Oath of Conquest-- Can and how do you fluff a Good Character taking this Oath.

[Talionis]

Are there any pitfalls to a Good charactet taking this Oath?

[Ganymede]

The "being really lawful" shtick definitely does not preclude someone from being good.

You can look to pretty much any lawful neutral god to get inspiration for such a character. A paladin following Erathis might be a pioneer leader seeking to found a city. A paladin of Saint Cuthbert might act as a judge, mediator, or sheriff. A paladin of Wee Jas might be concerned with those who break the laws of life and death.

Edit: Heck, you could even make a Battle Barrister. He or she would be a well armed lawyer and advocate that specializes in resolving legal disputes via trial by combat. That would be hilarious.

[CTurbo]

I could see a drill sergeant type character potentially filling a similar role. I don't think you HAVE to be evil to be a Conquest.

My boss is a good guy deep down but tries to run his business"rule" in a similar method to how a Conquest would behave in the real world. Using fear tactics, attempted intimidation, shows of power, etc...

[Unoriginal]

Think Batman.

[Talionis]

Think Batman.

This is a very interesting idea if we go Batman incorporated Batman.

[Mongrel]

Are there any pitfalls to a Good character taking this Oath?

Honestly, I think the answer to this question really boils down to "it depends on your DM." There are those who might take each tenant of that oath to be evil in its own right. There are also those who don't even use the alignment system, particularly in 5e where it's been almost entirely removed from the rules. So I mean, by RAW no there's absolutely no issue with it. I'd expect with 90% of DMs there wouldn't be either, but talk to yours to see if they're in the 10% that would object.

[Tanarii]

Are there any pitfalls to a Good charactet taking this Oath?
Yes. At some point your typical & overall behavior will probably look more like Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. Or you will violate oath tenets.

"Do the right thing as expected by society" doesn't really play friendly with Douse the Flame of Hope, Rule with an Iron Fist, and Strength Above All.

Unless you intentionally twist or misread the obvious intent of either the alignment typical behavior or tenets. Sadly common on these forums in the case of the Lawful Good behavior. They probably assumed/counted on people being reasonable and understanding the obvious underlying intent, not trying to be word parsing rules lawyers with alignment. As a rules parsing rules lawyer by nature, I find that fairly hilarious anyone would make such an assumption. :smallamused:

[Ganymede]

"Do the right thing as expected by society" doesn't really play friendly with Douse the Flame of Hope, Rule with an Iron Fist, and Strength Above All.

I don't think the description for lawful good and the tenets of the Oath of Conquest are necessarily irreconcilable. The crushing victory involved in Douse the Flame of Hope might involve dragging defeated foes to the local constabulary, or it could involve swaying the subjects of an evil overlord to overthrow his agents and topple his monuments; it doesn't have to result in a "salting of Carthage" scenario. Rule with an Iron Fist is wholly dependent on whether you are just or cruel. A society might be just and fair while still punishing ne'er-do-wells with lashings and other stiff sentences. Strength Above All just harkens to the idea that those who are lawful must be prepared to obey if they are not the ones to command; it seems like basic chain-of-command or rule-by-merit stuff.

[Talionis]

I am the DM in this case and I am trying to decide if I should allow it.

The player is pitching a character that is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. I want the tenants to mean something and believe the Oaths should be issues for characters during campaigns, but I also want to give people the opportunity to play what they want.

The goal of the character is to establish his own town and rule and protect it allowing it to be relatively free. He is suggesting Malkovich in Crossbones television series or Doom 2099. Well meaning autocrat who gives the illusion of a society that is democratic and very free, but has the best intentions of his people at his heart.

So maybe he's not even talking about a totally Good character, but the character sees himself as good and altruistic.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Are there any pitfalls to a Good charactet taking this Oath?

Nope.


Good luck!


just remember that nothing is really binary here. There are varying degrees of everything.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I am the DM in this case and I am trying to decide if I should allow it.

The player is pitching a character that is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. I want the tenants to mean something and believe the Oaths should be issues for characters during campaigns, but I also want to give people the opportunity to play what they want.

The goal of the character is to establish his own town and rule and protect it allowing it to be relatively free. He is suggesting Malkovich in Crossbones television series or Doom 2099. Well meaning autocrat who gives the illusion of a society that is democratic and very free, but has the best intentions of his people at his heart.

So maybe he's not even talking about a totally Good character, but the character sees himself as good and altruistic.

Autocratic doesn't mean it can't be good.


I will also say that if you are looking so closely at those tenets you should also look closely at all other characters. Paladin's get too much RP Police attention, and in 5e it hardly matters.

[DeTess]

It might be a good idea to ask your player to write down the meaning of each of the three tenets as his character interprets them. that way, you're both on the same page, and you can keep him to his own interpretation. But I agree that there's nothing stopping a good oath of conquest paladin from existing (provided he isn't in a court intrigue campaign).

[JoeJ]

Definitely not neutral good or chaotic good. An oath of conquest paladin is a strong force for law:


"It isn't enough for these paladins to establish order. They must crush the forces of chaos."

"Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law."

"Some of these paladins go so far as to consort with the powers of the Nine Hells, valuing the word of law over the balm of mercy."


On the good-evil axis, the Strength Above All tenet, in particular, is a problem for good characters.



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

That's a bully's ethos: I'm in charge because I'm stronger that you are. If it were coupled in the PC's mind with an absolute duty to use that superior strength for the benefit of others rather than self it might still work for a lawful good character, but even so the total effect would be clearly tending toward the lawful neutral side of lawful good.

[Ganymede]

On the good-evil axis, the Strength Above All tenet, in particular, is a problem for good characters.

Why quote the text on Hell Knights without also quoting the following text describing how conflicts between Hell Knights and other Conquest Paladins can be especially noteworthy?

Without that text, someone might read your post and assume that consorting with the Nine Hells is the natural path of this oath.

[JoeJ]

Why quote the text on Hell Knights without also quoting the following text describing how conflicts between Hell Knights and other Conquest Paladins can be especially noteworthy?

Without that text, someone might read your post and assume that consorting with the Nine Hells is the natural path of this oath.

