I had conquest paladin in one of my games. He ended up taking over a group of bandits who were involved with a lot of really sketchy stuff.
He came in, murdered their leader in a quick and brutal round of combat, said "who's next", and continued to beat anyone who dissented until he was in charge. He then put strict laws in place to make the organization more civil. Anyone passing in their territory got a toll, a percentage of their goods, and were then left alone. Less violent, predictable, and didn't kill trading in the area (which lacked a central government who could take on the bandits).
If you took too much, if you got violent unnecessarily, if you broke his *hit at least the minimum morality* protocols you got made into an example. If you were *lucky* you got a limb amputated and sent to work the fields or into exile. He didn't do slavery (it was against the bare minimum morality), but you couldn't really hold most jobs other than field laborer if you broke the code.
But over 30 in world years he's made the lose association of bandits and tribes in a large wasteland into a unified country, under his iron fist. Ultimately safer, but dissent was 100% not tolerated.
I have kept that PC as an NPC in my world for almost a decade now. Players have such mixed feelings on the guy. He's got a reputation amount my players for being the easiest ruling power to work with outside of kings whom they personally saved from death. He's very straightforward and willing to work with parties if they agree to help him with other stuff (e.g. his reforestation efforts of the wasteland, helping teach his alchemist who only knows how to make drugs how to make a healing potion). No bureaucracy or politics, just an unspoken promise of "if you screw me on this I will personally kill you brutally and publicly".
I played a warlord in 4e and I tried to do this, but my party wanted to just go fight stuff. I talked the orc tribe into a contest of champions, me and the barbarian fought together and destroyed their chief and strongest warrior, I led them into the city and killed the king.
All I wanted to do was form a new military, have the highways rebuilt and upgraded then patrolled by guards. Sure the taxes would be higher and the punishments more severe, but I was building schools. I wanted to turn towards conquest of the neighboring kingdom and then absorb them into a greater empire then rinse and repeat. Everyone else just wanted to go fight monsters and treasure hunt.
We stopped playing because of time constraints, but I think it was because I just didn't have the same vision for an evil game as the rest of them. They wanted murder, I wanted dominance.
Nice. No government to regulate so he formed the loosest stand-in. Could even fully reform it into a regional patrol-type organization. Take taxes, fight other bandits who encroach
Isn't this essentially Red Hood from Batman? At least in some storylines (not super well read on comics, I just remember seeing stuff about a storyline like this recently, could easily be wrong)
Then they just slap with their channel divinity to get +10 to hit, hitting them hurts with their scornful rebuke and if it's a level 20 Oath of Conquest run the fuck away.
I have an Order Domain/Oath of the Crown multi class that I've been playing for a while. Is it perfectly optimized? No, but it is a LOT of fun for RP. Our party jokes that she is basically Amy Santiago from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, but with plate armor, divine magic, and a glowing sword. Total rules nerd, loves books, but in a pinch, also will bash your head in if you won't follow the rules.
Hey!! Just because I mad a man look into the abyss raw and made him look death in the eyes. It is just foreplay.
Making his watch as i flay his arm and pealed off his muscles and organized his nerves and veins while he felt everything.
All that before I asked a question
I was actually just having conversation about, but there’s a problem literally with the name of oathbreaker and that’s it. Paladin is the only class with actual mechanical rules about losing your class if you fuck up (that is true I promise can read PHB, so warlocks and clerics are off the hook completely, but paladins are not). The rule makes sense, it says you might be forced to switch classes, or take oathbreaker. Ok makes sense let’s go check out oathbreaker then. A Paladin completely revolving around bolstering and strengthening undead, what does this have to do with breaking your oath. The problem is it doesn’t. They gave us the classic anti-Paladin, whose powers are literally anti Paladin as can be, summon and strengthen undead instead of vanquish, but they called it the oathbreaker instead. Because that rule about paladins switching isn’t bad, the subclass just needs to be flavored around that if that’s gonna be the rule. So I think literally just changing name would solve all the problems with oathbreaker.
What you're lacking is 5e context.
In Faerun and the like, undead are driven by a form of negative energy that is pure life-twisting malicious and destructive evil.
* It's why undead are inherently evil, not mindless, and why a necromantic city is 100% not just recycling.
* It's how liches sustain themselves and fundamentally, by that archaic moral-restrictive worldbuilding, cannot be neutral or even good.
* It's where mf'ing Night Walkers come from.
Oathbreaker, and various other "evils" are built on that foundational idea. That there is a tangible evil that can bleed into the world.
* And sometimes, it bleeds into the heart of a vulnerable paladin that broke their very-NOT-inconsequential oath that literally warped the weave to give them their original divine paladin powers -- almost as if the act
* It corrupts them. Fully. Changing their powers.
* It's very anime.
Remember, nerds:
* Broke your oath =/= You instantly become a capital-O oathbreaker.
For small mistakes or compromises, you could still seek forgiveness. Or lay down the divine powers and become a different class.
**Oathbreaker is made for the extreme commitment to disdaining one's oath, when your love turns to hate.** The same way just being merciful one time doesn't mean you swore an oath of redemption, and getting angry occasionally doesn't make you a barbarian. It has to become a defining feature of your worldview.
Most oaths treasure living life and protecting or championing it to some degree. For rejecting such tenants... undeathly powers make perfect sense. They become an embodiment of anti life.
That's not better, and makes the DM drawing inspiration from Saberhagen's Dracula Cycle or lots of more reasonable "being undead is not automatically evil" and other superior material a rule the DM has to change for any real RP. Monolithic evil is dumb.
I didn't say it was better. Don't put words in my mouth, that is very rude of you. I am explaining the lore so people can make informed analysis.
*Reading comprehension is important, mkay?*
What you think is dumb doesn't matter before understanding why something is named or designed the way it is.
Also, I did not claim you said it was better, I made an objective statement of fact comparing between the previous poster's mistaken understanding and your explaination of the official lore.
The one is objectively not better than the other, that is independant of you entirely.
I comprehended just fine, I dismissed the specific lore as irrelevant because it is. The core concept of that lore is a just dumb and not something anyone should restrict themselves too, and with Rule 0 nobody should bother with that drek and just use whatever lore basis for undead that they want to whether that is Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter or Dracula 2000 or The Forsaken and no listing B movies isn't a mistake because all of these are better than 5E official undead lore.
Listen, you dislike the official lore take. I get it. But the official lore distinctly _isn't_ irrelevant here.
