How to play a good Paladin of Conquest?

[Man_Over_Game]

Exactly as the title states. What would be the motives of a good-aligned Paladin of the Oath of Conquest? I'm having some difficulty coming up with some good ideas. I can see some diverse alignments for almost all other choices (maybe not Redemption), but this seems like a difficult challenge to me.

I'm not necessarily looking for an answer that's just "Well, you can be whatever you want to be and the mechanics don't have to make sense", but I want them to make sense. I don't want to ignore the fact that I utilize fear. But why would a good person utilize fear casually?

[samcifer]

You could go the 'good if not nice intentions' kind of character. The kind who feels that society has lost it's way and needs to be guided back onto the right track, so to speak. The world would be better for his goals, but his methods leave something to be desired. The 'ends justify the means', like with Dr. Doom from the marvel universe (maybe less violent to innocent people, though.)

[hamishspence]

But why would a good person utilize fear casually?

The trope here would be Terror Hero. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TerrorHero)

[Silkensword]

Here's my thinking:

- Fear is not murder. Give them an opportunity to surrender, while stacking the deck in favor of them actually surrendering.

[Man_Over_Game]

Here's my thinking:

- Fear is not murder. Give them an opportunity to surrender, while stacking the deck in favor of them actually surrendering.

I like this.

This gives me a plethora of ideas to work with. Local sheriff, or a hunter of criminals who relies on their testimonies over their corpses.

[ciarannihill]

The trope here would be Terror Hero. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TerrorHero)

This is one solid way to roll with it (Batman is an excellent example, though depending on the incarnation he straddles the line of "good" and "neutral" sometimes), though it depends on context whether this would qualify as "good", if you go this route beware turning into the Well-Intentioned Extremist (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist).

[tieren]

I picture him in a world at war, he is a commander of the forces of good army, he needs to grow his sides power and control to get the resources it needs to fight against the horde.

His cause is just and motives pure he seeks to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies so they will flee before him and the forces or righteousness prevail.

[Kadesh]

What do you mean? Mechanics make sense? The Mechanics definitely make sense. Aragorn in the Return of the King film could be said to be a Conquest Paladin, his ability to instil Fear in the Spirit King and his army and stop them dead. Sure, there might be better matches elsewhere, like Ranger etc, but then again, 5E wasn't created to mirror LotR Characters. Conquering Presence, Guided Strike, Command, Fear, Hold Person, Bestow Curse, Aura of Conquest, Invincible Conqueror are all very Aragorn like things.

The Psychic Damage could be simply the outspilling of your true aura, where striking the creature causes mental shear at the audacity of striking such a virtuous character - the same with Armor of Agathys, although that deals cold damage - similar to how Angels like Imperius from Diablo 3 are surrounded by a Corona of light.

[Unoriginal]

his ability to instil Fear in the Spirit King and his army and stop them dead.

Aragorn never instill fear in the Army of the Dead nor their King. At best they're a bit surprised, then motivated by his promise of freeing them from their geas.

[Kadesh]

Aragorn never instill fear in the Army of the Dead nor their King. At best they're a bit surprised, then motivated by his promise of freeing them from their geas.

Hmm, I remembered it different but it's been a while since I've watched it (and my god, the CGI on the extended version clip I youtubed was awful), but a "kneel before the true King" moment is representative - in anything, more representative than simply fearing them to flee.

[SunderedWorldDM]

I mean, you could align yourself with an organization or ideal, then go crusading after that, doing it for the 'good' of the 'poor, misguided souls' who don't happen to worship your particular god or be nice to your particular knightly order. Extra points if the ideal is actually evil, but your character doesn't know it yet!

[PaxZRake]

Mine has all the trappings of a super-typical cartoon villain but his plans for taking over the world always consist of helping innocents and doing good deeds. He's a bit of a goofball despite his power set.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It’s not the powers that are the problem it’s the oath.
It’s really hard to be good and “rule with an iron fist”

[Consensus]

It’s not the powers that are the problem it’s the oath.
It’s really hard to be good and “rule with an iron fist”

Or to 'douse the flames of hope'

[Man_Over_Game]

I've had this idea that maybe he believes that the weak are to be controlled and protected.

