spreads evil and damns souls simply by existing, and it is your job and obligation in the name of Good to feed it to the land.

Your paladin does NOT get to determine what is good and evil. If the dragons are as arrogant as you say, they are not Good, they are merely playing at it and taking the label on. You don't get labelled 'good', you earn it and you have to work to keep it.

So, either these Dragons are Good, or they are playing at it. You have to decide which is which. Killing a Good dragon, regardless of what you think of his tactics, is going to lose you your paladinhood. Teaching the arrogant sot the error of its ways and fall from morality is the result to use, and actually uniting the good dragons against the evil ones to bring the good gods of all races back into power in true racial harmony...that's the way to go.

So, something is going to give. Your DM allowing you to kill good dragons is no different then him allowing you to kill Good people, and get away with it. In which case, you're not playing the game anymore, you're playing racism against Dragons, and that's not a paladin.

Higher cause, man.

==Aelryinth


Quote:
I was under the assumption that a paladins code is based on his deities perceptions and terms.

Nope. Its based on alignment. One alignment in particular: Lawful Good.

That's why you don't have paladins of every alignment to match every deity.

Quote:
With that said, if his deity says go and free the people from the rule of the dragons, then that to me says all dragons.

Which isn't incompatible with not killing the good dragons. It just means that for the good dragons you need to use reason, sense, favors, diplomacy, politics, trade or something other than "i hit it in the head with a sharp piece of metal". In a D&D world that is ONE very viable way to fight evil, but it is not the ONLY way.

The best way to deal with it, and it would make for a very interesting character, is to kill off the evil dragons first, and then help the humans do a good job of governing their realms so the dragons can see that a human run government is possible and won't lead to anarchy.

Quote:
In this world, even "good" dragons arent great neighbors. They use the lesser beings as they see fit, as pawns because the dragon knows best type thing. So sacrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine because it benefits the society as the dragon sees it should be.

Is that honestly any different than any other government, or even all that unreasonable? The dragons are good, have high intelligence and wisdom scores, centuries of experience, and considerable magical and other power they can put at their country's benefit. If they collect taxes, control the economy, raise armies of conscripts .. then what would putting a human in charge change?

Quote:
Its back to the age old question, if a group of humans slaughter an orc tribe because orcs are supposed to be evil yet no one has ever had problems with this particular orc tribe nor heard of said problems, are they still doing things in the name of good?

Depends on your DM, the campaign world, and how innately evil the orcs are. But if a DM has a paladin in the group and he WANTS the orc tribe to be killed then he has a responsibility to provide some justification.

With your dragonslayer paladin "I'm going to kill you because you're the lawful ruler of your country and you're running it as you think is best" is chaotic evil or at best chaotic neutral A lawful good silver or gold dragon is unlikely to be committing any atrocities against his or her citizens that would warrant their removal. Democracy is not a right in D&D.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
I was under the assumption that a paladins code is based on his deities perceptions and terms.

Nope. Its based on alignment. One alignment in particular: Lawful Good.

That's why you don't have paladins of every alignment to match every deity.

See I cant see this. A paladin is a devote and holy warrior for a particular deity, not an alignment. If the deity came down tomorrow and said "this is my will", then said paladin and priest better damn do what he says or find themselves X lv fighters w/o feats the next day. Deities can be right and deities can be wrong in this game. Soldiers follow orders and paladins are the highest soldiers of their deity.


Taason the Black wrote:
See I cant see this. A paladin is a devote and holy warrior for a particular deity, not an alignment. If the deity came down tomorrow and said "this is my will", then said paladin and priest better damn do what he says or find themselves X lv fighters w/o feats the next day. Deities can be right and deities can be wrong in this game. Soldiers follow orders and paladins are the highest soldiers of their deity.

What game are you playing? It's not Pathfinder. Go read the Paladin class entry again.


Another thought is a god serving fighter with feats devoted to dragon slaying; Lightning Reflexes, strike back, some archery feats, etc.
Also, Paladins can serve gods, but they uphold good and law first. Inquisitors and clerics uphold the will of the gods.