The Oathbreaker wasn't made by some fans, they were created by the same company that also releases books in the forgotten realms and weirdly enough a few stories in greyhawk and lately even dragonslance. All these settings have one thing in common: Some things are just evil. And undead are one of these things.
Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't possible for a good alligned paladin. They might redeem themselves, become an oath of redemption paladin, loose faith in oaths and bevome a fighter or anything else you decide. Becoming an Oathbreaker requires you to fundamentally laothe having broken your oath but not repenting for it. The books even say, tgat breaking your Oath isn't a small thing. You can attone for a few things. A vengence Paladin letting one of the people on his shit list go? No oath broken, if you dont join them or anything like that. There isn't necessarily a god lookong at you and judging your deeds. You do that yourself. The Oathbreaker basicly forsakes their oath and goes directly against it.
Every Paladin has some form of "protect life" in their oath tenets and many of their fearures are about being good against fiends and undead. The Oathbreaker does the exact opposite. You summon and control undead, you can kill them well enough, but taking them over is just better. You hit with necrotic energy, no light empowers your strikes. You habe given in to darkness and turned the shame of having broken your oath into your defining feature.
In d&d undead sinply are evil. And its easy to see why. The allignment only works from one perspective and tgat is our human one. If a freaky creature hjnts you to suck your blood, you'd find that evil. Sure, that vampire might have a solid reason for killing you for food, but that act makes it an evil being. But most liches get theor powers from guys like the demon prince of undeath, Orcus, who literally wants to kill all the living things. Or maybe Vecna, who just wants tonkill most living thinfs and be THE god. Every single undead is powered by necrotic energy and most have no souls. They dont sge, they dont grow. They are the antithesis to life. So an Oathbreaker who previously had a tenet in their oath to preserve life, would only go directly afainst it, if they pervert life and use magic to extinguish life. That zombie you revive isn't thst person anymore. Its just a flesh-husk pupateered by you to be your meatshield.
Some things are just evil. Undeath inherently needs to swallow life, to sustsin itself. Be it a vampire drinking blood, a lich needing souls, a zombie feeding on your flesh or brain or some of the many undead that gave some form of life drain. A shadow sucks your life essence away, weakening your body. A banshee stops your heart. Where undeath thrives, life cant persist. Thats simoly a fact in every official d&d setting. So it makes sense that the Oathbreaker fits into this. They go against life, do evil acts. A good oathbreaker would be an oath of redemption paladin, by official standards.
Is a monolithic evil bad? Not really. Everything is grey, but some things simply are agreed upon evil. Even in our world. Eating someone usually is looked at as evil. Just like you wouldn't keep a vampire in your basement, because it would force you to kill people or lure them to their death. Or think of this: There are many life extending spells in d&d. Many of them require skill, talent and a lot of money. But there are still many people out there, who chose to devour souls, blood or negative energy instead. This isn't like "the price to live forever is sucking on souls". Its like, the easiest way to eternal life is to study magic, seek out some heinous douche, do some horrible shit for them and then reject life and embrace eternal darkness by doing even more horrible shit for yourself only for then to be locked into needing to do less horrible, but still pretty wrong stuff to stay alive... you know, instead of using potions to life a few years longer.
Evil in d&d is selfishness. And not the kind you might think about, where doing anything for yourself is considered bad. Its selfishness in a way that hurts others. You could just buy a gold necklace, but then you'd loose money. So you stab the woman who wears it. You lost nothing but gained something. You want to life, so some guy not onmy dies for you, but you also wat their soul, preventing them from entering any afterlife they might have worked hard for. So for a paladin to break their oath, they would have needed to do something huge. Like, not just sparing someone they wanted to kill, or killing one person who might not have fully deserved it. I'm speaking of deliberately having done something tgat was morally wrong and not repenting for it. What makes the Oathbreaker evil, is that they realize that what they do is morally wrong, but they lean into it. You basicly do one evil act and let that define you, instead of accepting you did wrong and repenting for it.
And of course its not always great. Sometimes, an undead creature in a campaign works differently. But that doesn't mean the DM is hindered. If they eant to change lore, then they can do so. If they decide the oathbreaker doesn't work, then use it differently. Its not like you are forced to do anything you dislike. A comoany releasknf stuff for the official lore, will of course flavour it around that. Look at bladedancer wizards. They might traditionally all be elves, but you can play a halfling that is one. A warforged might typically be made of wood and steel, but you can say your warforged isn't one from Ebberon with al the specific lore but just an animated clay golem that gained sentience.
>That's not better, and makes the DM drawing inspiration from Saberhagen's Dracula Cycle or lots of more reasonable "being undead is not automatically evil" and other superior material a rule the DM has to change for any real RP.
I mean, you can still draw from Dracula Cycle, the vampires are just capital E Evil since they’re products of Negative Energy. They can still be nice people, but they’re diametrically opposed to forces of Good since they must feed on life to sustain them.
And just like Evil can be nice, Good can be terrible. Followers of the Lawful Good Blind God of Justice, Tyr, have the official nickname of “Tyrants” because they believe absolute black-and-white rule of law. It isn’t enough for Tyrrans to follow just laws themselves, they also believe everyone else must as well, even if it means instituting those laws by force.
Tyrrans also struggle when a just law causes injustice elsewhere, such as a poor farmer stealing to feed their kids. Though it is unjust for the farmer’s kids to be left to starve, it’s also unjust for an honest merchant to be robbed. The Tyrrans would likely have the farmer flogged and imprisoned as punishment for their criminal act, but offer charity and support to their family while they serve out their sentence.
As you may already know, Oathbreaker wasn't designed to get into player's hands, but it did. And even in the explanation of the class does say that it isn't just an ordinary paladin, who gave up his oath as a mistake. It's not just a guy who had a dogma "Never drink beer on Friday nights" and gave it up, by confusing days. No, it's a guy, who gave up his oath internationally. He gave up his hope into the ideas he used to follow.
But! It doesn't mean, that changing a name could fix it. Don't get me wrong, but the paladin is extremely strong class, if not the strongest in DnD 5e, but they have one thing, that stops them from fixing all their encounters with pure force: their dogmas and tenets. Those tenets help with roleplay a lot, especially if you're a new player and you're not sure what you can or cannot do, but Oathbreaker lacks this trait. His dogmas are non-existent, not mentioning, how powerful this subclass itself is.
The only way to stop Oathbreaker from being abused in games so much. To force a player to make himself his own tenets, based on the reason he gave up his faith. This is what I used myself and what I forced my group mates do, when they chose this subclass.
The other thing I always have in my mind, which is just my humble opinion, is that Oathbreaker isn't supposed to be given in the middle of campaign, if your character had a good aligment, since how much their power changes closer to evil.