It wasn't necessary. The part I quoted said that only some paladins of this oath consort with the Hells. And the fact that others think that's going too far into darkness doesn't change my point about the emphasis on law.

The second part of my post made it clear that the range of lawfulness encompassed by this oath can include some lawful good characters.

[Seclora]

You can absolutely take this oath as a good character, with all the best intentions and interpretations.

Douse the Flame of Hope
You are going to break the spirit of the villainous nations/races/organization so that not only have you won on the battlefield, but also ensured that the threat would not arise again for, at best, a very long time.

Rule with an Iron Fist
Your word is law, and if that law is truly good, than surely it will also be the best thing for people? Evil is pernicious, and those dissenters are most likely higher evils trying to sway you from the true path of Law and Good. Tolerating them would only open those under your protection to the influence of evil.

Strength Above All
The Powers That Be are masters of fate, and if they no longer wish for you to lead, then they will send someone stronger in Body, Mind, and Character. No other could possibly defeat you.


Honestly, I find myself picturing Colonel Kurtz, in any of his incarnations. Your intention may be good, to defend your people or your men, or defeat some great evil. But if you refuse to accept correction, if your focus on crushing your enemy's spirit beyond the battlefield, or give in to the arrogance that sole authority breeds then you will most surely fall in alignment, though not in oath.
But, if you accept a liege, a being of pure good or a ruler with the discretion to keep a close eye on you, then you have someone 'stronger' to correct you, through orders rather than 'dissent'. And by that path, you can maintain your alignment far longer.

[Unoriginal]

Defeating someone so they turn away from evil can fit the Douse the Flame of Hope tenet.

Hoping to be a great villain is still hoping.

Now I'm imagining Glasstaff going back to magic school after being defeated by a Conquest Paladin.

[Ganymede]

It wasn't necessary. The part I quoted said that only some paladins of this oath consort with the Hells. And the fact that others think that's going too far into darkness doesn't change my point about the emphasis on lawfulness

I was referring to the second portion of your post, where you were talking about the good versus evil axis. It seemed like you were using the mention of Hell Knights to imply an incompatibility with good.

If that isn't why the mention is there, I am curious as to why you brought up the Hell Knights to begin with.

[Tanarii]

I am the DM in this case and I am trying to decide if I should allow it.
Well thats a bit different.

It boils down to, what do you as a DM think allignment is for: the player to roleplay (make decisions about) the character, or you to measure their behavior.

If its the former, you can probably not worry about the Alignment. Focus on the tenets. Those can be violated. Discuss with the player exactly how they interpret the tenets and make sure you agree. That's fairly important for any non-standard interpretation of paladin tenets. They're there to make a very strong archetype.

If its the latter, do the same thing, but also include a discussion about the 5e LG alignment typical behavior and how it fits. And how alignment can or will change, if it needs to.

[JoeJ]

If that isn't why the mention is there, I am curious as to why you brought up the Hell Knights to begin with.

Because it was relevant to them being champions of law. That's how far some (not all) oath of conquest paladins will go in opposing chaos.

And, as the second part pointed out, there is a basic incompatibility with good. It's just not complete enough to necessarily rule good out in every case.

[Ganymede]

Because it was relevant to them being champions of law. That's how far some (not all) oath of conquest paladins will go in opposing chaos.

And, as the second part pointed out, there is a basic incompatibility with good. It's just not complete enough to necessarily rule good out in every case.

If the Hell Knight mention wasn't for the good evil axis, then you don't have anything to actually support the notion of a basic incompatibility with good.

What is your argument?

[Unoriginal]

Hell Knights are incompatible with good. Not all Conquest Paladins are Hell Knights, though.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I would do it this way.

First refluff a little while keeping the spirit of the tenement.

Douse the Flame of Hope "For evil must never believe it can triumph over good." An Oath of Conquest Paladin is the second to last Paladin to leave for battle.

First the Redeemers, for they are at the front lines of civilization, our brave brothers falling first because they are the example of a better way and this evil cannot stand. Next our brethren of Devotion. Devoted to peace and life, they stride off to defend the weak as is their job. First respondents they are, against evil's might. Should they fail, it falls to us, the Warriors of light, to stride off and make war upon this abomination. Our victory must be swift, decisive and overwhelming. We must set the example and prove our protection is worthy of those who fall under our shade against evil's fire. Victory or death, because there are innocent people behind us whose faith relies upon our ability to protect them. Should we fall, and evil overruns the land, then lastly the Avengers will come and salt the Earth.

Rule with an Iron Fist "But with a merciful grasp":

Punishment and consequences exist, because that creates a responsible citizen. But Justice and Mercy create a better society. Rule with fairness and clarity, so people may grow as individuals and better themselves, but never with laziness and whimsy. Be deliberate and fair with punishment, to not stifle the change and growth of the individual and the society as a whole.

Strength Above All "For never be afraid of progress and better ideas":

"Shy away not from debate and intellectual curiosity. Tempered with wisdom and love. Should an idea arise, or a better person then you vies for your position, be not afraid to step down and allow those better then you to lead. Until you are more fit for the job and duty, then engage in honest and open debate about the merits of your abilities, so that a true egalitarian meritocracy forms to prevent stagnation and death."


The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral is the idea of mercy and justice. Lawful neutral sets laws and obeys the letter of the law and encourages fairness to a fault. But it can get lost in cruelty and equity. Where the laws can be unfair or not take into consideration circumstances and starting points.

Lawful Good is the application of mercy and discernment to laws. Where it can take into account that the laws are imperfect and require judgement to properly apply them. It's not perfect because it's run by individuals, but it can create a more just and fair society.

[Mongrel]

I would do it this way.

First refluff a little while keeping the spirit of the tenement.

Douse the Flame of Hope "For evil must never believe it can triumph over good." An Oath of Conquest Paladin is the second to last Paladin to leave for battle.