I think a Dragonslayer Paladin would be pretty cool. Of course, as a Paladin he'd only be slaying evil dragons.

In your campaign, though, it sounds like even the good dragons aren't very good. The indicators of good being benevolence and altruism. If metallic dragons aren't good in your world, a Paladin could kill them without moral reprecussion.

Dark Archive

Quantum Steve wrote:

I think a Dragonslayer Paladin would be pretty cool. Of course, as a Paladin he'd only be slaying evil dragons.

In your campaign, though, it sounds like even the good dragons aren't very good. The indicators of good being benevolence and altruism. If metallic dragons aren't good in your world, a Paladin could kill them without moral reprecussion.

Not good isn't the same as evil. A paladin fights against evil, not neutrality. Abadar isn't good either but he still has paladins serving him.

And a paladin isn't primarily a champion of a deity, that's what clerics and inquisitors are for.

Grand Lodge

This also seems a bit "might makes right" ish to me, which definitely isn't good by any definition of the word. The only way to then ensure that the dragons don't come back and do this all over again is to eradicate very dragon, dragon like thing and dragon egg.

An evil act (such as killing a decidedly good creature like a gold dragon not out of self defense) done for a reason you see as good is still an evil act and thus not very paladin like.

If you're really set on the whole dragon slaying thing because they're tyrants and what not, your DM either needs to make all dragons evil (which doesn't really make sense) or you need to find another class to play. A ranger who puts all his favored enemy bonuses into favored enemy dragon and terrain bonuses into the varios dragon terains would be the best bet. You could also talkt to your DM about being an anti-paladin and changing the smite ability to something like "smite dragon."

And not all deities have paladins. It would make no sense to have a paladin (who HAS to be LG) be devoted to Lamashtu or Rovagug.


Take a look at Knight of the Chalice (3.5) for how a ranger/paladin might work. You'll have to cross out outsider, and write in dragon, but I think you're up to it.


Taason the Black wrote:
The generic paladin is useless against a non evil dragon.

Can I respectfully point out that the generic paladin shouldn't be the one picking a fight against a non-evil dragon, either. If he's going around knocking off neutral and good-aligned dragons, he won't be a paladin for long, and a non-evil dragon going around attacking towns and villages any paladin feels forced to defend with lethal force isn't going to be non-evil very long, so what's the problem?

Other than very exceptional circumstances, paladins and non-evil dragons will not be fighting, period, so there IS no problem that I can see.


Paladins are not always the champions of deities. They certainly can be, but in Pathfinder, they are more importantly bound to a code of lawfulness and good.

Heck, according to her AP stats, Seelah is an Atheist.


Taason the Black wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

He sees all dragons as evil, even the good ones.

Now thats a problem for a paladin. Your character might THINK that that silver dragon is evil because it has wings and teeth instead of a "regular" body shape, but it is in fact a very powerful servant of good. Killing it, or even breaking into his legally occupied cave and assaulting it, IS an evil act. It doesn't matter if you THINK its a good act, you're wrong, you fall. D&D morality is not subjective, especially for paladins.

I was under the assumption that a paladins code is based on his deities perceptions and terms. With that said, if his deity says go and free the people from the rule of the dragons, then that to me says all dragons. In this world, even "good" dragons arent great neighbors. They use the lesser beings as they see fit, as pawns because the dragon knows best type thing. So sacrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine because it benefits the society as the dragon sees it should be.

Its back to the age old question, if a group of humans slaughter an orc tribe because orcs are supposed to be evil yet no one has ever had problems with this particular orc tribe nor heard of said problems, are they still doing things in the name of good?

That's a bang on description of an Inquisitor not a Paladin.


i've actually wanted to play a Dragonslayer Paladin for about 5 years now, and although i've never yet actually gotten the chance (and the character uses 3.5 material) my favourite idea is the Dragonborn Sacred Servant of Bahamut. If you are allowed to use 3.5 material, the Draconomicon also offers some useful feats for combating dragons.

