New UA Paladin Sacred Oaths are Oath of Conquest and the Oath of Treachery

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.

 

[Morrus]

Mike Mearls liked my above comment.

That just got weird.

 

[Lord Twig]

I think a lot of people are missing that the Poison Strike dice are not effected by a crit...

"The next time you hit a target with an attack using that weapon or ammunition, the target takes poison damage immediately after the attack. The poison damage equals 2d10 + your paladin level, or 20 + your paladin level if you had advantage on the attack roll."

The poison damage is not part of the attack. It is a separate effect that takes effect immediately after attack. Therefore, no crit.

 

[Gladius Legis]

More to the point, it's not classified as "extra damage."

 

[pemerton]

nothing out of the conquest abilities or even their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.

Well, there is the stuff about crushing, about tolerating no dissent and breaking a foe's will. This doesn't seem especially respectful of the welfare or dignity of others, and looks more like methodically taking what they want or doing whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms, which per p 34 of the Basic PDF are LE and NE respectively.

EDIT: I see [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] already gave a similar reply.

Also,

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.

D&D has always taken a somewhat anachronistic approach to past political practice - in the original DMG, for instance, Gygax defines good alignment by reference to human rights.

But here are two models for a good king: the LotR (Aragorn, Theoden) and REH's Conan (say, in The Scarlet Citadel and the Hour of the Dragon). These rulers do tolerate dissent, and don't set out to break the will of their political enemies through fear (see eg the account of Aragorn's dealings with the Easterlings and Haradrim).

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.

 

[unknowable]

Well, there is the stuff about crushing, about tolerating no dissent and breaking a foe's will. This doesn't seem especially respectful of the welfare or dignity of others, and looks more like methodically taking what they want or doing whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms, which per p 34 of the Basic PDF are LE and NE respectively.

EDIT: I see [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] already gave a similar reply.

I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral.

Good is the intent behind action and these could be the views of a pragmatist.
Also as for Chaosmancer's response. There have been lots of historic figures that have taken a pragmatic or harsh approach that have been viewed in a positive light, the difference is the framing they are given when talked about regarding their actions.

I repeat, I do not believe that conquest in any way has to represent an evil character. A hard and uncompromising character for sure, but not evil.

"It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire."
Make sure those who would do evil or upset balance won't spread their activities around and stop their actions permanently.

"Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow."
Strictly uphold the laws that are created to give no quarter to those who would destroy order and peace.

I see conquest as a pragmatic paladin's way of strictly enforcing their ideals and fear is a great way to influence events without having to resort to violence or to lessen the risks of a violent altercation/repercussion.

As per usual it boils down to roleplay, but nothing in it's tenants or abilities necessitates an evil character. Unless we are trying to make the argument that subjugation and a judicial system backed up by enforcement is somehow worse than just going around killing things... The standard problem solving method.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well

From the Basic PDF:

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.​

I don't see how crushing your enemies, breaking their will and filling them with fear really counts as helping others according to their needs; nor does it remind me much of stereotypical elves or unicorns.

Unless we are trying to make the argument that subjugation and a judicial system backed up by enforcement is somehow worse than just going around killing things.

There is a difference between "a judicial system backed up by enforcement" and subjugation.

I don't think elves are, in general, averse to killing in self-defence. (My evidence here is Tolkien plus decades of D&D lore.) But I don't think they're very much into subjugation. (Drawing on the same evidence base.)

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Alignment is not such a big deal in 5e, but I see no issue with a lawful good character and Oath of Conquest. A rigid system in place to make sure the leader is the best is not evil. Fanactic desire to destroy your enemy sounds Paladin like to me. To make the demon of Hell fear to leave and face my justice? Nothing evil in that.

It does work for Evil alignments but I would have no issue with a player in my group playing a good Paladin with that Oath.

 

[unknowable]

From the Basic PDF:

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.​

I don't see how crushing your enemies, breaking their will and filling them with fear really counts as helping others according to their needs; nor does it remind me much of stereotypical elves or unicorns.

So? you just listed two motivations, can you explain why someone cannot crush enemies and break their will be doing it because they are "doing the best they can to help others according to their needs"
or acting within their conscience and with little regard to what others expect but with concern to how their actions will play out in the long run.

There is a difference between "a judicial system backed up by enforcement" and subjugation.

I don't think elves are, in general, averse to killing in self-defence. (My evidence here is Tolkien plus decades of D&D lore.) But I don't think they're very much into subjugation. (Drawing on the same evidence base.)

Again, just because you are going out and subjugating your foes it doesn't mean you are doing it in offense, it could be entirely in defense of others or a greater peace.

Correct they aren't, elves tend to be fairly xenophobic in most circumstances. Conquerer SPECIFICALLY states that if the subjugated live within the rules/laws that are placed upon them that they will be treated fairly.

The conquerer type isn't wanton warlord behavior, it is just that it can easily be adapted to that.
Ontop of this just because a race or enemy is subjugated it does not mean they have to be dominated forever, especially if they can be brought around to a new ideology which fits in fantastically with a zealot paladin order.

A good and simple way to explain alignment.
Good, Neutral, Evil: These are your core/general motivations, the reasoning behind actions that the character may take and what drives them.
Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: These are the common manifestations of how a character will enact their core motivations.

 

[pemerton]

A good and simple way to explain alignment.
Good, Neutral, Evil: These are your core/general motivations, the reasoning behind actions that the character may take and what drives them.
Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: These are the common manifestations of how a character will enact their core motivations.

I don't find this in the 5e Basic rules alignment section. Nor in the alignment sections of the d20 SRD, or my AD&D books.

I'm not too fussed how anyone else runs alignment. But if you're wondering why many posters associate Conquest with evil, I don't think it's very mysterious.

So? you just listed two motivations, can you explain why someone cannot crush enemies and break their will be doing it because they are "doing the best they can to help others according to their needs"
or acting within their conscience and with little regard to what others expect but with concern to how their actions will play out in the long run.

I mean, maybe Demogorgon is acting within his conscience too - but another way of describing Demogorgon would be as having no conscience. Is the difference between a CG conquest paladin and Demogorgon that the latter feels bad about subjugating his/her enemies?

As for the NG Conquest paladin - I just don't see how crushing people, and breaking their will, counts as helping them according to their needs. It doesn't seem very helpful. It doesn't seem very respectful. It doesn't conform to any major moral code of the sort that Gygax referred to in describing good alignments (eg it is not human rights respecting; it is not pursuing the greatest happiness of the greatest number; it is not treating others with dignity).

It looks pretty ruthless to me, and normally good alignment is contrasted with ruthlessness.

Again, just because you are going out and subjugating your foes it doesn't mean you are doing it in offense, it could be entirely in defense of others or a greater peace.

Again, I can reiterate the examples like that of Aragorn or Conan. The good king does not subjugate his/her foes - having defeated them, the good king seeks a just peace.

By way of contrast, this looks rather ruthless.

just because a race or enemy is subjugated it does not mean they have to be dominated forever, especially if they can be brought around to a new ideology which fits in fantastically with a zealot paladin order.

Again, I'm not clear how that sort of forced conversion fits with the NG alignment (of helping others in need) or with CG alignment (of acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience, and - to use the original AD&D language - of favouring self-realisation rather than social control as the means of achieving human wellbeing).

 

[Azzy]

I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral.

Because tyranny and imperialism isn't evil, huh?