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?

 

[Bitbrain]

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!"?

 

[Istbor]

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.

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. We don't all see everything the same way. As well, 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.

People can stick to suggestions in books if they like. I tend to run a far more grayer world morality wise. There can still be objectively good and evil things, but the vast majority of creatures are simply trying to live as best they can.

I guess they should refrain from even mentioning Hell Knights and wait to place them in a side-bar once or if the path comes to print. I will make sure to note this in the survey.

 

[jayoungr]

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."

 

[BookBarbarian]

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!"?

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. That seems to fit to me.

As an aside I would argue that Richard was not "Good" by the D&D definition, but I think that's likely true of any historic king.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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.

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.

 

[Istbor]

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.

Right, I think, if the flavor text used isn't in fact provisional but what they intend to use in the finished product, then problems could be had.

Regardless I think that unless a very clear idea of a campaign is used, a session zero to help set party dynamic is needed. I honestly have fallen in love with the session zero talks now, as I makes my job so much easier as a DM and it curtails a lot of conflict that could happen down the road is some of the more... unique parties.

An example I suppose for my campaign mention would be like... if your players were all coming from the same Government or Order of knights or something. They would have a reason to stick with one another and not really oppose one another as much as a random rogue partying with this Conquest guy he met at a tavern. I think this path at least would work well if the whole party is at work against a common and clear goal.

Treachery is a harder one to figure out, party dynamic wise, but not impossible. I would ultimately make mine off this concept of the oaths or order you belonged to left you feeling broken or betrayed and that is now why you are seeking your own power. And would be a good reason for being custom to running away, if say a Knightly order was after you.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

When the conquest paladin's player starts hinting that it would be appropriate for a persuasion check (or worse yet an intimidation check) against the other PC's if they disagree with his/her paladin (and reminding everyone about the paladin's nice charisma score), you know it will be a long, unpleasant session......

About the arm of the empire bit, that seems like the oath of the crown's gig. Not that they couldn't start doing that (say with an oath of justice paladin who more concerned about bring his/her prey than the death-dealing vengeance paladin), but there aren't so many paladin subclasses (yet) that it would be necessary to fill in that level of detail.

I think I am coming around to Jester David's POV on these subclasses--they are testing the waters to see if we want more creepy/evil PC options (bard and paladin), more magic barbarians (and more magic but spell-less PC options in general), fighter classes with built in fluff, etc. As such, I think these are evil by intent and that intent is to see if a bunch of people go "cool" or "how could you?" in the survey. [And for the record, my answers are: yes, evil is okay, but putting it in the DM section is best (forbidden fruit); magic barbarians are good; I appreciate keeping the number of magic systems low in 5e and I am sure at some point I will think there are too many magical class/subclass features for noncasters, but that is a long way in the future and may not happen; and I think the convenience of fluffed fighters for new/casual/busy players outweighs the problems, but I would also be open to sidebars: here is the most convenient way to make a samurai with a battlemaster, etc. not listing out every step, but some of the big steps, like the quick start instructions in the PHB.]

 

[phantomK9]

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.

 

[Satyrn]

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."

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

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

This always bugs me. Even the worst stuff can have one or two ideas worth saving. I just don't get declaring something so bad you won't even look at it.

Bad enough to ban, totally, but... I like knowing what each design idea was, in case I want to steal something from it for another project