Everyone is our children, and those who hurt others have chosen to act like children, and so they are to be treated as children. They don't have rights, they are property to be guided to where they can benefit the most.

Perhaps not necessarily Good, but maybe Lawful Neutral, endorsing slavery as punishment for crimes, and fear as a way to reduce casualties.

Children, after all, are often selfish, cruel and ignorant when given free will, and sometimes you have to kill that part out of them before they're willing to learn or care.

[Millstone85]

I've had this idea that maybe he believes that the weak are to be controlled and protected.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.

SCAG p26, ethos of the LE god Bane.

[McSkrag]

Exactly as the title states. What would be the motives of a good-aligned Paladin of the Oath of Conquest? I'm having some difficulty coming up with some good ideas. I can see some diverse alignments for almost all other choices (maybe not Redemption), but this seems like a difficult challenge to me.

I'm not necessarily looking for an answer that's just "Well, you can be whatever you want to be and the mechanics don't have to make sense", but I want them to make sense. I don't want to ignore the fact that I utilize fear. But why would a good person utilize fear casually?

Great RP question!

This is something I am struggling with right now playing a level 5 Conquest Paladin in the local AL.

I don't want to play the stereotypical Conquest Paladin and fear and kill all things. First, evil characters are not my jam, and second I want a more conflicted and interesting character.

I'm still working on it, but what I've decided is to be a Lawful Good disciple of Torm. Fear is the gift that Torm has bestowed on me to do his will. As a Paladin with a good heart who is dedicated to doing good in the world I am conflicted about using such a dark tool. But Torm must know what he is doing so I use the Fear to destroy evil and make the world a better place.

That sets up an internal conflict I'll have to struggle with.

I've been thinking a lot about how merciful I should be. Not really sure on that one yet.

[Millstone85]

Here's my thinking:

- Fear is not murder. Give them an opportunity to surrender, while stacking the deck in favor of them actually surrendering.I would push it to the point where he is a variation on a redemption paladin. One who believes anyone can be redeemed, but through disciplinary measures rather than diplomacy. Orcs don't have to be slaughtered. They need to be shown who is the real boss and put in line.

[opticalshadow]

You are a judicator, you are the divine judgment in the name of your god to send forth on the prime material plane. You will restore good at any and all costs. you are a judge, you are the jury and if need be you are the executioner. The kings in their castles rule law with coin and greed, the towns guards have tunred their backs. There are homeless and sick, who remain so becuase the rule of man has failed them, and with their corruption the evil races have been allowed to cause harm and destruction across the land. You are the answer to the prayers of a safer tomorrow, but this will not be without its bloodshed, it will not be quiet, and it will not be with a silver tongue. You will wage your war against all that have failed the goodness that they had the chance to. You do not respond with advice, or with suggestion, no, you respond with order, with finality. and any who stand in your path to restore righteousness to the land, stand in the path of your steel. Your word is the word of divine judgement, you are the period on the end of a sentence of corruption.

Characters liek Judge Dredd fit this bill. you walk a line between lawful and chaotic, you are here to accomplish what nobody else will, they must learn that goodness is not mutually exclusive with fear. You are to remind them that there are consequences to betraying the gods of good. that their prayers have been answered, and help and salvation has arrived, but the cost of such, the cost of a savior is to fall in line and live your life to make the world a better place, or fal to your knees and accept that the world is better without you.

you are not fear inducing to just do it, you do not boss around people, but you speak with the weight of divine purpose. you still have a strict code of honor to act with, but you can still carry the blunt edge of power.