First the Redeemers, for they are at the front lines of civilization, our brave brothers falling first because they are the example of a better way and this evil cannot stand. Next our brethren of Devotion. Devoted to peace and life, they stride off to defend the weak as is their job. First respondents they are, against evil's might. Should they fail, it falls to us, the Warriors of light, to stride off and make war upon this abomination. Our victory must be swift, decisive and overwhelming. We must set the example and prove our protection is worthy of those who fall under our shade against evil's fire. Victory or death, because there are innocent people behind us whose faith relies upon our ability to protect them. Should we fall, and evil overruns the land, then lastly the Avengers will come and salt the Earth.

Rule with an Iron Fist "But with a merciful grasp":

Punishment and consequences exist, because that creates a responsible citizen. But Justice and Mercy create a better society. Rule with fairness and clarity, so people may grow as individuals and better themselves, but never with laziness and whimsy. Be deliberate and fair with punishment, to not stifle the change and growth of the individual and the society as a whole.

Strength Above All "For never be afraid of progress and better ideas":

"Shy away not from debate and intellectual curiosity. Tempered with wisdom and love. Should an idea arise, or a better person then you vies for your position, be not afraid to step down and allow those better then you to lead. Until you are more fit for the job and duty, then engage in honest and open debate about the merits of your abilities, so that a true egalitarian meritocracy forms to prevent stagnation and death."


The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral is the idea of mercy and justice. Lawful neutral sets laws and obeys the letter of the law and encourages fairness to a fault. But it can get lost in cruelty and equity. Where the laws can be unfair or not take into consideration circumstances and starting points.

Lawful Good is the application of mercy and discernment to laws. Where it can take into account that the laws are imperfect and require judgement to properly apply them. It's not perfect because it's run by individuals, but it can create a more just and fair society.

This is a surprisingly appropriate "good" interpretation.

[Rolero]

Frankly, all this chatter is just trying to justify playing a good character with a class that was never designed to be played that way.

You can read it whoever you like, but the tenets of the Oath of Conquest are clearly intended for a Lawful Evil character, the classic black knight vibe. This is the perfect class for a tyrant, so trying to play the hero with it just don't work.

You could try to go for a Lawful Neutral character, obeying the law with no morals involved. But I think it would make the character a bit dull.

In any case, it is still your game. If you want to allow it and everyone else is cool with it in your table, go for it.

[Joe the Rat]

I was having trouble reconciling Conquest and Chaotic Good... but I can see where this works on a razor's edge. The character has a very strong opinion about the right way to be, and the importance of individual freedoms in pursuing the greater good. And he is going to make damn sure that is the options his group has, and will destroy anyone or anything that threatens those under his rule, or threatens his rule. This is about as close to "Benevolent Dictator" (Autarch is probably the closest system label) as you can get.

And now this character is walking the razor. He must maintain his approach to giving the world freedom, without either going soft on his enemies or curtailing the liberties his people enjoy. Will his ideals (alignment) hold while keeping his Oath? Which will break? Will we be visited by the "Bad Future PC" who (along with an eyepatch) has gone full Dictator?

Personally I like the Lawful Evil Devotion Paladin - sworn to do good, but he's not very good at it. But I tend to go for comedy.

[JoeJ]

If the Hell Knight mention wasn't for the good evil axis, then you don't have anything to actually support the notion of a basic incompatibility with good.

What is your argument?

I already explained in my earlier post that the Strength Above All tenet, in particular, is a problem for good characters.


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

That's the ethos of a bully: I'm in charge because I'm stronger than you are. It doesn't absolutely exclude all good aligned characters because it might conceivable be coupled in a PC's mind with a duty to only use their superior strength for the benefit of others rather than themselves, and because alignments represent ranges and not points. In general, though, this is not an oath for characters who are good.

[Millstone85]

Hell Knights are incompatible with good. Not all Conquest Paladins are Hell Knights, though.Even those who are not hell knights are sometimes called knight tyrants or iron mongers. Maybe there are some who do not deserve any of those sinister names, but it is doubtful.


I already explained in my earlier post that the Strength Above All tenet, in particular, is a problem for good characters.I find it to be a problem even for lawful evil characters. "Grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin"? How about recognizing your better and bending the knee?

[DeTess]

I find it to be a problem even for lawful evil characters. "Grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin"? How about recognizing your better and bending the knee?

That particular tenet is just bad, as it also doesn't really work in most party dynamics (or with many campaigns). My DM allowed me to slightly rewrite it to that my Paladin will strive to always be the strongest, but that he has no problems accepting someones leadership or guidance if they are better than he is, but with the added implication that he'll strive to one day surpass these people as well.

[Millstone85]

That particular tenet is just bad, as it also doesn't really work in most party dynamics (or with many campaigns). My DM allowed me to slightly rewrite it to that my Paladin will strive to always be the strongest, but that he has no problems accepting someones leadership or guidance if they are better than he is, but with the added implication that he'll strive to one day surpass these people as well.Great rewrite!

This is a problem that extends to the portrayal of devils. Demon lords bully lesser demons into serving them, expecting no true loyalty. Whereas archdevils... do basically the same with lesser devils, except there is one archdevil who does it better than everyone else. You never get the sense that the Nine Hells idolize Asmodeus and that it would be a great honor to even be recognized as a serious challenger to the throne. And yes, obviously, this is my personal interpretation of what an LE plane should be like.

[Talionis]

Frankly, all this chatter is just trying to justify playing a good character with a class that was never designed to be played that way.

You can read it whoever you like, but the tenets of the Oath of Conquest are clearly intended for a Lawful Evil character, the classic black knight vibe. This is the perfect class for a tyrant, so trying to play the hero with it just don't work.

You could try to go for a Lawful Neutral character, obeying the law with no morals involved. But I think it would make the character a bit dull.

In any case, it is still your game. If you want to allow it and everyone else is cool with it in your table, go for it.

This is definitely what I was worried about. The intent seems to me to be a Lawful Evil Oath.

Now we don't run Evil campaigns, so my characters really won't have an opportunity to play the Oath otherwise.

I haven't seen any major concerns, I'll spend some time with the player to work out what the tenants mean to his character so that I can hold him to the Oath. But I think I am goin gto allow it.