I would also point out, as almost everyone else has, that a paladin really shouldn't kill good dragons. Killing a good creature is ALWAYS an evil act, no matter what the provocation.

A good dragon shouldn't attack you unless you give it no choice, and they are only looking after humans because they are young, and stupid, and barbaric, and really shouldn't be trusted to take care of themselves. All the good dragons need is re-educating.


Banatine wrote:
I would also point out, as almost everyone else has, that a paladin really shouldn't kill good dragons. Killing a good creature is ALWAYS an evil act, no matter what the provocation.

... and with neutral creatures, it is almost as certainly an evil act, unless in self defence or the defence of another.

In other words, why is the paladin worried about fighting no-evil dragons, unless he's not planning on staying a paladin.


Hitokiriweasel wrote:
If you're really set on the whole dragon slaying thing because they're tyrants and what not, your DM either needs to make all dragons evil (which doesn't really make sense)

Sure it does. You just have different flavors of evil. Chromatics can be ruthless and cruel, that's an easy flavor.

For metallics, you just have to understand that the true nature of evil is selfishness. Metallic can say they oppress their subjects for their own good, but in the end, all tyrants use the same methods to rule: fear and intimidation.
Metallics would be more subtle with their evil, they wouldn't brutalize their subjects like chromatics, but they would still impose harsh laws to prevent insurrection. Perhaps they use charm effects on the most radical anarchists, rather than executing them. They may even hold celebrations to keep morale high and prevent discontent.
A Dictator who exploits his subjects for his own gain, regardless of his methods, is evil.

This, of course, is contrary to most D&D cannon regarding metallic dragons, but in most D&D settings, metallic dragons wouldn't impose their will on others.

Now, if you wanted to keep metallics good and benevolent. And play a character who had a racial hatred towards all dragons, this couldn't be a Paladin. You would either need to make hima different class. Inquisitor would be a good choice. Or brew up a new class, even drawing heavily from the Paladin abilities; just don't call it a Paladin.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Hitokiriweasel wrote:
If you're really set on the whole dragon slaying thing because they're tyrants and what not, your DM either needs to make all dragons evil (which doesn't really make sense)

Sure it does. You just have different flavors of evil.

Now, if you wanted to keep metallics good and benevolent. And play a character who had a racial hatred towards all dragons, this couldn't be a Paladin. You would either need to make hima different class. Inquisitor would be a good choice. Or brew up a new class, even drawing heavily from the Paladin abilities; just don't call it a Paladin.

You see, here's the thing: Paladin vs Evil Dragon kicks butt. The problem as presented is paladin vs non-evil dragon doesn't. If you just make all dragons evil, then you don't need to change the paladin. As you correctly point out, if you want to kill non-evil and even good dragons, you aren't a paladin to begin with.


QUOTE]
If you just make all dragons evil, then you don't need to change the paladin. As you correctly point out, if you want to kill non-evil and even good dragons, you aren't a paladin to begin with.

So let me ask this scenerio:

Group confronts "good" dragon and presents the idea of giving the humans/elfs/dwarfs etc free will of ruling themselves and worship. Good dragon realizes that this will have a negative impact on said dragons power base and worship to his deity. Now a good dragon can still be greedy and selfish. Being good doesnt mean goody two shoes or lawful stupid. Dragons know they are at the top of the food chain so that pay dividends with pride and unwillingness to see others viewpoints.

So good dragon says hell no. On top of that, good dragon says get the hell out off my lands and dont come back.

These are all within a good alignment dragons rights and doesnt constitute a breach of alignment.

So if you stay, you are not being lawful and hence in violation of what you guys are saying is basic paladin guidelines. If you stay and dragon attacks you, if I defend myself and my companions then Im gonna lose my paladinship????

And this is only for dealing with a good dragon. Far more chance of this dealing with a neutral dragon.


Taason the Black wrote:

So let me ask this scenerio:

Group confronts "good" dragon and presents the idea of giving the humans/elfs/dwarfs etc free will of ruling themselves and worship. Good dragon realizes that this will have a negative impact on said dragons power base and worship to his deity. Now a good dragon can still be greedy and selfish. Being good doesnt mean goody two shoes or lawful stupid. Dragons know they are at the top of the food chain so that pay dividends with pride and unwillingness to see others viewpoints.