[Sception]

Conquest is about two linked concepts: fear and control. The conqueror is obsessed with achieving and maintaining control, of themselves and of the world around them. The most obvious, if cliche, source of such an obsession would be a traumatic event in their past over which they had no control. The method through which they try to achieve control is fear, which they see as the most fundamental and primal of emotions. They gain control of others by preying on their fears, and control over themselves by suppressing or overcoming their own fear. Again, the eady, if cliche, implication here is a traumatic past moment of succumbing to fear, searing forever in their mind the power of fear as a weapon.

The fundamental conquest mindset is that the world is, by default, a hostile, chaotic place, one that only makes sense when someone takes control and forces it too. Furthermore, people are themselves fundamentally fallible and unreliable, their systems of order prone to corruption, so the only person the conqueror can truly trust and rely on is themselves. After all, to trust and rely on others would be to give up some amount of control to them, and the conqueror is terrified of doing that.

For a good-aligned hero, this is a rather tricky set of mental characteristics mostly manifesting as flaws, but as mentioned by others Batman, in most representations of him, provides a pretty clear model.

Traumatic past where he was overcome by fear, faced with the chaos of the world, forced to realize his own lack of control, and confronted with the corruption and inneptitude of established systems of order? Check.

Responded to that trauma by imposing strict control over himself, and attempting to impose that same order over his environment through violence and especially through fear? Check.

Willing to listen to advice from others, but always has to get in the last word or make the final decision? Happy to lead a team but unable to follow on one? As like as not to quit a democratic group of peers if an important vote doesnt go his way? Check.

Difficulties trusting others, to the point of stalking and devising 'contingency plans' even against his own allies? The only allies he really trusts are hus own cadre of personally trained and indoctrinated child soldiers? Check.

So yeah, Batman sort of works as a template for 'heroic' Conquerors, but its worth noting that most of his characteristics that make him a good fit for the oath of conquest are seen as flaws, not only by the narrative, but by batman himself. Flaws that he is perpetually working to overcome. As a paladin oath, the oath of conquest implies an open and willing commitment to embracing those flaws, a refusal to acknowledge them as flaws, that makes it harder to frame the conqueror as 'good' aligned.

A better parallel might be judge dread, and while judge dread can still work as a neutral-aligned protagonist fighting against evil, it's much harder to call him an outright, good-aligned hero.

[NRSASD]

An interesting question!

I don't have too much to contribute at the moment, but I would say that motive counts for a ton. If your Conquest Paladin does bad things but genuinely regrets them, does everything they can to avoid doing bad things, prefers to take prisoners than to make corpses, etc., I'd say you could walk the delicate line to good. But it's something they'll have to be eternally vigilant about lest they slide into the "ends justify the means" territory.

Your character is a weapon made manifest and knows it. Their alignment is determined by how much discretion they exercise while wielding it.

[Naanomi]

Living in a truely and clearly evil society; one that absolutely needs controlled firmly to find a path to Goodness; wouldn’t hurt. Being a certain flavor of Lawful Good growing up in lawless-pirate-town or rampaging-orc-horde... or maybe Drow-Slave-pit... could easily shake someone driven first to do Good but seeing conquest as the only viable path to get there

Still someone on the slippery slope to Lawful Neutral (or worse) but seems like a more reasonable place to start and it being understandable

[Man_Over_Game]

All great ideas.

Another I was thinking about was reflecting flaws back on the guilty, to give them the chance to change.

Evil uses fear to assume control of others. The only real way for Evil to give up on that path is by showing them how afflicting Fear truly is, while giving them the chance to repent.

Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that Fear is his tool, but uses it out of necessity.

Slavery is pretty common in the campaign I'm in. Maybe a former slaver, taught the evils of slavery by being the property of a Paladin, and has seen the error of his ways.

Now, as penance for both himself and his enemies, he uses chains and fear to break the evil in others. It is a constant reminder of how terrible of a person he once was that used these tools for evil, and so he doesn't balk to use them now, despite the fact that the idea of terrorizing the weak makes him sick.