[Ganymede]

That's the ethos of a bully: I'm in charge because I'm stronger than you are. It doesn't absolutely exclude all good aligned characters because it might conceivable be coupled in a PC's mind with a duty to only use their superior strength for the benefit of others rather than themselves, and because alignments represent ranges and not points. In general, though, this is not an oath for characters who are good.

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation of the oath, but you are acting like it is the only interpretation. You conclude this is incompatible with good based on your interpretation being the only one, and that's where your mistake comes from.

Another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that this is a reference to "rule by merit," which seems more like a lawful tenet. And as we know based on the existence of LG, lawfulness is not incompatible with goodness.

TL:DR - Your position is based on an overly restrictive interpretation of the oath's tenets.

[Thrudd]

I would do it this way.

First refluff a little while keeping the spirit of the tenement.

Douse the Flame of Hope "For evil must never believe it can triumph over good." An Oath of Conquest Paladin is the second to last Paladin to leave for battle.

First the Redeemers, for they are at the front lines of civilization, our brave brothers falling first because they are the example of a better way and this evil cannot stand. Next our brethren of Devotion. Devoted to peace and life, they stride off to defend the weak as is their job. First respondents they are, against evil's might. Should they fail, it falls to us, the Warriors of light, to stride off and make war upon this abomination. Our victory must be swift, decisive and overwhelming. We must set the example and prove our protection is worthy of those who fall under our shade against evil's fire. Victory or death, because there are innocent people behind us whose faith relies upon our ability to protect them. Should we fall, and evil overruns the land, then lastly the Avengers will come and salt the Earth.

Rule with an Iron Fist "But with a merciful grasp":

Punishment and consequences exist, because that creates a responsible citizen. But Justice and Mercy create a better society. Rule with fairness and clarity, so people may grow as individuals and better themselves, but never with laziness and whimsy. Be deliberate and fair with punishment, to not stifle the change and growth of the individual and the society as a whole.

Strength Above All "For never be afraid of progress and better ideas":

"Shy away not from debate and intellectual curiosity. Tempered with wisdom and love. Should an idea arise, or a better person then you vies for your position, be not afraid to step down and allow those better then you to lead. Until you are more fit for the job and duty, then engage in honest and open debate about the merits of your abilities, so that a true egalitarian meritocracy forms to prevent stagnation and death."


The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral is the idea of mercy and justice. Lawful neutral sets laws and obeys the letter of the law and encourages fairness to a fault. But it can get lost in cruelty and equity. Where the laws can be unfair or not take into consideration circumstances and starting points.

Lawful Good is the application of mercy and discernment to laws. Where it can take into account that the laws are imperfect and require judgement to properly apply them. It's not perfect because it's run by individuals, but it can create a more just and fair society.

Eh, I think those addendums are all incompatible with the obvious spirit and meaning of those tenets. Your suggestions are creating a whole new oath, it is not a valid interpretation of conquest.

"Douse the flame of hope" is practically antithetical to what Good is all about. Creating an addendum that the "hope" you are crushing only applies to the hopes of evil people hoping to do evil is disingenuous and I think clearly against the spirit of the oath, especially in the context of the following tenets.

"Rule with an Iron Fist" can't also be "merciful". The reason "iron" is used as a descriptor is because it is unyielding, cold, without feeling. It is by definition without mercy, and is intentionally "stifling". It is to end all opposition without care for what the ruled think or feel - just like iron has no emotion or care for what it cuts or crushes. It clearly is not about creating good citizens - it is about making sure the ruled know their place and never doubt that you can crush them. "Rule with an Iron Fist" is the opposite of "rule with mercy and justice".

"Strength above all" does not have anything to do with progress or ideas. That makes no sense as an extension of the tenet, it would be a whole different tenet. This has nothing to do with intellectual curiosity, it makes no sense to tack that on here. There is also no room for "wisdom and love" in that tenet - "above all" means strength above all, including wisdom and love. It is not strength tempered by something else, not by intellect, not by compassion, not by a sense of justice. It means no tolerance of weakness of any sort, including and especially the emotional or mental sort that might lead you not to pursue your other tenets like "dousing the flame of hope" and "ruling with an iron fist". Strength above what might be thought of as "good". You don't convince people with words, or with logic, you convince them with force. Period. That is "strength above all else." Trying to interpret "strength" here as intellectual strength or the strength of compassion is disingenuous and contrary to the obvious meaning of this tenet and the oath.

I don't think there is any way to resolve this oath with a good alignment. It is clearly meant for someone that is evil, neutral at absolute best. That someone following this thinks they are doing what is right does not mean they are a good alignment. It means they think this type of evil is the right thing to do and/or the best thing for the world. You can't follow these tenets and be good, any way you look at it.

[Miz_Liz]

I'm currently playing with someone rocking a NG conquest pally. He plays him like a bit of a jerk but ultimately well meaning, with an unquenchable thirst to be the strongest.

If anyone has ever watched the animated series Phineas and Ferb, this guy is basically playing Buford the bully. It's great.

[GlenSmash!]

I am the DM in this case and I am trying to decide if I should allow it.

Then go for it! And put the character in situations where it's hard to stay true to the Tenets while still being good.


So maybe he's not even talking about a totally Good character, but the character sees himself as good and altruistic.

Sadly a great number of evil people see themselves as good.

[Thrudd]

I'm currently playing with someone rocking a NG conquest pally. He plays him like a bit of a jerk but ultimately well meaning, with an unquenchable thirst to be the strongest.

If anyone has ever watched the animated series Phineas and Ferb, this guy is basically playing Buford the bully. It's great.

Really? I would think following these tenets would make you more than "a bit of a jerk". It is practically the manifesto of lawful evil. An unquenchable thirst to be strongest is only one part of it. What about "ruling with an iron fist" and "crushing hopes"? Can you be a paladin if you can only fulfill 1/3 of the tenets of your oath?