So good dragon says hell no. On top of that, good dragon says get the hell out off my lands and dont come back.

These are all within a good alignment dragons rights and doesnt constitute a breach of alignment.

So if you stay, you are not being lawful and hence in violation of what you guys are saying is basic paladin guidelines. If you stay and dragon attacks you, if I defend myself and my companions then Im gonna lose my paladinship????

And this is only for dealing with a good dragon. Far more chance of this dealing with a neutral dragon.

You aren't describing a good dragon. A proud, greedy, selfish dragon that uses these as reasons to attack and kill others who are being altruistic and compassionate is no longer good, by any definition. A good dragon will recognise this, no matter how proud and egotistical.

What you have is not a problem with a 'good' dragon, it's a problem reconciling just how selfish and greedy a good dragon can be before it crosses the line and stops being good.

A Lawful Good dragon, for example, would be able to rationalise and argue that the necessary loss of free will in allowing it to rule is in the best interests of it's subjects, and that it does so to ensure the maximum prosperity and health of those under it's rule. Remember also that a paladin's code requires them to respect lawful authorities. If the dragon explains that those who hold more chaotic and libertarian viewpoints are free to leave, and would they please do so if they insist on such, the paladin is in violation of his code before it even comes to blows.


Remember also that a paladin's code requires them to respect lawful authorities. If the dragon explains that those who hold more chaotic and libertarian viewpoints are free to leave, and would they...

So how to fix this without losing paladinship? You are describing a good dragon under the normal guidelines. My DM has specifically stated that the good dragons of this land see ruling the pathetic lesser brings something they have to do because the pathetic lessers cant take care of themselves. I also see the dragons as getting kudos for outlawing all worship of deities except the dragon ones.

So how to convince the dragons that they are wrong and these people are better off worshipping deities of their own and not dragon deities? Its like convincing a good person not to take kickback money when it is feeding their family. They can still be good and especially so if receiving kickbacks isnt illegal in their society.

I can just see some tense moments coming up.

So let me go further...

My paladin worships a "human" deity that has placed him in this world on the material plane. If worship of non dragons is illegal, is he in violation of his paladin code by worshipping the deity that placed him there techinically? Even if the law is unjust, its still the law and according to you guys, the paladin has to observe law over deity (Which is complete BS in my opinion since when has law been anyway associated with Holy?)


Taason the Black wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
I was under the assumption that a paladins code is based on his deities perceptions and terms.

Nope. Its based on alignment. One alignment in particular: Lawful Good.

That's why you don't have paladins of every alignment to match every deity.
Quote:
See I cant see this. A paladin is a devote and holy warrior for a particular deity, not an alignment.

That's a cleric. Note that there are clerics for all alignements, but there are paladins only for one.

Quote:
If the deity came down tomorrow and said "this is my will", then said paladin and priest better damn do what he says or find themselves X lv fighters w/o feats the next day.

If a god came down and ordered a paladin to commit an evil act a paladins response is to smite evil and whack the god in the head because the god is wrong.

Quote:
Deities can be right and deities can be wrong in this game. Soldiers follow orders and paladins are the highest soldiers of their deity.

No. A paladin is a soldier to an IDEAL: the highest levels of virtue and morality. In our monotheistic society we tend to equate that with one, singular god but in a polytheistic society there's no reason that a deity is any more right or good on a matter of morality than a peasant. Paladins that serve gods do so because they think those gods embody virtuous qualities

A paladin does not exist JUST to get the job done. A paladin exists to get the job done while inspiring others to new heights of greatness through example. If his god tells him to end the rule of the dragons thats WHAT he has to do. It doesn't say HOW he has to do it. The paladin has to carry out his deities wishes in a manner consistent with his ideals, not by betraying them. That means getting rid of the dragons WHILE remaining a paragon of virtue... which means no stabbing the pretty shiny metallic dragons. You may think that beating things is the paladins only skill set but its not: they have diplomacy as a class skill and a good charisma for a reason.