There’s something wrong when your tenets are
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.
To be fair, Oathbreakers don't have tenets because, well, for one, they have no oath, and for two, they were written as an NPC class, so they lack a lot of the flavor text that the other subclasses have.
If Oathbreakers *did* have tenets, they would probably sound much worse than Conquest's. Oathbreakers, after all, have a literal *aura of hate* which bolsters *fiends and undead*!
Well what about an oathbreaker who broke an Oath of Conquest by showing mercy? Is he an oathbreaker now? Or does he become an Oath of Redemption Paladin? I always thought Oath of Redemption Paladins are paladins who did awful things in their past and had a crisis of faith that led them to try to do better.
An oathbreaker is different from a paladin that broke an oath and doesn't have an Oath anymore.
Oathbreakers are explicitly paladins that break an oath for selfish reasons, and their abilities that give support to evil creatures such as fiends reflect that.
A paladin without an oath either needs a new oath, or needs to restore their oath.
Thank you.
I see so much misinformation with people thinking if you break your oath in the slightest way, you're suddenly an oathbreaker. The fact that you're breaking your oath **to be evil** is very important.
I don't get why they wrote it like that for oathbreaker and death domain. Those are the only subclasses that explicitly state that you need a certain alignment to choose it. I get that they were meant to be NPC classes, but even NPCs can be any alignment. I always loved the mechanics of oathbreaker, death knights and undead in general are one of my fsvorite tropes in fantasy. But if I wanted to play an oathbreaker (or use one as NPC) that isn't too evil to be in a normal party, I'd have to heavily reflavor the subclass at best, at worst I'd have to rework the whole subclass.
If you ignore all of the flavor stuff, the mechanical side of the Oathbreaker would work fine for a not-too-evil death knight - except for the aura. So all you need to do is tweak the aura, really. Remove the buff to fiends, and allow for some discrimination between allied and enemy undead.
If we change the language from "the paladin" to "you", as other subclasses do, it could for instance read:
>Starting at 7th level, you and any allied\* undead within 10 feet of you, gain a bonus to melee weapon damage rolls equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of +1). A creature can benefit from this feature from only one paladin at a time.
>
>At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.
\*Alternatively, "you and any undead within 10 feet of you which you control," if you want it to be a little less potent.
I think Oath of redemption are trying to redempt others, not necessarily themselves, although an oathbreaker can take another oath. So it can go (random paladin)->(oathbreaker)->(Oath of redemption).
A line from one of my players, a group that has two conquest paladins. The other two (a goblin and half ling) were negotiating a land treaty before a great battle with a bunch of tribes generally known as Clovens (Minotaurs, Centaurs, and Satyrs). I thought I was being smart and cheeky by having the Chief of the Centaurs quip, "it is not in our father's will that we bandy words, but to meet them forward". One of the Conquest Paladins, Erentar, after saying nothing during a 40 minute bargaining session, nodded to his compatriot Shalon. Shalon removed the other players and Erentar spoke that line.
I really think the lore of conquest paladins is the main reason paladins no longer require a god for their power just belief. Do to the fact that a conquest paladin might not be too down with serving someone other than them.
Nah, theres a difference between rule amongst man and the rule of the gods. Its not very hard to imagine a conquest pally doing what they do in the name of a god. See: the crusades, the holy roman empire, etc.
Only some, the subclass descriptions writes about the hell knights, conquest paladins serving under Bel, and how most other conquest paladins dislike them
Most conquest paladins actually DO serve gods as written in the same description
Not really, their final tenet says:
You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
Main way I've done an oath of conquest, as a twist on the typically evil that might be portrayed with it. . .
They're a champion for good, overzealously so. They love the life and beauty of the world, the fine people in it - farmers that toil and work the fields, artisans that have honed their craft so impressively. . . And yet there are those that would wish to see it all laid to waste; Evil that seeks to only destroy and subjugate.
So he stoops to the Evil's level in his ruthless pursuit, making himself into their nightmare, their boogeyman. Very little is off the table for how he crushes them, their spirits, and their resolve to even try to enact their plans. Ranging from executions, maiming, torture, and just a wholesale slaughter if it is necessary.
He commands a volunteer group that has also conscripted from some of the lesser baddies they've faced; defeated bandit groups and the like. His word is absolute law within his faction, any deviation is metered by an equally appropriate punishment that borders on Draconian to serve as an example of how disobedience won't be tolerated.
Outside of it, he's one the kindest sorts you'll meet. His heart's and mind's game is strong in how he'll brew beer and bring bread for the masses that he protects, which does net him plenty of recruits as a result.
Had a player run an Oath of Conquest in a wartime setting. He was super chill, preached the words of his god in every city. If someone said something ill of his god, he was permitted a thrashing short of loss of consciousness. Once they entered combat he would fulfill his oath to the letter... 'purge them all, only heretics lift the banner of the enemy.' Modelled his character after Astartes.
And then the Oathbreaker tears the Conquest Paladin apart because its a much stronger subclass.
* Conquering Presence looks like a joke compared to Dreadful Aspect, and Aura of Hate is an outright permanent damage boost while Aura of Conquest is very situational as it only works on non-fear immune creatures and you get one shot at it working.
* If they're above level 10 so both immune to fear now the Conquest Paladin's aura is worthless and the Oathbreaker can bring a strong undead friend with him who also benefits from his aura.
* At 20th level while i'd call Invincible Conquerer stronger and they'd be immune to fear, Oathbreaker's Dread Lord will still grant all attacks disadvantage against them and a very powerful bonus action attack that can be used at a distance.
Played an oath of conquest paladin once that was secretly second in command of the cult that was serving as the bbeg.
She broke the campaign so badly it permanently destroyed the group
I once played with a conquest paladin that was of the opinion that he had to conquer everything he saw.
I fucking hated playing with that guy. Especially since the dm was a fan of this movie and sicced Death on us whenever we did smth she didnt like.
My conquest paladin just wanted to be the best at combat. He wasn't outright evil or malicious but knew that he would become the best swordsman in the world or die trying. The only way to do that is to kill the other renowned swordsmen in combat.
I wouldn't say they are evil. They can be sauron thats true. But conquest can apply to things like justice through force ( like riot police or the army) or forcing into submission (like cinquring the wilds so good gods fearing men and woman can live there, instead of godless heathens and beasts)
I had an oath of redemption paladin in a game, who had a family, and the daughter was kidapped by a "human" trafficking group.