His evil was turned on itself, and made him into a (mostly) decent human being, and he uses himself as an example to make that same change onto others.

----------------------

Or, at least, that's what sounds good so far. Still, great ideas so far! Keep them coming!

[strangebloke]

Living in a truely and clearly evil society; one that absolutely needs controlled firmly to find a path to Goodness; wouldn’t hurt. Being a certain flavor of Lawful Good growing up in lawless-pirate-town or rampaging-orc-horde... or maybe Drow-Slave-pit... could easily shake someone driven first to do Good but seeing conquest as the only viable path to get there

Still someone on the slippery slope to Lawful Neutral (or worse) but seems like a more reasonable place to start and it being understandable

Or just be a holy roller, here to bring Helm's justice to this world. Evil should fear your shining blade and criminals should seek other forms of employment.

Conquest is a Lawful Paladin domain. You can't really justify it being chaotic, but you can justify it being good without much difficulty at all. Granted, such a character is probably lawful first and good second, but alignment is just for kids anyway.

[Naanomi]

Or just be a holy roller, here to bring Helm's justice to this world. Evil should fear your shining blade and criminals should seek other forms of employment.

Conquest is a Lawful Paladin domain. You can't really justify it being chaotic, but you can justify it being good without much difficulty at all. Granted, such a character is probably lawful first and good second, but alignment is just for kids anyway.
I could easily envision a chaotic conquest Paladin... a classic Orcish warlord or the like, or a archetypical ‘Ghengis Kahn’ (not the historical one) type

[Vogie]

I could see some of the titular characters of Neal Shusterman's Scythe as Good Conquest Paladins.

[BaconAwesome]

I'd say the oath is directed at evil, and go with James Mathis quotes whenever possible.


I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you **** with me, I’ll f-ing kill you all.

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-best-from-mad-dog-mattis/

[Reth]

Or to 'douse the flames of hope'


If your a conquest paladin and a commander in a armed conflict fighting against the forces of evil, you'd used overwhelming force to crush your enemies and to see them driven before you. Hope can just mean hope of victory.

[Millstone85]

If your a conquest paladin and a commander in a armed conflict fighting against the forces of evil, you'd used overwhelming force to crush your enemies and to see them driven before you. Hope can just mean hope of victory.I would reword the tenets a little.

Douse the Flame of Rebellion. 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.
Recognize your Betters. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or bend the knee.

[Beelzebubba]

I could see some of the titular characters of Neal Shusterman's Scythe as Good Conquest Paladins.

Or, perhaps, a certain katana-wielding Paladin character from a little comic called Order of the Stick

You might have heard of it

:smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Miko is IMO more Paladin of Vengeance than Paladin of Conquest.

In Snips Snails & Dragon Tales's 4th edition strips, it drops a hint that Miko exists in the 4e-verse as an Avenger (which appears to be what the 5e Paladin of Vengeance was derived from).

[Millstone85]

Miko would have been a devotion paladin, but played wrong and on her way to lose her powers.

[Asmotherion]

Don't kill Arbitrary. Do Take Captives. Do imply a heavy killing intent if the enemy does not compremise with the chance you offer them to surrender.

Everything for you is a conquest. Everyone surrenders, one way or the other. From social encounters, to battles. You are basically a big bully. However, your goals are noble, and you don't bully without a good cause. You'll bully the bad guys into becoming good, and the good guys into staying good. For Pelor. :P

[hamishspence]

Miko would have been a devotion paladin, but played wrong and on her way to lose her powers.

The question is - if Miko's player (metaphorically speaking) chose "the wrong paladin variant at creation" for her preferred playstyle, which variant would have been the right one?

[Unoriginal]

The question is - if Miko's player (metaphorically speaking) chose "the wrong paladin variant at creation" for her preferred playstyle, which variant would have been the right one?

Kensei Monk.

[Vogie]

Miko is IMO more Paladin of Vengeance than Paladin of Conquest.