I think a DM that allows this is playing fast and loose with the spirit of the oath and the definition of the alignments. It seems designed for the leader of a faction of bad guys or an oppressive government- the BBEG or his lieutenants - not an adventurer (unless the adventurer is attempting to conquer a kingdom). It is hard to imagine someone working in a group that doesn't share these goals, since his oath is literally about conquest - he would be trying to conquer something himself, or in a position of having already conquered something and now ruling it, or working for someone who is a conqueror and doing their bidding by crushing people's hope's and enforcing the ruler's merciless iron will. Otherwise the tenets of the oath are meaningless.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If a player came to me and wanted to do it I'd agree but with a warning that they would face frequent temptation from Hiraxis the God of Tyranny(god in my campaign setting) to bring them fully into lawful evil.
That it would not be obvious, and that I would not even tell them when they crossed the line into lawful evil.
But rather then trying to be a good character with this oath, be evil but do good things. The enemy of prosperity isn't evil its chaos, the world is filled with monsters, suffering, destruction and death be devout in the belief that only the iron hand of tyranny can bring safety and security to a chaotic world. Good is to weak to accomplish the mission they will throw themselves without fear or hesitation into the fire and leave the people helpless when they fall. And without strong leadership the common folk will turn rabid and prey upon one another.

Don't try and be a 'good' tyrant. Argue that tyranny is necessary to protect the people from themselves and the countless threats they face in the word.

[MeeposFire]

You can be a good character but if you wanted to actually feel like you are living that alignment ideal you would have to be very careful because while the tenants do not mandate doing evil it could be easy to make some bad choices especially if you are not careful in how you decide to implement your vows. You would need to be sure that your commands are always reasonable and that your methods to enforce compliance are fair, reasonable but firm. It is really easy to screw up but possible.

[Tanarii]

This is definitely what I was worried about. The intent seems to me to be a Lawful Evil Oath.Thats because the tenets are ones that closely line up with lawful evilness.

Just as Devotion tenets line up with lawful goodness, ancients with goodness, and vengeance with not-goodness and somewhat lawfulness.

They didn't just come right out and say it with XtgE like they did in the PHB.

But being a general alignment that doesn't quite match your tenets is definitely possible. The thing is you're not going to violate the tenets. But the tenets aren't the same as the entirety of a creatures social and moral beliefs, and the behaviors associated with it, ie Alignment. They are just four specific oaths.

So an alignment near to the ideals behind the tenets might hack it without violating their tenets or consistently acting differently from their alignment behaviors. But one diametrically opposite, like a CG Conquest Paladin, is either going to violate their tenets or (either effectively or actually, depending on how your table uses alignment) change their alignment eventually.

Edit: or else you can just change the meaning and purpose of the tenets of conquest. If your primary goal is to allow the mechanics to see play at your table.

[JoeJ]

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation of the oath, but you are acting like it is the only interpretation. You conclude this is incompatible with good based on your interpretation being the only one, and that's where your mistake comes from.

Another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that this is a reference to "rule by merit," which seems more like a lawful tenet. And as we know based on the existence of LG, lawfulness is not incompatible with goodness.

TL:DR - Your position is based on an overly restrictive interpretation of the oath's tenets.

It's not an overly restrictive reading, it's just the simplest and most straightforward reading. It doesn't say that you rule because of your skill in managing the economy or in foreign relations, or because of your enlightened social programs, or because you are the most compassionate, the wisest, the most intelligent, or the best educated in subjects relevant to governance. The only "merit" is strength.

[Ganymede]

The only "merit" is strength.

You mean strength as in STR?

I really don't think this oath is referring to rising up the ranks of your paladin order with bench press competitions.

I think they mean "strength" as in "the most capable of ruling/leading," like "Prince Dvorak is a strong contender for the throne."

[Tanarii]

You mean strength as in STR?

I really don't think this oath is referring to rising up the ranks of your paladin order with bench press competitions.

I think they mean "strength" as in "the most capable of ruling/leading," like "Prince Dvorak is a strong contender for the throne."
It pretty clearly means strength as in "power". The power to stay in charge.

[Ganymede]

It pretty clearly means strength as in "power". The power to stay in charge.

Yeah, I feel you on that point, like when Alexander of Macedonia left his empire "to the strongest."

[Millstone85]

If a player came to me and wanted to do it I'd agree but with a warning that they would face frequent temptation from Hiraxis the God of Tyranny(god in my campaign setting) to bring them fully into lawful evil.Speaking of LE gods of tyranny, I think these tenets were written in the same mindset as Bane's ethos in SCAG.
Bane has a simple ethos: the strong have not just the right but the duty to rule over the weak. A tyrant who is able to seize power must do so, for not only does the tyrant benefit, but so do those under the tyrant's rule. When a ruler succumbs to decadence, corruption, or decrepitude, a stronger and more suitable ruler will rise.

[G mayes]

After days of following the discussion and being somewhat swayed by arguments on both sides, I'm finding the reading of and the interpretation to be the difference.

Can you play a lawful or even chaotic good character with this class. Sure if you rewrite the literal text to mean something else less strict than how it is written. And thats the beauty of the game. You can make it up as you go along to fit your needs.

The verbiage used clearly states iron fist. When have you seen iron fist be positive aside from how someone hits something?

So ultimately its up to dm discression. At my table, this is the BBEG. And hes probably going to be charismatic and have hired the pcs along the way at some point.

[Millstone85]

When have you seen iron fist be positive aside from how someone hits something?I have seen the idiom "an iron fist in a velvet glove" being used to mean "firm but gentle authority" instead of a tyranny in disguise.

[Mada]

Think Batman.

I'd say think Red Hood.

Alignment is more a guideline anyway and can be used as your character percieves himself. A lot of Evil people think they're good.

[ciarannihill]

Eh, I think those addendums are all incompatible with the obvious spirit and meaning of those tenets. Your suggestions are creating a whole new oath, it is not a valid interpretation of conquest.

"Douse the flame of hope" is practically antithetical to what Good is all about. Creating an addendum that the "hope" you are crushing only applies to the hopes of evil people hoping to do evil is disingenuous and I think clearly against the spirit of the oath, especially in the context of the following tenets.