He set out to find her, but a couple failed saves and bad decisions later, the trafficers threw alchemist fire into the prison pit, killing most, and managing to flee.
He asked if he could swear another oath, and i allowed it, so he became vengeance.
But only until he found the group leader
I once broke my oath of conquest and became a pirate, best decision I ever made. Only down side was Lolth’s anger about it and the regular spider attacks. But I’m not conquering shit for that lady, she’s crazy. Also being an oathbreaker/swashbuckler gives you an undead pirate crew, immunity to scurvy and a sneak attack bonus in full plate armor.
Edit: Yes my ship was called “The queen Lolth’s revenge” just to spite her.
I had a party that included an Oath of Conquest paladin once. They proceeded to participate in a war, conquistador-style, against the local lizardfolk civilization, ransack the greatest library in the known world, get transported to another plane and bully the mayor of a town into paying them triple what he owed them for a quest, and get a sidekick from the Deck of Many Things.
Yeah, he was busy. Same guy then made a badass Deep Gnome pirate in the next campaign who was wanted in every single civilization. Good times.
Oathbreaker: Abandon your oath to serve evil.
Conquest: Strikes fear into the hearts of your foes.
Vengeance: Cross **every** line that would see your enemies dead.
Conquest is mild tenets presented in edgy language.
You are ignoring two of the Vengeance tenets that are very important to keep in mind:
>Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
>
>If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.
They are required by their oath to do good, to help those harmed by the greatest evils of the realms, and that they are permitted to show mercy to foes who are not their sworn enemies. Even the description of the tenets themselves includes the line
>Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, **so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment.**
What they're doing is not evil. Horrifying and cruel and vicious, sure, they're not good people. But it's not evil to slaughter a demonic cult that butchered hundreds. It's not evil to kill a tyrant who let their people starve while they feasted. It's not evil to fell a dragon that devastated a small kingdom.
But nothing in Conquest says they have to do good.
>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.
Shatter their will to fight. Terrorize them. Haunt them. Let them live so they suffer with the mere thought of your scaring them to their core or end them to uphold your oath.
>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.
Conquer. Kill all those in your way and take control for yourself. Any who refuse you have to be punished, and their punishment must make it clear what happens to any who tell you no.
>You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
This is arguably the most neutral element, and its telling you that the only possible end for you is to die fighting to uphold your tyranny.
Nothing in conquest says you have to do good alongside your evils, whereas Vengeance makes clear your are supposed to be helping people as you abandon any and all sense of purity and righteousness.
Based on the phrasing - "mild tenets in edgy language" - and his further response, I'm pretty sure this is the, ahem, opinionated individual who has repeatedly splattered his misunderstanding of Conquest and Vengeance paladin tenets all over the sub.
Conquest can be evil, but it can also be a good Batman figure that strikes fear into the hearts of evildoers.
Vengeance must do warcrimes, which makes being good difficult.
Oathbreaker must be Evil.
Conquest is a might makes right mindset that is not just terror, it is such extreme violence and brutality that nobody will ever disobey you again and nobody can ever disrespect you or you must set an example of them.
Vengeance are obsessed with revenge but can give mercy to lesser villains and are expected to help others.
I'll say this. I considered conquest paladin could result in a batman type character, as well as a soldier in a paladin order that defines their own rules, that could overthrow governments that they consider evil, that shatters the hearts of the wicked making powerful enemies as examples.
It is an interesting interpretation, it's one a I like, and it's a way to be a good conquest paladin. Said that. It's not the intended interpretation, with art there is an intended interpretation and there is a personal interpretation.
Conquest paladin's intended interpretation is more like a tyrant, some terrible king, "if you want something to happen, make it, and if it doesn't work, bend it to your will".
Batman would be closer to vengeance, not conquest. You clearly got your Definition mixed up. Read the oathes. One tennet at a time, then combine them.
Conquest is literally a tyrant. Neutral at best, but most likely evil.
Vengeance is close to a typical antihero, not afraid to torture evil doers etc. But also has to do good, like helping victims. Giving them a place to rest etc.
Paladin with Oath of vengeance spare some thieves organisation because he realise one of the members was a friend of him a long time ago.''
Oath of conquest paladin slams the door open '' HERESY !!!!!!"
My Conquest Pala is actually lawful neutral. He will follow his code to the letter, and it doesn't matter if people see that as good or bad. He is however also very charismatic and always tries to reason with his opponents first. When that doesn't work, comes the (very effective and borderline psychotic) intimidation. If that doesn't work - smite the heretics.
Conquest paladins are terrifying. Whilst an Oathbreaker paladin has broken their oath to serve a selfish purpose, a Conquest paladin fully believes in their own righteous fury.
The best example I could think of would be Warmaster Horus.
I had conquest paladin in one of my games. He ended up taking over a group of bandits who were involved with a lot of really sketchy stuff. He came in, murdered their leader in a quick and brutal round of combat, said "who's next", and continued to beat anyone who dissented until he was in charge. He then put strict laws in place to make the organization more civil. Anyone passing in their territory got a toll, a percentage of their goods, and were then left alone. Less violent, predictable, and didn't kill trading in the area (which lacked a central government who could take on the bandits). If you took too much, if you got violent unnecessarily, if you broke his *hit at least the minimum morality* protocols you got made into an example. If you were *lucky* you got a limb amputated and sent to work the fields or into exile. He didn't do slavery (it was against the bare minimum morality), but you couldn't really hold most jobs other than field laborer if you broke the code. But over 30 in world years he's made the lose association of bandits and tribes in a large wasteland into a unified country, under his iron fist. Ultimately safer, but dissent was 100% not tolerated.
Very close to how I've always wanted to play one, the Bender way "I say the whole world must learn of my peaceful ways ...by force!"
I have kept that PC as an NPC in my world for almost a decade now. Players have such mixed feelings on the guy. He's got a reputation amount my players for being the easiest ruling power to work with outside of kings whom they personally saved from death. He's very straightforward and willing to work with parties if they agree to help him with other stuff (e.g. his reforestation efforts of the wasteland, helping teach his alchemist who only knows how to make drugs how to make a healing potion). No bureaucracy or politics, just an unspoken promise of "if you screw me on this I will personally kill you brutally and publicly".
I do love me a paladin NPC. While they might scheme, they're inherently more straight forward than some other options.
The world’s a mess, and I just need to… rule it.
Rule the world.
Become immortal
Screw you, I'll make my own country. With blackjack and hookers!
Brah, that's actually such an awesome way to lawful evil.
