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.

 

[pemerton]

I think a lot of confusion comes from the connotations that come with a word like subjugation. They are generally negative, at least in this day and age.

The definition of such a word does not discuss anything particularly evil. To bring one to submission or under one's governance (usually through conquest) it in my opinion totally neutral.

For subjugate, I get this - from the Random House dictionary:

1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.​

To subject others to one's will doesn't seem to be respecting their life or dignity or rights (which are standard formulations of "good" since AD&D was first published). At best it is valuing order over those things - which is one traditional understanding of LN. At worst, it is treating the subjugated peoples merely as a means to one's own ends - which is one traditional understanding of "evil" alignment. (See eg Gygax in in his DMG; or the d20 SRD, which says ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.")

We could discuss how a 'good' nation would have stopped once it was clear it had the upper hand in a war, and seek immediate peace.

<snip>

not every foe is going to agree to play nice. In a world of stark good and evil, one could argue that evil must be opposed and expunged. If mercy or reasoning does not work, then you can turn to the strong will of a Paladin of Conquest.

<snip>

I tend to run a far more grayer world morality wise.

This goest to the question of what alignment is for.

Some D&D players seem to treat it as a universal scheme for classifying moral outlooks (hence we get "What alignment is Batman?", "What alignment is Darth Vader?", etc). I think this is obviously hopeless - apart from anything else, all the major divisions of philosophical opinion (Kantian and other rights theories vs Aristotelean-type theories vs impersonal consequentialist-type theories) are bundled up by Gygax into the single category of "good".

As I see it, the logic of alignment is to impose a certain moral frame onto the gameworld. If, for whatever reason, one isn't interested in that framework, then alignment is redundant.

When it comes to making sense of traditional paladins, and the good alignment more generally, I tend to turn to JRRT and similar anti-modernist fantasy themes. A key element of these ideas is that a good person has hope. Whereas the idea that evil has to be expunged seems (by these lights) the counsel of despair, and hence at odds with goodness.

In the real world, that sort of providential hope might be pollyanna-ish (see eg Walzer on "dirty hands", or Weber's "Politics as a Vocation"). But if the gameworld is going to ressemble the real world in this way, then alignment doesn't seem to be of much use except as a rough-and-ready behavioural tempalte for monsters.

 

[pemerton]

Even Richard knew there was no point in taking Jerusalem if they couldn't hold it. So yeah I guess if he couldn't subjugate his enemy, or at least the populace of the City he was trying to conquer, than he saw no point in fighting the battle.

I'm not sure that holding a city (or province, or . . . ) is the same as subjugating it.

"Subjugate" ins't just a synonym for "rule".

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I am sharply reminded of the essentials blackguard, both of these seem to be paladin oaths that correspond to the vices of that blackguard. Conquest feels like "domination" in it's nature, Treachery sounds like the vice of betrayal- while I would like more good oriented oaths as well, I would love to have virtues and vices as paladin oaths like this.

 

[pemerton]

I am sharply reminded of the essentials blackguard, both of these seem to be paladin oaths that correspond to the vices of that blackguard.

In flavour, yes, but I don't think there is a lot of mechanical overlap. (Or, if there is, I missed it.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

In flavour, yes, but I don't think there is a lot of mechanical overlap. (Or, if there is, I missed it.)

Yeah, i meant structurally, in that eventually you might be able to clearly delineate a set of "Paladin" oaths and "Blackguard" Oaths, which might be the goal of this design- in essentials 4e, they were at least nominally equal subclasses under the full paladin moniker.

Personally? I like the idea, reflavoring could make the mechanics useful for any paladin style you want, and it expands the range of flavors we could use in expressing different mechanics. I also kind of dislike the "evil class options" ghetto, i feel that the good vs. evil player dynamic should play out in session zero, not when the rules are being written.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm not sure that holding a city (or province, or . . . ) is the same as subjugating it.

"Subjugate" ins't just a synonym for "rule".

True, but I think holding Jerusalem amidst a hostile insurgency (and given what happened at Acre I would very much think they would have been hostile) would have taken subjugation. I just don't think there is such a thing as a nice conqueror.

 

[SkidAce]

Welcome to a brave new world. Or should that be the new world order?


. . . or . . .

View attachment 79350He’s noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it —View attachment 79350

View attachment 79350He’s a New World paladinView attachment 79350

I kinda felt a Rush after that quote....

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, we've had a lot of discussion about the flavor, about what is good and evil, but what are we thinking abut the mechanics.

The conquest fear channel divinity is cool, but their aura only giving disadvantage to fear checks seems to weak, as does their high level immunity to charm.

I think the aura can be improved by giving allies advantage on fear saves (Darth Vader effect) but what should we do about the level 15 ability?


Treachery is facing some opposite problems, they are almost too powerful. Their channel divinity strike offers some huge nova potential on one of the best nova classes in the game, their aura gives them advantage when their enemies are near each other and allows them to redirect 3 attacks a day to hit some one else.

Are these abilities too powerful, or is the fact we are dealing with poison damage and limited times per day enough of a balance?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

So, we've had a lot of discussion about the flavor, about what is good and evil, but what are we thinking abut the mechanics.

The conquest fear channel divinity is cool, but their aura only giving disadvantage to fear checks seems to weak, as does their high level immunity to charm.

I think the aura can be improved by giving allies advantage on fear saves (Darth Vader effect) but what should we do about the level 15 ability?


I like that. My allies fear me more than anything else. Evil laugh.

As a DM I would be clear that you can't redirect an attack back at the critter who made the attack, and that means during the big boss solo fight, that power will probably hurt the party more than help: Don't hurt me, hurt him (points to the party's fighter), followed by the rest of the party never getting close the paladin again....not to mention the evoker wizard "forgetting" to cause the fireball to miss the paladin.....two or three times. Good power for an evil character (makes a note to add levels of treachery paladin to big bads).

Still undecided about poison strike.

I will say that treachery paladin makes a really good horde breaker if you are willing to wade into the horde.

 

[Regulas]

For Oath of Treachery I kind of feel like the Oath was just overly vaguely worded. Given Blackguard I imagine the intent was "You're so extremely treacherous you don't have tenets because you inevitably betray them" rather then just "make-up your own oath" attitude a lot seem to read no tenets to mean...