I really don't see a problem with a Paladin offing the dragons you're describing. Regardless of what kind of scales they have or what it says on their character sheets, these dragons are behaving neutral at best, borderline evil.

If your DM has a different notion of what the "Good" alignment implies, then your Paladin would be entirely justified in upholding his "Good" alignment be committing the same "Good" acts as these "Good" dragons.


Taason the Black wrote:
Which is complete BS in my opinion since when has law been anyway associated with Holy?

You are joking, right? Go read the Ten Commandments, Levitical Law or Sharia Law. Most laws in pre-Renaissance societies we regarded as holy because they were either (a) religious laws, or (b) imposed by the {insert title of ruler here} who was appointed by {insert name of deity here}.


Quantum Steve wrote:

I really don't see a problem with a Paladin offing the dragons you're describing. Regardless of what kind of scales they have or what it says on their character sheets, these dragons are behaving neutral at best, borderline evil.

If your DM has a different notion of what the "Good" alignment implies, then your Paladin would be entirely justified in upholding his "Good" alignment be committing the same "Good" acts as these "Good" dragons.

What exactly has been said that's leading you to believe that the dragons are neutral or evil? You can do a lot of good from a seat of power , and just because they came into power somehow doesn't mean that they did so through evil means. "The man" is automatically neutral or evil is a CN position, not a LG one.


The dragons you describe aren't good ones, no matter what color scales they have, they don't behave like good dragons. So if the description you gave us are correct then you wouldn't have to worry about losing your paladinhood from that. But that doesn't mean that they are all evil.
The nation of Hermea for example has a gold dragon ruler but he doesn't do half about the things you said that dragons will be doing in your campaign.
Also yes the paladin is less about the deity and more about what's right and good.


*puts on scale suit*

The reason that the worship of human deities was outlawed is because humans simply cannot handle religion on their own. The pure, undiluted essence of the divine is simply too much for them to handle. While there are some few humans who are genuinely able to distill wisdom directly from this font of all knowledge, the vast majority are simply confused by divine truths. This confusion manifests itself much like a toddlers tantrums in uncontrolled and senseless outbursts of violence that have racked your nations with war and its associated evils of famine and plague.

While we truly regret limiting the few individuals who would be responsible with their choices, the simple fact is that having more experienced and less corruptible dragons acting as an intermediary, moderating force is what's best for everyone.

You wouldn't allow a physician, in whose care we place our physical well being, to act without training and credentials so why should we allow the people in charge of our immortal souls to be any less stringently qualified.

-Acceptable paladin responses

Argue your point
Better: DEMONSTRATE your point by offing an evil dragon, taking over his kingdom, and SHOWING the dragons that they're wrong.

Non acceptable palading responses

Beating a good being over the head for being arrogant, condescending and telling people how they should live. Laws tell people how they should live all the time.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

*puts on scale suit*

The reason that the worship of human deities was outlawed is because humans simply cannot handle religion on their own. The pure, undiluted essence of the divine is simply too much for them to handle. While there are some few humans who are genuinely able to distill wisdom directly from this font of all knowledge, the vast majority are simply confused by divine truths. This confusion manifests itself much like a toddlers tantrums in uncontrolled and senseless outbursts of violence that have racked your nations with war and its associated evils of famine and plague.

While we truly regret limiting the few individuals who would be responsible with their choices, the simple fact is that having more experienced and less corruptible dragons acting as an intermediary, moderating force is what's best for everyone.

Two legs bad, four legs good.


@BigNorseWolf
Although you have some very valid points (and i might add that i would love to play in such a world), from what the OP has told us it seems that both he and the DM want to play an anti-dragon campaign (dragon-hate and all), one that all dragons are evil tyranical beings who have enslaved humanity. If that's what they want to play it's ok, just label all dragons LE, NE, CE and be done with the whole thing.


leo1925 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf

Although you have some very valid points (and i might add that i would love to play in such a world), from what the OP has told us it seems that both he and the DM want to play an anti-dragon campaign (dragon-hate and all), one that all dragons are evil tyranical beings who have enslaved humanity. If that's what they want to play it's ok, just label all dragons LE, NE, CE and be done with the whole thing.

