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.
Mike Mearls liked my above comment.
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.nothing out of the conquest abilities or even their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.
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.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.
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.
From the Basic PDF:I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well
There is a difference between "a judicial system backed up by enforcement" and subjugation.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.
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"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.
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.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.)
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.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 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?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.
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.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'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).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.
I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral.