Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Istbor" data-source="post: 7705386" data-attributes="member: 6801670">Well first off, it pretty much says the 'Oath' of Treachery doesn't adhere to any actual oaths, but simply wants to accumulate power and continue to exist. The other clearly does adhere to a set of oaths or frames of mind.  Whether you like them or not is a different story. There are a lot of example of order working the way the Conquest portraits itself.  The Strong rule the weak. I like these both.  I am so tired of the clean and spotless fairy tale paladin.  These are real people, who can do terrible things for what they perceive as good intentions.  I am glad there there are some more areas of grey for myself and my players to work in. I certainly don't view these as 'must be evil' sub-classes. One who no longer follows a set of ideals or broke their oaths is not an evil person, there is a lot of room for wiggle there. The same can be said for the paladin of Conquest.  I see a lot of talk on keeping the rule of law after taking new territory, but nothing that says you have to be cruel or be evil. I don't know.  I don't see the end of the Good paladin in this, I see an end to the MUST be good all the time paladin though.  I see a strict militant sect of a church, and an interesting way to play a paladin when you no longer want to follow some oaths you swore, but also don't want to raise the dead.I mean, people know that the fluff here, is first off provisional, and second off just one way to play it.  Right? I am not alone in understanding that you can take these mechanics and apply them to similar but different fluff for your use.</blockquote>

Verification