"Rule with an Iron Fist" can't also be "merciful". The reason "iron" is used as a descriptor is because it is unyielding, cold, without feeling. It is by definition without mercy, and is intentionally "stifling". It is to end all opposition without care for what the ruled think or feel - just like iron has no emotion or care for what it cuts or crushes. It clearly is not about creating good citizens - it is about making sure the ruled know their place and never doubt that you can crush them. "Rule with an Iron Fist" is the opposite of "rule with mercy and justice".

"Strength above all" does not have anything to do with progress or ideas. That makes no sense as an extension of the tenet, it would be a whole different tenet. This has nothing to do with intellectual curiosity, it makes no sense to tack that on here. There is also no room for "wisdom and love" in that tenet - "above all" means strength above all, including wisdom and love. It is not strength tempered by something else, not by intellect, not by compassion, not by a sense of justice. It means no tolerance of weakness of any sort, including and especially the emotional or mental sort that might lead you not to pursue your other tenets like "dousing the flame of hope" and "ruling with an iron fist". Strength above what might be thought of as "good". You don't convince people with words, or with logic, you convince them with force. Period. That is "strength above all else." Trying to interpret "strength" here as intellectual strength or the strength of compassion is disingenuous and contrary to the obvious meaning of this tenet and the oath.

I don't think there is any way to resolve this oath with a good alignment. It is clearly meant for someone that is evil, neutral at absolute best. That someone following this thinks they are doing what is right does not mean they are a good alignment. It means they think this type of evil is the right thing to do and/or the best thing for the world. You can't follow these tenets and be good, any way you look at it.

So this is the tenets verbatim, including the detailed descriptions:
•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.
•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.
•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.


What is important to note is that the tenets, save the last one, all specify how you treat your enemies and criminals -- it doesn't have anything to do with how you treat an average citizen. Rule with an Iron Fist even mentioned treating those who obey the law with favor. And yes, this is perfectly abuse-able, but if one's intent is altruistic and beneficial to one's citizens then it could be argued that this is an extreme, but non-evil measure. As for the last tenet, I would argue that a view of strength as an ideal and ambition isn't inherently morally good or evil. It's pretty neutral.

As with most issues of alignment, this tends to bend a lot based on the motivations of the character: Why are they doing what they're doing.

As an example of the tenets being applied to a "good" character -- Daenerys Targaryen conquering Meereen. While you can argue the merits of doing it or not, it's clear that her intent was at least in part altruistic: She wanted to free the slaves and the people from the control of the Masters. I would argue that all the tenets are obeyed in her conquering of Meereen and personally I'd call that on balance a "Good" act overall. Neutral if you want to be a stickler, but I certainly wouldn't call it "Evil"...

Especially once the Masters attempt to reconquer Meereen she makes a show of her Dragons' power to squash hope of them succeeding (1st tenet).
Her word, especially with regards to slavery, is law and she does not bend on this (2nd tenet).
She uses force to gain Meereen and to protect it thereafter, it wasn't political subterfuge that got her power, it was military might -- it was her Dragons (3rd tenet).

[Tanarii]

I'd say think Red Hood.

Alignment is more a guideline anyway and can be used as your character percieves himself. A lot of Evil people think they're good.
IMO not easily.

It can easily be as the player perceives the character. By interpreting how the behavior described in the PHB qualifies.

But behavior is actual behavior. The character can be in denial about their behavior, but they can't really say they aren't behaving how they are behaving. (Edit: sorry, they can, but they're in denial.)

IMO Alignment is easily metagame-objective. The player can pick it and uses it to make in character decisions, and that is the actual alignment. But that doesn't mean the in-universe character believes that's what they are, socially and morally. A Lawful evil tyrant might see themselves as a hero of the people (in a chaotic good way).

[Thrudd]

So this is the tenets verbatim, including the detailed descriptions:
•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.
•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.
•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.


What is important to note is that the tenets, save the last one, all specify how you treat your enemies and criminals -- it doesn't have anything to do with how you treat an average citizen. Rule with an Iron Fist even mentioned treating those who obey the law with favor. And yes, this is perfectly abuse-able, but if one's intent is altruistic and beneficial to one's citizens then it could be argued that this is an extreme, but non-evil measure. As for the last tenet, I would argue that a view of strength as an ideal and ambition isn't inherently morally good or evil. It's pretty neutral.

As with most issues of alignment, this tends to bend a lot based on the motivations of the character: Why are they doing what they're doing.

As an example of the tenets being applied to a "good" character -- Daenerys Targaryen conquering Meereen. While you can argue the merits of doing it or not, it's clear that her intent was at least in part altruistic: She wanted to free the slaves and the people from the control of the Masters. I would argue that all the tenets are obeyed in her conquering of Meereen and personally I'd call that on balance a "Good" act overall. Neutral if you want to be a stickler, but I certainly wouldn't call it "Evil"...

Especially once the Masters attempt to reconquer Meereen she makes a show of her Dragons' power to squash hope of them succeeding (1st tenet).
Her word, especially with regards to slavery, is law and she does not bend on this (2nd tenet).
She uses force to gain Meereen and to protect it thereafter, it wasn't political subterfuge that got her power, it was military might -- it was her Dragons (3rd tenet).

If Danaerys really ruled with an iron fist, she would not have stopped executing the Masters, her enemies. Every time there was some sign of the Sons of the Harpy causing trouble, she would have executed another Noble family. She would be using her greatest strength, the dragons, constantly to keep them in line and never would have hid them away in fear of their power. Strength above all- she should have kept them fed on a constant diet of criminals and her enemies so they wouldnt eat so many shepherd children (but a burnt peasant here and there is really nothing to get worked up about anyway. Pay the family and move on.)
Open up the pits again- but add a new event where people get to watch an out-of-favor Noble get burnt and eaten - people can bet on how long he can run around the arena before a dragon catches him and which dragon it will be.
There was far too much dissension in that city for her to be said to have "Ruled with an iron fist" and she certainly was bad at "dousing the flames of hope", and she absolutely failed to value "strength above all". She certainly has good intentions and is a good person, but she is a bad paladin of conquest.