In Snips Snails & Dragon Tales's 4th edition strips, it drops a hint that Miko exists in the 4e-verse as an Avenger (which appears to be what the 5e Paladin of Vengeance was derived from).

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Miko is on a very revenge-y, avenger-esque quest.

The Scythes are a sort of world-government agency who serve the post-scarcity, basically-immortal public by gleaning (killing) individuals to prevent overpopulation, thus being the only source of fear in their society.

[Millstone85]

The question is - if Miko's player (metaphorically speaking) chose "the wrong paladin variant at creation" for her preferred playstyle, which variant would have been the right one?Then I agree Vengeance would be better than Conquest.

Tenet-wise, I think Crown could be even better. But mechanically, it has too much team playing.

[Sception]

Something i wrote a while ago about conquest paladins in comparison to the other new xanathar oath:


While on opposite ends of morality & disposition, the Conqueror and Redeemer have more in common then you might think at first glance. Where a typical paladin sees humans, elves, dwarves, & other "civilized" races as *people* to defend and orcs, goblins, and the like as *monsters* to defend them from, neither the Conqueror nor the Redeemer sees any such distinction. Human, Goblin, it doesn't matter, all intelligent, free-willed creatures are *people*, and deserve to be treated the same way. Granted, the treatment offered by the Conqueror and Redeemer are generally on opposite ends of the spectrum, but even then the two don't necessarily have to conflict. While Oath of Conquest paladins do tend towards evil, good Conquerors are certainly possible, and a good Conqueror can complement a Redeemer in a bad-cop/good-cop routine, with the Redeemer offering forgiveness to villains who repent while the Conqueror promises punishment to those who don't, or whose conversions prove less than sincere.

When the evil warlord gathers the goblin tribes into an army to threaten civilization, paladins of all oaths fight together to stop them. But once the warlord is vanquished and the army scattered, it is the Conqueror and the Redeemer who understand that the job is only half done. Without changes to the underlying conditions that led to the warlord's rise, in a few years another will take their place and the whole war will need to be fought all over again. The only long term solution is to gather the goblins in from the wilderness, to integrate them into society, and both the Conqueror and the Redeemer work to do so, complementing each other as they do, with the Redeemer offering the carrot and the Conqueror wielding the stick.

And if the work is to succeed, they need each other. The redeemer's message of compassion and forgiveness can't be heard if those who benefit from the current order drown them out with the sounds of violence. And there will always be those who refuse to hear the message outright, echoes of generations of animosity on both sides that will not hear reason, and the compassion inherent to the Redeemer's role won't allow them to impose their peace by force. In contrast, the Conqueror speaks in a language the barbarians already understand, the language of strength and violence, forestalling the next warlord's rise by becoming that warlord themselves, and then forcing integration with society whether the goblins or regular people like it or not - bulldozing over generations of fear of each other by ensuring that both sides fear the Conqueror even more. But that fear can only last as long as the Conqueror's personal strength holds out. If it is to outlast the conqueror, they will need the Redeemer's soothing voice to be heard once they've browbeaten those who would otherwise drown it out into silence.

The (good-aligned) Conqueror and the Redeemer are two sides of the same coin, though neither might appreciate the association, and I think the inclusion of both in the same book, thus inviting the comparison was an excellent move, if possibly not a deliberate one.

[Malifice]

Just engage in repeated rape, murder, torture, genocide and all round wanton slaughter for 'the greater good.'

Remember; just make sure your victims are 'evil' or that you can argue that you're doing it for some kind of 'good reason.'

Then you're golden.

I've read enough on these forums in alignment threads to convince me.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just engage in repeated rape, murder, torture, genocide and all round wanton slaughter for 'the greater good.'

Remember; just make sure your victims are 'evil' or that you can argue that you're doing it for some kind of 'good reason.'

Then you're golden.

I've read enough on these forums in alignment threads to convince me.

And we appreciate your...uh...contribution.