one of my players, a LV 11 good human battle master fighter, wants to become a Paladin of Set (flavored as being his champion) and, this is where the crux of the conundrum, the issue is that in terms of mechanics, Oath of Conquest is the best option but is also the hardest in terms of roleplay as many of its powers and especially its tenet a seem to lean towards the evil side.
I want to tinker with it a little so I preserve its function but make it possible to be a good guy and have some good tenets without destroying the Oath’s core.
My logic is that Set’s role is more as a rebellious defender and represents evil as a balancing and necessary counterpart to good. In the myths, Set’s often the bad guy but he is also one of Ra’s mightiest and most trusted lieutenants; he serves goodness and order but is still a rather antagonistic force at times because balance calls for that.
any advice on how to make a compromise between these ideas?
First of all, Conquest doesn't need to be evil. Remember that the tenents can just be seen as guidelines and can easily be altered to fit the game. Of course, as the DM you always have the final say. But if you want a "gooder" take of the tenents, how about this?
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.
You fight evil so of course you want to prevent people turnign to evil. By crushing your enemies completely you set the example that evil won't be tolerated and have no chance against the forces of good. It is better to kill one murderer today than having to fight ten murderes next week just because you showed this one mercy.
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.
Law brings peace and prosperity. Those who break the law bring death and chaos and must be punished.
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.
There are always bigger threats around the corner. It is my duty as a protector to be as strong as I can be. If I am not strong enough to face the threat, I am not worthy.
As for how you want to work your version of Set into it I really can't say since it sounds very campaign specific. One usual excuse (for lack of a better term) that you can use is always the classic "I am a good person willing to do bad things to evil people so that the innocent can stay innocent."
In general though, I wouldn't worry as much about what is best mechanically but rather what fits best storywise.
Historically, conquerors embarked on their crusades for legitimately good intentions. In otherwords good intentions can lead to conquest. That being said, I personally believe actions better reflect one's alignment. As Lostwhilefishing illustrated, each of the tenets of conquest can be directed towards good provided your enemy is evil. Where things become interesting is when describing evils in shades of gray and not your typical black and white dichotomy. Your paladin may conquer a village ruled by an evil diety worshiping warlord like Bane, but that doesn't mean this warlord isn't a caring father, devoted husband and honorable warrior (all good virtues). As a DM, draw on these complex scenarios to create shades of grey to challenge your player instead of blocking his multi-class options. Making him walk this fine line would, personally, be super interesting.
I think it's fair to say that I might carry a bias towards saying the Oath of Conquest is evil-leaning. Conquistadores, Like Hernan Cortes for example, are hardcore evil as they were easily responsible for the mass genocide of indigenous people along with the theft of their culture and riches. I don't know how much anyone can fairly measure "good intentions." It's fair to say a lot of this oath's inspiration came from the aforementioned.
Anyways, OP, aside from debating if whether or not OoC is the best mechanically, I would look at sources for inspiration regarding a good conqueror. I watched Fate/Zero, and its portrayal of Alexander the Great is excellent as far as making a lovable, memorable character goes. In it, he wants to take over the whole modern world, and he's loud, greedy, brash and arrogant. But he's the kind of ruler that would immensely benefit his conquered and protect and allow them to govern themselves while paying taxes to him (that would benefit them btw) without trampling on their culture or forcing them to assimilate under his own culture. At that point, future subjects would probably throw their arms open in welcome at the sight of such a conqueror because it means their life is going to improve vastly. This type of conquest certainly "douses the flame of hope," for who would want to hope to go back when things are so much better under the paladin's rule? Conquest does not have to equate to destruction, for destroying the other leaves you with nothing to rule over.
In the end, you're the DM, and you can choose to highlight or omit tenets or even modify certain tenets to better reflect both the ideals of Set, your player, and the setting.
Just to clarify, the "hope" that is doused doesn't mean hope of a good life or liberty but rather just the hope that the paladin can be defeated. I mean, the hope that Japan would win WW2 was doused pretty harshly in august 1945...
RAW nothing in Oath of Conquest says it has to be evil. But being a good aligned Oath of Conquest paladin is a more difficult roleplay than many. The class may not be evil per se, but the tenets make it easier for an evil character, than a good one. As cgarciao said: "evil-leaning," is how I see the subclass also. So it can be done, to play a lawful good conquest paladin...but it's a difficult roleplay if you want to adhere to your tenets. Some people do more "roll play," than roleplay though. So the tenets matter more in some games, than others.