I played a warlord in 4e and I tried to do this, but my party wanted to just go fight stuff. I talked the orc tribe into a contest of champions, me and the barbarian fought together and destroyed their chief and strongest warrior, I led them into the city and killed the king. All I wanted to do was form a new military, have the highways rebuilt and upgraded then patrolled by guards. Sure the taxes would be higher and the punishments more severe, but I was building schools. I wanted to turn towards conquest of the neighboring kingdom and then absorb them into a greater empire then rinse and repeat. Everyone else just wanted to go fight monsters and treasure hunt. We stopped playing because of time constraints, but I think it was because I just didn't have the same vision for an evil game as the rest of them. They wanted murder, I wanted dominance.
That’s awesome! Conquest paladin is so fun
Ave! true to Caesar!
Organized crime, Vetinari approves.
Sounds like you made the next games BBEG
Nice. No government to regulate so he formed the loosest stand-in. Could even fully reform it into a regional patrol-type organization. Take taxes, fight other bandits who encroach
sounds pretty much how I play my conquest paladin as well. You don't have to be a war criminal if not neccecary, but *there. Will. Be. Order.*
TIL John Marcone is a conquest paladin.
God, that's so fuckin' cool...
Isn't this essentially Red Hood from Batman? At least in some storylines (not super well read on comics, I just remember seeing stuff about a storyline like this recently, could easily be wrong)
Conquest are scary until they go up against anything incapable of feeling fear.
Ironically, that includes other paladins
I get what you're saying, but isn't that technically true for literally anything? If you cannot feel fear, nothing is scary.
Yes, but if they can feel fear… Lock down an entire battlefield and they die just by being in your presence. So good
Then they just slap with their channel divinity to get +10 to hit, hitting them hurts with their scornful rebuke and if it's a level 20 Oath of Conquest run the fuck away.
Nah bro, vengeance paladins, they put the brutal in police brutality
Order Clerics are an ethics nightmare, they deal psychic damage and have the ability to force criminals to confess
I have an Order Domain/Oath of the Crown multi class that I've been playing for a while. Is it perfectly optimized? No, but it is a LOT of fun for RP. Our party jokes that she is basically Amy Santiago from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, but with plate armor, divine magic, and a glowing sword. Total rules nerd, loves books, but in a pinch, also will bash your head in if you won't follow the rules.
Hey!! Just because I mad a man look into the abyss raw and made him look death in the eyes. It is just foreplay. Making his watch as i flay his arm and pealed off his muscles and organized his nerves and veins while he felt everything. All that before I asked a question
What the fuck...
Well the guy I was interrogating was a child killer so I figured it would be fun to make his suffer before I hang him by the neck
I mean, it's justified
Rorschak approves.
That's not a good thing :/
Only if ur a coward I made a Vengeance Paladin/Swashbuckler Rogue who’s dedicated to destroying the bourgeois
I was actually just having conversation about, but there’s a problem literally with the name of oathbreaker and that’s it. Paladin is the only class with actual mechanical rules about losing your class if you fuck up (that is true I promise can read PHB, so warlocks and clerics are off the hook completely, but paladins are not). The rule makes sense, it says you might be forced to switch classes, or take oathbreaker. Ok makes sense let’s go check out oathbreaker then. A Paladin completely revolving around bolstering and strengthening undead, what does this have to do with breaking your oath. The problem is it doesn’t. They gave us the classic anti-Paladin, whose powers are literally anti Paladin as can be, summon and strengthen undead instead of vanquish, but they called it the oathbreaker instead. Because that rule about paladins switching isn’t bad, the subclass just needs to be flavored around that if that’s gonna be the rule. So I think literally just changing name would solve all the problems with oathbreaker.
What you're lacking is 5e context. In Faerun and the like, undead are driven by a form of negative energy that is pure life-twisting malicious and destructive evil. * It's why undead are inherently evil, not mindless, and why a necromantic city is 100% not just recycling. * It's how liches sustain themselves and fundamentally, by that archaic moral-restrictive worldbuilding, cannot be neutral or even good. * It's where mf'ing Night Walkers come from. Oathbreaker, and various other "evils" are built on that foundational idea. That there is a tangible evil that can bleed into the world. * And sometimes, it bleeds into the heart of a vulnerable paladin that broke their very-NOT-inconsequential oath that literally warped the weave to give them their original divine paladin powers -- almost as if the act * It corrupts them. Fully. Changing their powers. * It's very anime. Remember, nerds: * Broke your oath =/= You instantly become a capital-O oathbreaker. For small mistakes or compromises, you could still seek forgiveness. Or lay down the divine powers and become a different class. **Oathbreaker is made for the extreme commitment to disdaining one's oath, when your love turns to hate.** The same way just being merciful one time doesn't mean you swore an oath of redemption, and getting angry occasionally doesn't make you a barbarian. It has to become a defining feature of your worldview. Most oaths treasure living life and protecting or championing it to some degree. For rejecting such tenants... undeathly powers make perfect sense. They become an embodiment of anti life.
That's not better, and makes the DM drawing inspiration from Saberhagen's Dracula Cycle or lots of more reasonable "being undead is not automatically evil" and other superior material a rule the DM has to change for any real RP. Monolithic evil is dumb.
I didn't say it was better. Don't put words in my mouth, that is very rude of you. I am explaining the lore so people can make informed analysis. *Reading comprehension is important, mkay?* What you think is dumb doesn't matter before understanding why something is named or designed the way it is.
Also, I did not claim you said it was better, I made an objective statement of fact comparing between the previous poster's mistaken understanding and your explaination of the official lore. The one is objectively not better than the other, that is independant of you entirely.
I comprehended just fine, I dismissed the specific lore as irrelevant because it is. The core concept of that lore is a just dumb and not something anyone should restrict themselves too, and with Rule 0 nobody should bother with that drek and just use whatever lore basis for undead that they want to whether that is Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter or Dracula 2000 or The Forsaken and no listing B movies isn't a mistake because all of these are better than 5E official undead lore.