He isnt anti dragon. Its just the campaign is what it is. Dragons, good and evil, think humans are incapable of handling things and control nearly all aspects of life. Now before I made a paladin with an agenda from his deity, it was all good. So this is techically my wrench in his game.

Guess its gonna be a long road of kissing dragonscale ass. I surely hate this. But I find the Inquisitor class extremely lacking and somewhere deep inside I have this need to punish myself by playing a paladin, even a helltorn, shattered psyche paladin of vengence.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
What exactly has been said that's leading you to believe that the dragons are neutral or evil? You can do a lot of good from a seat of power , and just because they came into power somehow doesn't mean that they did so through evil means. "The man" is automatically neutral or evil is a CN position, not a LG one.
SRD wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. ...Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Taason the Black wrote:

"There are no just dragons in his eyes, just various degrees of brutality and ones that bully and hold domination over lesser races."

"...[D]ragons dictate and dominate everything."
"...[T]he "good" [dragons] exploit because they see non dragons as helpless and greatly needing their "guidance". Extremely arrogant and basically considering humanoids to be expendable."
"[Good dragons] use the lesser beings as they see fit..."
"[S]acrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine... "
"Now a good dragon can still be greedy and selfish."
"Good dragons of this land see ruling the pathetic lesser brings something they have to do because the pathetic lessers cant take care of themselves."

Selfishness is the opposite of altruism. Good creatures are not very selfish.

Good creatures show "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Viewing humanoids as "pathetic" or "expendable" is not very dignified.
Good creatures have a respect for life. They do not exploit "lesser beings" as they see fit.

While these dragons may claim they are acting for the better good of humanoid society, their actions and views belie this.

Grand Lodge

leo1925 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf

...from what the OP has told us it seems that both he and the DM want to play an anti-dragon campaign (dragon-hate and all), one that all dragons are evil tyranical beings who have enslaved humanity. If that's what they want to play it's ok, just label all dragons LE, NE, CE and be done with the whole thing.

This +1


Taason the Black wrote:


He isnt anti dragon. Its just the campaign is what it is. Dragons, good and evil, think humans are incapable of handling things and control nearly all aspects of life. Now before I made a paladin with an agenda from his deity, it was all good. So this is techically my wrench in his game.

Guess its gonna be a long road of kissing dragonscale ass. I surely hate this. But I find the Inquisitor class extremely lacking and somewhere deep inside I have this need to punish myself by playing a paladin, even a helltorn, shattered psyche paladin of vengence.

First of all i didn't mean that playing an anti-dragon campaign is wrong or anything.

Now it's one thing for a dragon being controling for their own good and another thing being evil, if they don't do evil things to their subjects and if they treat their subjects with care (even if they think them as mere animals that just got out of the stage of the mindless animal) and providing for them, protecting them and ruling them justly, then the paladin pretty much has his hands tied if he tries to go against such a dragon he will be violeting his code.

Why didn't you like the inquisitor? (for this character i mean)


Mahorfeus wrote:

Paladins are not always the champions of deities. They certainly can be, but in Pathfinder, they are more importantly bound to a code of lawfulness and good.

Heck, according to her AP stats, Seelah is an Atheist.

Are you sure about that? She looks like a Paladin of Iomedae to me as well as her Wiki entry backing that up.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Seelah

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dragon Slayer Paladin Archetype

Note: Draconic creature refers to any non-dragon creature type with the dragon-blood subtype, and any humanoid (reptilian), reptilian magical beast, or reptilian monstrous humanoid that understands Draconic as its racial tongue.

Detect Dragon (Sp): As detect evil, except this ability detects dragons and draconic creatures.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s detect evil ability.