[ciarannihill]

If Danaerys really ruled with an iron fist, she would not have stopped executing the Masters, her enemies. Every time there was some sign of the Sons of the Harpy causing trouble, she would have executed another Noble family. She would be using her greatest strength, the dragons, constantly to keep them in line and never would have hid them away in fear of their power. Strength above all- she should have kept them fed on a constant diet of criminals and her enemies so they wouldnt eat so many shepherd children (but a burnt peasant here and there is really nothing to get worked up about anyway. Pay the family and move on.)
Open up the pits again- but add a new event where people get to watch an out-of-favor Noble get burnt and eaten - people can bet on how long he can run around the arena before a dragon catches him and which dragon it will be.
There was far too much dissension in that city for her to be said to have "Ruled with an iron fist" and she certainly was bad at "dousing the flames of hope", and she absolutely failed to value "strength above all". She certainly has good intentions and is a good person, but she is a bad paladin of conquest.

I don't wholly agree with your descriptions of her actions (putting her rule in danger for the sake of her Dragons seems like an easy way to lose strength by losing subjects' support that she had gained by freeing them from slavery), and you are neglecting her actions upon her return to Meereen, but I'm not here to quibble about GoT so much as provide an example, and you've provided me a perfect one.

Say she did everything as you described she should have to have adhered to the tenets more properly, would she then be evil? I would argue no, she'd still be overall in the same good to neutral zone she already inhabits because her motivation was to break the yoke of slavery, a clearly good action. Chaotic Good might be a good way to describe such actions -- Ruthless methodology with altruistic goals.

One could argue that when she freed the unsullied is a more direct representation of her "Paladin of Conquest"-ness, as well.


PS: As with any and all alignment conversations there's so much up to interpretation that all but the extremes end up in a massive gray area, but saying Conquest cannot be good seems like a blanket statement that would prevent many interesting stories form occurring...And that's a shame.

[Thrudd]

I don't wholly agree with your descriptions of her actions (putting her rule in danger for the sake of her Dragons seems like an easy way to lose strength by losing subjects' support that she had gained by freeing them from slavery), and you are neglecting her actions upon her return to Meereen, but I'm not here to quibble about GoT so much as provide an example, and you've provided me a perfect one.

Say she did everything as you described she should have to have adhered to the tenets more properly, would she then be evil? I would argue no, she'd still be overall in the same good to neutral zone she already inhabits because her motivation was to break the yoke of slavery, a clearly good action. Chaotic Good might be a good way to describe such actions -- Ruthless methodology with altruistic goals.

One could argue that when she freed the unsullied is a more direct representation of her "Paladin of Conquest"-ness, as well.


PS: As with any and all alignment conversations there's so much up to interpretation that all but the extremes end up in a massive gray area, but saying Conquest cannot be good seems like a blanket statement that would prevent many interesting stories form occurring...And that's a shame.

Getting or keeping subjects' support is not a goal of the conquest paladin. You don't need their support, you need to utterly crush their hope so they do not dare oppose you. Ruling with an iron fist, in combination with dousing hope and placing strength above all, strongly implies to me that fear would be the favored way to keep subjects in line. You don't need loyalty, you don't need them to like you, you need them to never doubt that you can and will crush them in a second. The slaves are free, great - that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be cowering in fear of your power. They shouldn't be afraid of anyone else, the slaves no longer fear their former masters, but they still need to be afraid of YOU. I do think that to be a successful conquest paladin, she would need to be at best lawful neutral. She has too much freedom and fairness on the brain, too much wanting to appear like the compassionate mother.

Dany was more Chaotic Good than anything - that's why she was so bad at ruling. She's great at freeing the slaves, and breaking the system of oppression. She had no idea how to keep things in order - though she might be learning.

[Spamotron]

If it helps here's Jeremy Crawford's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-PgBcVaUkw) take.

[Ganymede]

Getting or keeping subjects' support is not a goal of the conquest paladin.

Doesn't that cut against the oath's demand to favor those that follow the rules, though?

[Ganymede]

If Danaerys really ruled with an iron fist, she would not have stopped executing the Masters, her enemies.

Not necessarily. Dany is a sentient being with a personality and flaws, as are conquest paladins. She might have been acting against her better judgment due to a flaw. Who knows, in another world Dany's DM might have awarded her an inspiration die for sparing the masters.

[ciarannihill]

Getting or keeping subjects' support is not a goal of the conquest paladin. You don't need their support, you need to utterly crush their hope so they do not dare oppose you. Ruling with an iron fist, in combination with dousing hope and placing strength above all, strongly implies to me that fear would be the favored way to keep subjects in line. You don't need loyalty, you don't need them to like you, you need them to never doubt that you can and will crush them in a second. The slaves are free, great - that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be cowering in fear of your power. They shouldn't be afraid of anyone else, the slaves no longer fear their former masters, but they still need to be afraid of YOU. I do think that to be a successful conquest paladin, she would need to be at best lawful neutral. She has too much freedom and fairness on the brain, too much wanting to appear like the compassionate mother.

Dany was more Chaotic Good than anything - that's why she was so bad at ruling. She's great at freeing the slaves, and breaking the system of oppression. She had no idea how to keep things in order - though she might be learning.
You misunderstood my point -- as she learned with the unsullied inspiring support can be a potent source of strength, and throwing her weight around amongst her supporters could've robbed her of that strength. That's what I was getting at, nothing about their support being her goal, although nothing in the Conquest Paladin tenets prevents that from being a goal of the Paladin at all, it's allowed.
And remember the crushing hope is in regard to one's enemies exclusively, it says as much in the tenet. One's subjects aren't the target of that until such time as they are your enemies, which you can avoid with proper rule. (Also for what it's worth, nothing in the Conquest Paladin's description mentions them being good at the whole ruling thing, it's not required to fall into the archetype)

And I think you're ignoring the important part of my post there:
Say she did everything as you described she should have to have adhered to the tenets more properly, would she then be evil? I would argue no, she'd still be overall in the same good to neutral zone she already inhabits because her motivation was to break the yoke of slavery, a clearly good action. Chaotic Good might be a good way to describe such actions -- Ruthless methodology with altruistic goals.