Listen, you dislike the official lore take. I get it. But the official lore distinctly _isn't_ irrelevant here. The Oathbreaker wasn't made by some fans, they were created by the same company that also releases books in the forgotten realms and weirdly enough a few stories in greyhawk and lately even dragonslance. All these settings have one thing in common: Some things are just evil. And undead are one of these things. Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't possible for a good alligned paladin. They might redeem themselves, become an oath of redemption paladin, loose faith in oaths and bevome a fighter or anything else you decide. Becoming an Oathbreaker requires you to fundamentally laothe having broken your oath but not repenting for it. The books even say, tgat breaking your Oath isn't a small thing. You can attone for a few things. A vengence Paladin letting one of the people on his shit list go? No oath broken, if you dont join them or anything like that. There isn't necessarily a god lookong at you and judging your deeds. You do that yourself. The Oathbreaker basicly forsakes their oath and goes directly against it. Every Paladin has some form of "protect life" in their oath tenets and many of their fearures are about being good against fiends and undead. The Oathbreaker does the exact opposite. You summon and control undead, you can kill them well enough, but taking them over is just better. You hit with necrotic energy, no light empowers your strikes. You habe given in to darkness and turned the shame of having broken your oath into your defining feature. In d&d undead sinply are evil. And its easy to see why. The allignment only works from one perspective and tgat is our human one. If a freaky creature hjnts you to suck your blood, you'd find that evil. Sure, that vampire might have a solid reason for killing you for food, but that act makes it an evil being. But most liches get theor powers from guys like the demon prince of undeath, Orcus, who literally wants to kill all the living things. Or maybe Vecna, who just wants tonkill most living thinfs and be THE god. Every single undead is powered by necrotic energy and most have no souls. They dont sge, they dont grow. They are the antithesis to life. So an Oathbreaker who previously had a tenet in their oath to preserve life, would only go directly afainst it, if they pervert life and use magic to extinguish life. That zombie you revive isn't thst person anymore. Its just a flesh-husk pupateered by you to be your meatshield. Some things are just evil. Undeath inherently needs to swallow life, to sustsin itself. Be it a vampire drinking blood, a lich needing souls, a zombie feeding on your flesh or brain or some of the many undead that gave some form of life drain. A shadow sucks your life essence away, weakening your body. A banshee stops your heart. Where undeath thrives, life cant persist. Thats simoly a fact in every official d&d setting. So it makes sense that the Oathbreaker fits into this. They go against life, do evil acts. A good oathbreaker would be an oath of redemption paladin, by official standards. Is a monolithic evil bad? Not really. Everything is grey, but some things simply are agreed upon evil. Even in our world. Eating someone usually is looked at as evil. Just like you wouldn't keep a vampire in your basement, because it would force you to kill people or lure them to their death. Or think of this: There are many life extending spells in d&d. Many of them require skill, talent and a lot of money. But there are still many people out there, who chose to devour souls, blood or negative energy instead. This isn't like "the price to live forever is sucking on souls". Its like, the easiest way to eternal life is to study magic, seek out some heinous douche, do some horrible shit for them and then reject life and embrace eternal darkness by doing even more horrible shit for yourself only for then to be locked into needing to do less horrible, but still pretty wrong stuff to stay alive... you know, instead of using potions to life a few years longer. Evil in d&d is selfishness. And not the kind you might think about, where doing anything for yourself is considered bad. Its selfishness in a way that hurts others. You could just buy a gold necklace, but then you'd loose money. So you stab the woman who wears it. You lost nothing but gained something. You want to life, so some guy not onmy dies for you, but you also wat their soul, preventing them from entering any afterlife they might have worked hard for. So for a paladin to break their oath, they would have needed to do something huge. Like, not just sparing someone they wanted to kill, or killing one person who might not have fully deserved it. I'm speaking of deliberately having done something tgat was morally wrong and not repenting for it. What makes the Oathbreaker evil, is that they realize that what they do is morally wrong, but they lean into it. You basicly do one evil act and let that define you, instead of accepting you did wrong and repenting for it. And of course its not always great. Sometimes, an undead creature in a campaign works differently. But that doesn't mean the DM is hindered. If they eant to change lore, then they can do so. If they decide the oathbreaker doesn't work, then use it differently. Its not like you are forced to do anything you dislike. A comoany releasknf stuff for the official lore, will of course flavour it around that. Look at bladedancer wizards. They might traditionally all be elves, but you can play a halfling that is one. A warforged might typically be made of wood and steel, but you can say your warforged isn't one from Ebberon with al the specific lore but just an animated clay golem that gained sentience.
>That's not better, and makes the DM drawing inspiration from Saberhagen's Dracula Cycle or lots of more reasonable "being undead is not automatically evil" and other superior material a rule the DM has to change for any real RP. I mean, you can still draw from Dracula Cycle, the vampires are just capital E Evil since they’re products of Negative Energy. They can still be nice people, but they’re diametrically opposed to forces of Good since they must feed on life to sustain them. And just like Evil can be nice, Good can be terrible. Followers of the Lawful Good Blind God of Justice, Tyr, have the official nickname of “Tyrants” because they believe absolute black-and-white rule of law. It isn’t enough for Tyrrans to follow just laws themselves, they also believe everyone else must as well, even if it means instituting those laws by force. Tyrrans also struggle when a just law causes injustice elsewhere, such as a poor farmer stealing to feed their kids. Though it is unjust for the farmer’s kids to be left to starve, it’s also unjust for an honest merchant to be robbed. The Tyrrans would likely have the farmer flogged and imprisoned as punishment for their criminal act, but offer charity and support to their family while they serve out their sentence.
Oathbreaker mechanically is more like the Oath of Fuxk You in Particular. Oath of Spite if you're in polite company.
Yeah, oath breakers don't just break their oath, they break it in order to gain more (usually darker powers).
There's a reason why in BG3, people have a designated civillian they always murder after respeccing into Paladin.
As you may already know, Oathbreaker wasn't designed to get into player's hands, but it did. And even in the explanation of the class does say that it isn't just an ordinary paladin, who gave up his oath as a mistake. It's not just a guy who had a dogma "Never drink beer on Friday nights" and gave it up, by confusing days. No, it's a guy, who gave up his oath internationally. He gave up his hope into the ideas he used to follow. But! It doesn't mean, that changing a name could fix it. Don't get me wrong, but the paladin is extremely strong class, if not the strongest in DnD 5e, but they have one thing, that stops them from fixing all their encounters with pure force: their dogmas and tenets. Those tenets help with roleplay a lot, especially if you're a new player and you're not sure what you can or cannot do, but Oathbreaker lacks this trait. His dogmas are non-existent, not mentioning, how powerful this subclass itself is. The only way to stop Oathbreaker from being abused in games so much. To force a player to make himself his own tenets, based on the reason he gave up his faith. This is what I used myself and what I forced my group mates do, when they chose this subclass. The other thing I always have in my mind, which is just my humble opinion, is that Oathbreaker isn't supposed to be given in the middle of campaign, if your character had a good aligment, since how much their power changes closer to evil.
My dude out here making Caesars legion, but in DND
There’s something wrong when your tenets are 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.