Smite Dragon (Su): Once per day, a dragon slayer can call out to the powers that be to aid her in the struggle against dragons and their allies. As a swift action, the dragon slayer chooses on target within sight to smite. If this target is a dragon or draconic creature, the dragon slayer adds her Charisma modifier (if positive) to her attack rolls and adds her dragon slayer level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of her smite is an evil-aligned dragon, the bonus to damage increases to 2 points of damage per level the dragon slayer possesses. Regardless of the target, the smite dragon attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite dragon is in effect, the dragon slayer gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the dragon slayer does not target a dragon or dragon-related creature, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite dragon effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the dragon slayer rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the dragon slayer may smite dragon one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3-11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s smite evil ability.

Merciful Energy Resistance (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, whenever the dragon slayer heals a creature using her lay on hands ability or her channel energy ability, she also grants energy resistance 5 against one of the following energy types for 1 minute per dragon slayer level: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. At 6th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, the amount of energy resistance increases by 5.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s mercy ability.

Divine Bond (Su): The dragon slayer replaces the disruption weapon special ability with the bane (dragon) weapon special ability that can be selected to be applied to the dragon slayer’s weapon bond.

Aura of Evasion (Su): At 8th level, a dragon slayer gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against breath weapons and benefits from evasion. Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against breath weapons.
This ability functions only while the dragon slayer is conscious and not helpless, unconscious, or dead.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s aura of resolve ability.

Aura of Dragonbane (Su): At 11th level, the dragon slayer can expend two uses of her smite dragon ability to grant the ability to smite dragon to all allies within 10 feet, using her bonuses. Allies must use this smite dragon ability before the start of the paladin’s next turn and the bonuses last for 1 minute. Using this ability is a free action. Dragons and draconic creatures gain no benefits from this ability.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s aura of justice ability.

Aura of Improved Evasion (Su): At 17th level, a dragon slayer gains DR 5/manufactured weapons and a +4 morale bonus on all Reflex Saves and benefits from improved evasion. Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws on all Reflex Saves and the benefits from evasion.
This ability functions only while the dragon slayer is conscious and not helpless, unconscious, or dead.
This ability replaces the standard paladin’s aura of resolve ability.

Champion Against Dragons (Su): At 20th level, a dragon slayer becomes a conduit of power for the powers that be. Her DR increases to 10/manufactured weapons. Whenever she uses smite dragon and successfully strikes an evil dragon, the dragon must make a Fortitude Save with a DC equal to 10 + the dragon slayer’s level + the dragon slayer’s Charisma modifier or die. After the dragon dies, the smite immediately ends. In addition, whenever she channels positive energy or uses lay on hands to heal a creature, she grants immunity to one of the following energy types for 1 minute per dragon slayer level: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.


Quantum Steve wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What exactly has been said that's leading you to believe that the dragons are neutral or evil? You can do a lot of good from a seat of power , and just because they came into power somehow doesn't mean that they did so through evil means. "The man" is automatically neutral or evil is a CN position, not a LG one.
SRD wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. ...Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Taason the Black wrote:

"There are no just dragons in his eyes, just various degrees of brutality and ones that bully and hold domination over lesser races."

"...[D]ragons dictate and dominate everything."
"...[T]he "good" [dragons] exploit because they see non dragons as helpless and greatly needing their "guidance". Extremely arrogant and basically considering humanoids to be expendable."
"[Good dragons] use the lesser beings as they see fit..."
"[S]acrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine... "
"Now a good dragon can still be greedy and selfish."
"Good dragons of this land see ruling the pathetic lesser brings something they have to do because the pathetic lessers cant take care of themselves."

Selfishness is the opposite of altruism. Good creatures are not very selfish.

Quote:
Good creatures show "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Viewing humanoids as "pathetic" or "expendable" is not very dignified.

Viewing them as pathetic is not evil. Treating them badly and not trying to improve them is.

How expendable are we talking here? "[S]acrificing humanoids for the great good, ie the dragons belief, is fine."

you 50 people, jump into the volcano, the smoke is obscuring my view" = evil.

you 50 people, grab your pole arms, we're at war with our neighbors"= neutral... but lawful. This is pretty much how MOST human governments work in D&D and a paladin cannot simply lop off a rulers head for sacrificing people in a war, even if that head happens to have horns growing out of it.