Even if she acted precisely as you say she should have to have been more analogous to the Conquest tenets I think there's an argument to be made that she would still be a "good" character as far as DnD alignment is concerned, demonstrating that a good Conquest Paladin can theoretically exist.

The cruelty of the Conquest Paladin is very focused and limited-- it's a means to subdue one's enemies. To normal, everyday people they don't treat them like that. In fact the idea of "Evil should never have hope of defeating good" mentioned in an earlier post is a very accurate perception of how a good Conquest Paladin might think, and it is 100% in line with the tenets as presented in the book (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). If you view, say, Devils as your enemy crushing their hope while fighting them is in line with your tenets. Treating a non-enemy that way is merely cruel, not in line with your tenets at all.

[Thrudd]

Doesn't that cut against the oath's demand to favor those that follow the rules, though?

No, favoring them for following the rules is not contradicted by their fear of you. You can give favors and benefits to people who follow the rules and help you, but that doesn't mean they aren't under threat of punishment if they ever break the rules or go against you. Favoring the stick doesn't mean you can't also use the carrot sometimes. Your punishment isn't arbitrary, it is reserved for those who oppose you or cause trouble. People can be perfectly happy as long as they never step out of bounds. If they do, they know there will be no mercy. That's the "iron fist". Your punishments should be so severe, and your control so complete that nobody even entertains a thought of opposition. That's when you know you've done your job as a conqueror.

[Ganymede]

No, favoring them for following the rules is not contradicted by their fear of you. You can give favors and benefits to people who follow the rules and help you, but that doesn't mean they aren't under threat of punishment if they ever break the rules or go against you. Favoring the stick doesn't mean you can't also use the carrot sometimes. Your punishment isn't arbitrary, it is reserved for those who oppose you or cause trouble. People can be perfectly happy as long as they never step out of bounds. If they do, they know there will be no mercy. That's the "iron fist". Your punishments should be so severe, and your control so complete that nobody even entertains a thought of opposition. That's when you know you've done your job as a conqueror.

Ok cool. Now that you explain it that way, I can definitely see how a conquest paladin might hold this view but also be good.

[strangebloke]

How I was allowed to run this:

douse the flame: my character had to show each enemy organization that not only did they lose, they could never have won. She would do things like taking off her armor and giving prisoners a free rematch, intentionally losing initiative to enemies so that they got a free hit off, etc. etc. She would spare enemies and tell them to spread her name. So long as she pulled a stunt like this at least once per enemy group, the DM considered that I was playing the oath well.

Rule with an Iron Fist: She was a very hard-nose rules follower, although she would interpret the law generously as much as she was able.

Strength above all: While a mostly well-intentioned person, she believed that without strength, virtue of any kind was impossible. You can't show mercy unless you first win. You can't show humility unless you are strong. You can't maintain order in a society unless you are strong enough to hold onto power. So she desired to be the strongest, and for the strongest person to rule, because that was better for everyone. She held 'strength' to be a very inclusive definition, including allies, resources, etc.

She had LG on her sheet, but that was kind of immaterial. I would have had plenty of fun justifying her as a LN character.

[ciarannihill]

How I was allowed to run this:

douse the flame: my character had to show each enemy organization that not only did they lose, they could never have won. She would do things like taking off her armor and giving prisoners a free rematch, intentionally losing initiative to enemies so that they got a free hit off, etc. etc. She would spare enemies and tell them to spread her name. So long as she pulled a stunt like this at least once per enemy group, the DM considered that I was playing the oath well.

Rule with an Iron Fist: She was a very hard-nose rules follower, although she would interpret the law generously as much as she was able.

Strength above all: While a mostly well-intentioned person, she believed that without strength, virtue of any kind was impossible. You can't show mercy unless you first win. You can't show humility unless you are strong. You can't maintain order in a society unless you are strong enough to hold onto power. So she desired to be the strongest, and for the strongest person to rule, because that was better for everyone. She held 'strength' to be a very inclusive definition, including allies, resources, etc.

She had LG on her sheet, but that was kind of immaterial. I would have had plenty of fun justifying her as a LN character.

This is an excellent example of how to uphold the tenets when playing a good character! Also sounds like loads of fun tbh.

One of the main points I think is worth noting is that the Tenets of an Oath aren't the whole of a belief system -- they are the how. They are means to achieve what the Paladin believes in, not what entirety of what the Paladin believes in necessarily.

[Ganymede]

I googled the phrase "rule with an iron fist" and discovered it, or similar versions, are commonly found in a certain holy book. They are always uttered by a specific deity, or are used to describe that diety, a being that is famous for dealing harshly with his enemies and gently with his allies.

[Thrudd]

Ok cool. Now that you explain it that way, I can definitely see how a conquest paladin might hold this view but also be good.

I don't see where you get "good" out of that.
Sometimes being nice to people who do what you want is not enough to qualify you as good. It doesn't even disqualify you as evil. But I know people around here tend to be motivated to interpret good very loosely. This is essentially a tyranny paladin by another name (because that name was used elsewhere). I think the situation would need to be very contrived to allow someone to maintain good while following these tenets. Sure, it's "possible" with DM cooperation- literally anything is possible if The DM says it is or doesn't hold the players to any standards. But that doesn't change what is the clear spirit of the text.
You're unlikely to avoid cruelty (evil) while ruling with an iron fist, if you're actually doing it properly in a believable setting. It's part of the definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule%20with%20an%20iron%20fist/hand

The verbiage chosen to describe these tenets are clearly meant to evoke evil. Evil behavior, evil intent.

[AHF]

I have an easier time seeing someone play this oath as good than I do seeing them play it as anything other than lawful. You can rationalize the iron fist as being necessary for the greater good - that dissent, chaos, etc. leads to evil in the long run and the only way to uphold good is to dominate and impose your order. Questioning your rule is a strike against what is needed for the greater good and must be harshly put down so as to deter others from issuing similar challenges. All this seems compatible to me with a search for the greater good that is inextricably linked to order and antithetical to chaos.

Once you start talking about CG, you've lost me as to how to reconcile the oath with that alignment without ripping out the heart of the original text.

[Ganymede]

I don't see where you get "good" out of that.


I really can't help you with that.