I'm disappointed about no Oath of Liberty, but I'll take a look at what they are bringing, when they get around to getting the page to work.
A good king is honourable, and deals with foes as equals (think of the famous story of Saladin providing King Richard with a horse) - a good king does not set out to crush and destroy his enemies.
Slightly off topic, but King Richard would make an almost perfect role model for a hellknight Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Isn't he credited as once telling his soldiers "We are sons of the Devil, and until him we shall return!"?
Nations/organizations allowing for dissent to exist is a pretty modern occurrence. In the past and in a lot of fiction, dissent is usually dealt with quickly and viciously. Even by 'Good' or 'Rightful' rulers. I see nothing there that declares it as evil. I do see things that walk a line. A line that the player has to deal with and roleplay. Once that could potentially cause the kind of internal conflict that fuels interesting stories, or that leads to an oath-breaker(or treachery) that is also not evil. Maybe even a tragic telling of a good person who falls due to these tenets and later has a chance to redeem themselves, and maybe the organization as well.
I hear a lot of grumpiness and disinterest, but all I see are chances for interesting, real, and compelling characters that drive the story to interesting places.
Just because it seems we can stack so many instances of damage with Poison strike, here are two more
-It isn’t a concentration spell ability, so you can cast a smite spell and add that on top (requires an extra round of prep)
-You can coat your weapon in a mundane poison as well, adding more potential dice for damage
This can get kind of ridiculous
I mostly agree with you, but I do see a lot of potential problems caused by this role-playing as well. “Your word is law and you brook no dissent” has been pointed out as ripe for bad times in the party. If the paladin feels their oath requires them to be obeyed, then they don’t do well in the structure of the typical adventuring group.
I’m not saying it is impossible, and it could very well be interesting, but there are a lot of pitfalls here that could lead to that character causing hard feelings at the table. I’m not excited about that since those crop up often enough on their own.
Continuing to read the thread… I think we may have two different approaches.
If conquest focuses on LAW, then things can be slightly different. It says brook no dissent, but if you set up an appeals court, is using the court dissent or following your Law?
If conquest focuses on MIGHT, then it becomes much harder to defend as a good-aligned option.
This is why I want a slight reworking of the language. I like the paladin who is the Iron Law, who works within a system and promotes strict adherence to that system, and destroy or converts those who seek to undermine the system.
I’m not so excited about the paladin who seeks to impose his will, his law, and brooks no dissent with his words. The paladin who sets out to be an tyrant ruling the lands with an iron will and iron fist.
Make the oath more centered around a society of laws instead of personal power, and I think we’re okay, but right now I think the blurriness of that line is what is causing a lot of the dissent.
It is the difference to me of being a Tyrant, or the arm of an Empire. Tyrant is more evil, Arm of the Empire is more neutral.
Just because it seems we can stack so many instances of damage with Poison strike, here are two more
-It isn’t a concentration spell ability, so you can cast a smite spell and add that on top (requires an extra round of prep)
-You can coat your weapon in a mundane poison as well, adding more potential dice for damage
This can get kind of ridiculous
I mostly agree with you, but I do see a lot of potential problems caused by this role-playing as well. “Your word is law and you brook no dissent” has been pointed out as ripe for bad times in the party. If the paladin feels their oath requires them to be obeyed, then they don’t do well in the structure of the typical adventuring group.
I’m not saying it is impossible, and it could very well be interesting, but there are a lot of pitfalls here that could lead to that character causing hard feelings at the table. I’m not excited about that since those crop up often enough on their own.
Continuing to read the thread… I think we may have two different approaches.
If conquest focuses on LAW, then things can be slightly different. It says brook no dissent, but if you set up an appeals court, is using the court dissent or following your Law?
If conquest focuses on MIGHT, then it becomes much harder to defend as a good-aligned option.
This is why I want a slight reworking of the language. I like the paladin who is the Iron Law, who works within a system and promotes strict adherence to that system, and destroy or converts those who seek to undermine the system.
I’m not so excited about the paladin who seeks to impose his will, his law, and brooks no dissent with his words. The paladin who sets out to be an tyrant ruling the lands with an iron will and iron fist.
Make the oath more centered around a society of laws instead of personal power, and I think we’re okay, but right now I think the blurriness of that line is what is causing a lot of the dissent.
It is the difference to me of being a Tyrant, or the arm of an Empire. Tyrant is more evil, Arm of the Empire is more neutral.
Gotta say, on a gut level these don't really sound like paladins to me. Just "very determined fighters" or "fighters who have sworn to do something."
I found these Oaths to be bad on their face.
Didn't even bother to read through the mechanics of the abilities, I disliked them that much.