You 50 people grab your pole arms, we're attacking the necromancer that's raising an undead army" is the sort of use i'd expect a LG silver or gold to get out of a kingdom. It may be their agenda and the risk of peasant life, but that's a rulers call to make. This sort of sacrifice is... if not fine, at least acceptable without resorting to murder for a paladin because they are bound to respect authority and don't attack the human rulers who do the exact same thing.

Quote:
While these dragons may claim they are acting for the better good of humanoid society, their actions and views belie this.

The idea that humans are more corruptible, shorter sighted, short lived weak and fickle is either true in a D&D world or true from the dragons point of view. A dragon species that is born 90+% lawful good is going to see a species thats 10% good 80% neutral and 10% evil as pretty untrustworthy.

Quote:
Good creatures have a respect for life. They do not exploit "lesser beings" as they see fit.

There is a certain level of exploitation that comes from being a ruler. If a paladin cannot attack a king for working at that base level of exploitation then they cannot attack a dragon-king for doing the same.

Quote:
from what the OP has told us it seems that both he and the DM want to play an anti-dragon campaign (dragon-hate and all)

agreed.

Quote:
one that all dragons are evil tyranical beings who have enslaved humanity.

I didn't get the sense that they were all evil or that they were all enslaving. Running a country according to your own agenda is what rulers do.

Quote:
If that's what they want to play it's ok, just label all dragons LE, NE, CE and be done with the whole thing.

Thats one solution, but not one in the players control. Another would to not play a paladin. Another would be to not try to solve every problem with a beat stick.


leo1925 wrote:
from what the OP has told us it seems that both he and the DM want to play an anti-dragon campaign (dragon-hate and all), one that all dragons are evil tyranical beings who have enslaved humanity. If that's what they want to play it's ok, just label all dragons LE, NE, CE and be done with the whole thing.

+1

And if the GM even wants a few Dragon who AREN`T evil, but are just Neutral, that`s fine too...
The player may well feel obligated to move against these Dragons` reign as well, but if he`s interested in his Paladin-hood he should well recognize that these Dragons may not personally need to be killed, but perhaps could resort to Roleplaying to CONVINCE them to give up their reign. So his Smite won`t be relevant in a combat encounter, but Paladins don`t need to Smite every battle, and they still benefit from plenty of Class Abilities like CHA to Saves, Weapon Bond, etc.

I`m baffled how anybody could think Inquisitors is `lacking` as a class.
Especially at high levels where you would be fighting serious dragons, they absolutely rock.


Cavalier Dragonslaying class

Challenge; +1 attack / 4 levels vs dragontype

Order;
2nd lvl - Dragonshield, +2 AC and Saving throws vs dragontype
8th lvl - Dragonslayer, + 2d6 damage vs dragontype
15th lvl - Max Critical, max dice on critical hits vs dragontype

Looking to use this in a campaign featuring alot of dragons and draconians(dragonlance adventure). I have a few dragon books so bonus feats they choose might have to be dragon related.

What do you think on order abilities balance wise, remember without fighting dragons they are worthless. There will alot of dragonkind but not all by any means. Am I over, under, or about right.


@SmiloDan: Nice archtype. Thanks.

@BigNorseWolf:I must have been misunderstanding Taason the whole time. If the metallic dragons are considerate and selfless rulers, interested chiefly in the welfare of their subject, taking what actions necessary to ensure their prosperity and safety. Then yes, of course they are good. I didn't realize this was this was the case.


I think there is some confusion over good-aligned dragons.

Are good aligned dragons selfish? No, they are (from their perspective at least) altruistic.

Are good aligned dragons greedy? Yes, although they probably wouldn't use that word. Good dragons do not love money for it's own sake, but for beauty. The hoard of a good dragon will have less coinage and more works of art than an evil one.


The good (and maybe neutral) dragons in my setting invented banks. People give you money to sit on. How awesome is that?

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Idea for a paladin dragonslayer? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.