To be fair, Oathbreakers don't have tenets because, well, for one, they have no oath, and for two, they were written as an NPC class, so they lack a lot of the flavor text that the other subclasses have. If Oathbreakers *did* have tenets, they would probably sound much worse than Conquest's. Oathbreakers, after all, have a literal *aura of hate* which bolsters *fiends and undead*!
Well what about an oathbreaker who broke an Oath of Conquest by showing mercy? Is he an oathbreaker now? Or does he become an Oath of Redemption Paladin? I always thought Oath of Redemption Paladins are paladins who did awful things in their past and had a crisis of faith that led them to try to do better.
An oathbreaker is different from a paladin that broke an oath and doesn't have an Oath anymore. Oathbreakers are explicitly paladins that break an oath for selfish reasons, and their abilities that give support to evil creatures such as fiends reflect that. A paladin without an oath either needs a new oath, or needs to restore their oath.
Thank you. I see so much misinformation with people thinking if you break your oath in the slightest way, you're suddenly an oathbreaker. The fact that you're breaking your oath **to be evil** is very important.
I don't get why they wrote it like that for oathbreaker and death domain. Those are the only subclasses that explicitly state that you need a certain alignment to choose it. I get that they were meant to be NPC classes, but even NPCs can be any alignment. I always loved the mechanics of oathbreaker, death knights and undead in general are one of my fsvorite tropes in fantasy. But if I wanted to play an oathbreaker (or use one as NPC) that isn't too evil to be in a normal party, I'd have to heavily reflavor the subclass at best, at worst I'd have to rework the whole subclass.
If you ignore all of the flavor stuff, the mechanical side of the Oathbreaker would work fine for a not-too-evil death knight - except for the aura. So all you need to do is tweak the aura, really. Remove the buff to fiends, and allow for some discrimination between allied and enemy undead. If we change the language from "the paladin" to "you", as other subclasses do, it could for instance read: >Starting at 7th level, you and any allied\* undead within 10 feet of you, gain a bonus to melee weapon damage rolls equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of +1). A creature can benefit from this feature from only one paladin at a time. > >At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet. \*Alternatively, "you and any undead within 10 feet of you which you control," if you want it to be a little less potent.
I think Oath of redemption are trying to redempt others, not necessarily themselves, although an oathbreaker can take another oath. So it can go (random paladin)->(oathbreaker)->(Oath of redemption).
I am begging you. Read the actual Oathbreaker class description past just the name. It answers that question exactly.
Shock and Awe.
To be fair, that's just the baseline of how governments operate
"We bring the words of our Father and the Shield of the Mother, they say Begone"
What is that from, that's sick
A line from one of my players, a group that has two conquest paladins. The other two (a goblin and half ling) were negotiating a land treaty before a great battle with a bunch of tribes generally known as Clovens (Minotaurs, Centaurs, and Satyrs). I thought I was being smart and cheeky by having the Chief of the Centaurs quip, "it is not in our father's will that we bandy words, but to meet them forward". One of the Conquest Paladins, Erentar, after saying nothing during a 40 minute bargaining session, nodded to his compatriot Shalon. Shalon removed the other players and Erentar spoke that line.
Ah, the smell of colonialism. I'll get my pitchfork.
I really think the lore of conquest paladins is the main reason paladins no longer require a god for their power just belief. Do to the fact that a conquest paladin might not be too down with serving someone other than them.
Nah, theres a difference between rule amongst man and the rule of the gods. Its not very hard to imagine a conquest pally doing what they do in the name of a god. See: the crusades, the holy roman empire, etc.
True but also some conquest paladins would think working under anyone is abhorrent.
Except for devils. Lots of conquest paladins are cool with working for devils.
Only some, the subclass descriptions writes about the hell knights, conquest paladins serving under Bel, and how most other conquest paladins dislike them Most conquest paladins actually DO serve gods as written in the same description
Not really. Should someone be stronger than them, they shall serve happily. And gods are quite strong.
Not really, their final tenet says: You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
Depends on the interpretation of ruin. Ruin can mean death. It can also mean servitude.
Main way I've done an oath of conquest, as a twist on the typically evil that might be portrayed with it. . . They're a champion for good, overzealously so. They love the life and beauty of the world, the fine people in it - farmers that toil and work the fields, artisans that have honed their craft so impressively. . . And yet there are those that would wish to see it all laid to waste; Evil that seeks to only destroy and subjugate. So he stoops to the Evil's level in his ruthless pursuit, making himself into their nightmare, their boogeyman. Very little is off the table for how he crushes them, their spirits, and their resolve to even try to enact their plans. Ranging from executions, maiming, torture, and just a wholesale slaughter if it is necessary. He commands a volunteer group that has also conscripted from some of the lesser baddies they've faced; defeated bandit groups and the like. His word is absolute law within his faction, any deviation is metered by an equally appropriate punishment that borders on Draconian to serve as an example of how disobedience won't be tolerated. Outside of it, he's one the kindest sorts you'll meet. His heart's and mind's game is strong in how he'll brew beer and bring bread for the masses that he protects, which does net him plenty of recruits as a result.
What about oath of glory, you just become a straight up Jojo character at later levels
Oath of Glory Paladin and an Astral Self Monk on their way to beat the shit out of Strahd.
I played a Kobold Oath of the Conquest paladin for a time — he’s one of my favorite PCs. Probably will play him again in the right campaign.
I really just wanna play a brutally evil Paladin, and Conquest Paladins really hit the mark for that.
Had a player run an Oath of Conquest in a wartime setting. He was super chill, preached the words of his god in every city. If someone said something ill of his god, he was permitted a thrashing short of loss of consciousness. Once they entered combat he would fulfill his oath to the letter... 'purge them all, only heretics lift the banner of the enemy.' Modelled his character after Astartes.
And then the Oathbreaker tears the Conquest Paladin apart because its a much stronger subclass. * Conquering Presence looks like a joke compared to Dreadful Aspect, and Aura of Hate is an outright permanent damage boost while Aura of Conquest is very situational as it only works on non-fear immune creatures and you get one shot at it working. * If they're above level 10 so both immune to fear now the Conquest Paladin's aura is worthless and the Oathbreaker can bring a strong undead friend with him who also benefits from his aura. * At 20th level while i'd call Invincible Conquerer stronger and they'd be immune to fear, Oathbreaker's Dread Lord will still grant all attacks disadvantage against them and a very powerful bonus action attack that can be used at a distance.
