Oath of conquest tenants

[Davrix]

As far as i can tell the old post I made about this doesn't contain my final vs of what I came up with. At least the one I found when I searched for it. If for some reason I've posted this awhile back and forgotten I apologize and the mods may smite my forgetful sorry butt back to the corner where it belongs :)

Ok so awhile back i was hemming and hawing over custom conquest oaths. I did finally settle on something and well its late and I just thought I would share them as I finalize a few things over the characters new level. I'm actually pretty proud of them but I think its always good to have a critique pass by others because input is always important ;)

What follows in bold are the published tenants of the sub-class, the script below each bold section is the actual sworn oath of the character. (edit) Oh and context, paladins in the empire acted as Judge jury and executioner as needed. The Breakers were a small elite sect of paladins that specialized in breaking enemy lines of armies or entrenched foes.

Oath of The conqueror - The Breakers of Arkhosia

Douse the Flame of Hope - 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

I swear to conquer evil and corruption wherever I find it. They will break themselves against my steel and I will bring hope and Justice to the land and leave only fear and ruin upon my enemies.

Rule with an Iron fist - 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.

I swear to uphold the ancient laws of Arkhosia, bound to us for millennia by the guiding light of the golden-one. To follow them brings peace and prosperity, to disobey brings chaos and destruction.

Strength Above all - You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.

I swear to never falter or waver in the face of evil. My light is the strength that breaks armies. My strength is the will to rise up again and again to meet any challenge and leave my enemy broken before me.

[Malifice]

If my PC challenges your authority (and the laws of your Kingdom) what would you do?

Also; im insisting I be party leader (or at least there be a fair and free vote). And that we overthrow the unelected nobility, and implement a liberal government.

Being CG I refuse to follow your commands, and am planning a liberal revolution.

The oath as presented is very LE. Tyrannical through and through. You might be able to get away with it as LN or even CE or possibly NE, but I'm not seeing a 'good' aligned tyrant who is oath bound to be both tyrannical and merciless.

[Davrix]

If my PC challenges your authority (and the laws of your Kingdom) what would you do?

Also; im insisting I be party leader (or at least there be a fair and free vote). And that we overthrow the unelected nobility, and implement a liberal government.

Being CG I refuse to follow your commands, and am planning a liberal revolution.

The oath as presented is very LE. Tyrannical through and through. You might be able to get away with it as LN or even CE or possibly NE, but I'm not seeing a 'good' aligned tyrant who is oath bound to be both tyrannical and merciless.

If your not in his empire it would matter little.
You could be party leader but would ask what the nobility is doing that is corrupt and would investigate. Possible go along or simply say good luck with that and move on.
Your welcome to follow me or not but know if you bring harm to those that are innocent and merely bystanders in your quest. I will defend them

I think your missing a few things. Some you would need to understand the context of the table hes playing in but basically I don't play him lawful stupid. His empire fell thousands of years ago but he is still bound to those oaths. He respects the law of the land he is in however if lawless places he reverts to what his laws dictate to bring safely and order to the area. I honestly dont see how you get LE when the first oath is to conquer evil and bring hope and justice to the land. What parts are you taking as LE?

[JackPhoenix]

If your not in his empire it would matter little.
You could be party leader but would ask what the nobility is doing that is corrupt and would investigate. Possible go along or simply say good luck with that and move on.
Your welcome to follow me or not but know if you bring harm to those that are innocent and merely bystanders in your quest. I will defend them

I think your missing a few things. Some you would need to understand the context of the table hes playing in but basically I don't play him lawful stupid. His empire fell thousands of years ago but he is still bound to those oaths. He respects the law of the land he is in however if lawless places he reverts to what his laws dictate to bring safely and order to the area. I honestly dont see how you get LE when the first oath is to conquer evil and bring hope and justice to the land. What parts are you taking as LE?

Malifice clings to outdated view of alignment from 3e days, which has nothing to do with 5e alignment. And has to push it in any thread where alignment is even vaguely mentioned, for some reason. You can pretty much ignore him unless you play in his campaign.