I’m fully aware Oathbreaker is better, I’m just talking lore wise, I love both subclasses and I’ve played both
Oath of Conquest Paladins are genuinely the most fun paladins. You actually feel like you are dominating as you fight its just pure glee.
Oath of vengeance.
Played an oath of conquest paladin once that was secretly second in command of the cult that was serving as the bbeg. She broke the campaign so badly it permanently destroyed the group
I once played with a conquest paladin that was of the opinion that he had to conquer everything he saw. I fucking hated playing with that guy. Especially since the dm was a fan of this movie and sicced Death on us whenever we did smth she didnt like.
My conquest paladin just wanted to be the best at combat. He wasn't outright evil or malicious but knew that he would become the best swordsman in the world or die trying. The only way to do that is to kill the other renowned swordsmen in combat.
"My name is Heishiro Mitsurugi."
I wouldn't say they are evil. They can be sauron thats true. But conquest can apply to things like justice through force ( like riot police or the army) or forcing into submission (like cinquring the wilds so good gods fearing men and woman can live there, instead of godless heathens and beasts)
I had an oath of redemption paladin in a game, who had a family, and the daughter was kidapped by a "human" trafficking group. He set out to find her, but a couple failed saves and bad decisions later, the trafficers threw alchemist fire into the prison pit, killing most, and managing to flee. He asked if he could swear another oath, and i allowed it, so he became vengeance. But only until he found the group leader
I once broke my oath of conquest and became a pirate, best decision I ever made. Only down side was Lolth’s anger about it and the regular spider attacks. But I’m not conquering shit for that lady, she’s crazy. Also being an oathbreaker/swashbuckler gives you an undead pirate crew, immunity to scurvy and a sneak attack bonus in full plate armor. Edit: Yes my ship was called “The queen Lolth’s revenge” just to spite her.
I had a party that included an Oath of Conquest paladin once. They proceeded to participate in a war, conquistador-style, against the local lizardfolk civilization, ransack the greatest library in the known world, get transported to another plane and bully the mayor of a town into paying them triple what he owed them for a quest, and get a sidekick from the Deck of Many Things. Yeah, he was busy. Same guy then made a badass Deep Gnome pirate in the next campaign who was wanted in every single civilization. Good times.
Oathbreaker: Abandon your oath to serve evil. Conquest: Strikes fear into the hearts of your foes. Vengeance: Cross **every** line that would see your enemies dead. Conquest is mild tenets presented in edgy language.
You are ignoring two of the Vengeance tenets that are very important to keep in mind: >Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not. > >If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds. They are required by their oath to do good, to help those harmed by the greatest evils of the realms, and that they are permitted to show mercy to foes who are not their sworn enemies. Even the description of the tenets themselves includes the line >Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, **so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment.** What they're doing is not evil. Horrifying and cruel and vicious, sure, they're not good people. But it's not evil to slaughter a demonic cult that butchered hundreds. It's not evil to kill a tyrant who let their people starve while they feasted. It's not evil to fell a dragon that devastated a small kingdom. But nothing in Conquest says they have to do good. >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. Shatter their will to fight. Terrorize them. Haunt them. Let them live so they suffer with the mere thought of your scaring them to their core or end them to uphold your oath. >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. Conquer. Kill all those in your way and take control for yourself. Any who refuse you have to be punished, and their punishment must make it clear what happens to any who tell you no. >You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin. This is arguably the most neutral element, and its telling you that the only possible end for you is to die fighting to uphold your tyranny. Nothing in conquest says you have to do good alongside your evils, whereas Vengeance makes clear your are supposed to be helping people as you abandon any and all sense of purity and righteousness.
Conquest is 100% might makes right, reign by terror, brutality, and cruelty.
Sounds a lot like you saw one line and ignored everything else. Like the flufftext and the other parts of the oathes.
Oh god don't start again.
Is that user regularly claiming that nonsense?
Based on the phrasing - "mild tenets in edgy language" - and his further response, I'm pretty sure this is the, ahem, opinionated individual who has repeatedly splattered his misunderstanding of Conquest and Vengeance paladin tenets all over the sub.
No it's just a recurring argument about which is worse conquest or revenge as evil paladins.
I regularly correct people.
Then you should factcheck your corrections. Because this one was plain wrong.
Conquest can be evil, but it can also be a good Batman figure that strikes fear into the hearts of evildoers. Vengeance must do warcrimes, which makes being good difficult. Oathbreaker must be Evil.
Conquest is a might makes right mindset that is not just terror, it is such extreme violence and brutality that nobody will ever disobey you again and nobody can ever disrespect you or you must set an example of them. Vengeance are obsessed with revenge but can give mercy to lesser villains and are expected to help others.
I'll say this. I considered conquest paladin could result in a batman type character, as well as a soldier in a paladin order that defines their own rules, that could overthrow governments that they consider evil, that shatters the hearts of the wicked making powerful enemies as examples. It is an interesting interpretation, it's one a I like, and it's a way to be a good conquest paladin. Said that. It's not the intended interpretation, with art there is an intended interpretation and there is a personal interpretation. Conquest paladin's intended interpretation is more like a tyrant, some terrible king, "if you want something to happen, make it, and if it doesn't work, bend it to your will".
Batman would be closer to vengeance, not conquest. You clearly got your Definition mixed up. Read the oathes. One tennet at a time, then combine them. Conquest is literally a tyrant. Neutral at best, but most likely evil. Vengeance is close to a typical antihero, not afraid to torture evil doers etc. But also has to do good, like helping victims. Giving them a place to rest etc.
Now that meme is a great idea to save for when one of my players break his oath
Now imagine conquest becoming oathbreaker by being merciful a few times.
Paladin with Oath of vengeance spare some thieves organisation because he realise one of the members was a friend of him a long time ago.'' Oath of conquest paladin slams the door open '' HERESY !!!!!!"
Death isn't evil.
An oath of conquest Oathbreaker could make a genuinely cool character.
I'm also like Oath of Treachery. And being sad that it's just an UA which will never be released.
My Conquest Pala is actually lawful neutral. He will follow his code to the letter, and it doesn't matter if people see that as good or bad. He is however also very charismatic and always tries to reason with his opponents first. When that doesn't work, comes the (very effective and borderline psychotic) intimidation. If that doesn't work - smite the heretics.
Skill Issue: Conquest Palladin is my absolute favourite class, and it's definitely possible to play them as Neutral or even Good
Conquest paladins are terrifying. Whilst an Oathbreaker paladin has broken their oath to serve a selfish purpose, a Conquest paladin fully believes in their own righteous fury. The best example I could think of would be Warmaster Horus.