The first and third tenets don't sound too bad... fight evil and never give up are great tenets for any paladin. The second one may be more problematic... is is likely that during the typical campaign, one or more PCs will break the law at some point. As it is the part of your Oath, you can't just look the other way when it happens... you have to deal with the oathbraker, and knowingly and willingly failing to do so would lead to your fall. Think about all those minor infractions people do in everyday life, because it seems harmless and nobody cares about it anyway... the paladin cares, and he's oathbound to not just let it slide.

[Regitnui]

I was coming in here for something about followers of an OoC paladin or people who live in a OoC paladin-ruled kingdom... Instead I find stuff about tenets. Ah well.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Malifice clings to outdated view of alignment from 3e days, which has nothing to do with 5e alignment. And has to push it in any thread where alignment is even vaguely mentioned, for some reason. You can pretty much ignore him unless you play in his campaign.

The first and third tenets don't sound too bad... fight evil and never give up are great tenets for any paladin. The second one may be more problematic... is is likely that during the typical campaign, one or more PCs will break the law at some point. As it is the part of your Oath, you can't just look the other way when it happens... you have to deal with the oathbraker, and knowingly and willingly failing to do so would lead to your fall. Think about all those minor infractions people do in everyday life, because it seems harmless and nobody cares about it anyway... the paladin cares, and he's oathbound to not just let it slide.

I’m not seeing what the problem with the second oath is.
He didn’t swear to enforce those laws, merely to uphold them. The difference is he can follow the laws and be good to his oath, while his party does whatever. He doesn’t have to follow his party in this things and it might be better he doesn’t in case they are caught, he’ll have good standing with the whoever is in charge simply by following the rules.

His oath is for him not his misguided friends. The only issue I’m seeing is if the party walks into a country who’s laws require ratting out any crime committed.

[Davrix]

I’m not seeing what the problem with the second oath is.
He didn’t swear to enforce those laws, merely to uphold them. The difference is he can follow the laws and be good to his oath, while his party does whatever. He doesn’t have to follow his party in this things and it might be better he doesn’t in case they are caught, he’ll have good standing with the whoever is in charge simply by following the rules.

His oath is for him not his misguided friends. The only issue I’m seeing is if the party walks into a country who’s laws require ratting out any crime committed.

Pretty much what i was going for here. As i said I don't play him lawful dumb. There was some growing pains when the character was first introduced (RP wise) But they worked out. Slavery is probably the best example I can give here. Currently he is in a city that its legal to own them. Under his laws this is a grave injustice. As much as he wishes he could fix the situation fully he cant simply just smash down doors and go YOUR FREE. Does he make his views known with stern paladin lecture? Oh hell yes he does. Same when it comes to dealing with criminals. He upholds his own laws by helping where he can. Lecturing and making his views known when he cant. I could ramble on about this but the real point is no oath is iron clad, there will always be exceptions or ways of it proving it to be inconsistent. What matters most is the intent behind the words not the words themselves

[imanidiot]

I honestly dont see how you get LE when the first oath is to conquer evil and bring hope and justice to the land. What parts are you taking as LE?

Just calling something evil doesn't necessarily make it so. Every oppressive group in history has justified their methods as necessary to fight evil. I had a CE Vengeance Paladin that considered any and all aspects of civilization to be equally as evil as liches or devils.

The character you have presented appears to have a more progressive interpretation of the tenants of the Oath of Conquest. A more fundamentalist member of the same sect could very well be the violent oppressor alluded to by Malifice.

[Davrix]

Just calling something evil doesn't necessarily make it so. Every oppressive group in history has justified their methods as necessary to fight evil. I had a CE Vengeance Paladin that considered any and all aspects of civilization to be equally as evil as liches or devils.

The character you have presented appears to have a more progressive interpretation of the tenants of the Oath of Conquest. A more fundamentalist member of the same sect could very well be the violent oppressor alluded to by Malifice.


Fair enough, which is why I chose that specific wording for it. Because yes what is evil is very subjective to ones views and definition there of. And I do like the term progressive for the oaths as that is kind of what I had in mind. I was mainly asking malifice what he thought about the oaths made the character LE based just solely on the wording as honestly I think you could only extrapolate that ruling by his actions. (which is how you should always view alignment.)