I try to play my paladin pretty close to his tenets. Not perfectly, but they are always the guideposts or lighthouse, giving me the direction I should be doing my roleplay. As a matter of fact, on the top of my notes, are my vengeance paladin tenets as a reminder. I try to align my roleplay with my tenets, usually subtly and never mentioned, but the underlying theme is there, if one is paying attention.
Something that gets a little lost in alignment discussions about Paladins is that they don't have to be Good or Evil. A Paladin who often uses violent and harsh means to achieve an end that is arguably "good" for society overall could well average out to Neutral if you assume that alignment is something mostly static rather than something circumstantial. B/c 5e has very few spells or hard rules about how alignment impacts your character (even as a Paladin), you could also say that a Paladin is both Good and Evil, which is much like most human beings in real life.
I think the toughest tenet for a good aligned character is "Rule With An Iron Fist." Not generally the way we see "good" government in the 21st Century! ;) Much easier for an evil alignment player to have no issues with that "iron fist."
"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."
I think the toughest tenet for a good aligned character is "Rule With An Iron Fist." Not generally the way we see "good" government in the 21st Century! ;) Much easier for an evil alignment player to have no issues with that "iron fist."
"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."
Well its more Grimdark. Look at Warhammer 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. The quote on quote good civilizations in the stories are very very bad to their people. Hell Bretonnia is all about chivalry and Authorian Legend and they treat the peasants like absolute crap.
Personally it’s not that hard to do a LN which I think is a good compromise. For example being incredibly loyal and ruling justly but when someone betrays them they burn their fields, salt the earth, and feed the offending npc to a gelatinous cube
I’m in a conundrum in the game I am running:
one of my players, a LV 11 good human battle master fighter, wants to become a Paladin of Set (flavored as being his champion) and, this is where the crux of the conundrum, the issue is that in terms of mechanics, Oath of Conquest is the best option but is also the hardest in terms of roleplay as many of its powers and especially its tenet a seem to lean towards the evil side.
I want to tinker with it a little so I preserve its function but make it possible to be a good guy and have some good tenets without destroying the Oath’s core.
My logic is that Set’s role is more as a rebellious defender and represents evil as a balancing and necessary counterpart to good. In the myths, Set’s often the bad guy but he is also one of Ra’s mightiest and most trusted lieutenants; he serves goodness and order but is still a rather antagonistic force at times because balance calls for that.
any advice on how to make a compromise between these ideas?
First of all, Conquest doesn't need to be evil. Remember that the tenents can just be seen as guidelines and can easily be altered to fit the game. Of course, as the DM you always have the final say. But if you want a "gooder" take of the tenents, how about this?
You fight evil so of course you want to prevent people turnign to evil. By crushing your enemies completely you set the example that evil won't be tolerated and have no chance against the forces of good. It is better to kill one murderer today than having to fight ten murderes next week just because you showed this one mercy.
Law brings peace and prosperity. Those who break the law bring death and chaos and must be punished.
There are always bigger threats around the corner. It is my duty as a protector to be as strong as I can be. If I am not strong enough to face the threat, I am not worthy.
As for how you want to work your version of Set into it I really can't say since it sounds very campaign specific. One usual excuse (for lack of a better term) that you can use is always the classic "I am a good person willing to do bad things to evil people so that the innocent can stay innocent."
In general though, I wouldn't worry as much about what is best mechanically but rather what fits best storywise.
Historically, conquerors embarked on their crusades for legitimately good intentions. In otherwords good intentions can lead to conquest. That being said, I personally believe actions better reflect one's alignment. As Lostwhilefishing illustrated, each of the tenets of conquest can be directed towards good provided your enemy is evil. Where things become interesting is when describing evils in shades of gray and not your typical black and white dichotomy. Your paladin may conquer a village ruled by an evil diety worshiping warlord like Bane, but that doesn't mean this warlord isn't a caring father, devoted husband and honorable warrior (all good virtues). As a DM, draw on these complex scenarios to create shades of grey to challenge your player instead of blocking his multi-class options. Making him walk this fine line would, personally, be super interesting.
I think it's fair to say that I might carry a bias towards saying the Oath of Conquest is evil-leaning. Conquistadores, Like Hernan Cortes for example, are hardcore evil as they were easily responsible for the mass genocide of indigenous people along with the theft of their culture and riches. I don't know how much anyone can fairly measure "good intentions." It's fair to say a lot of this oath's inspiration came from the aforementioned.
Anyways, OP, aside from debating if whether or not OoC is the best mechanically, I would look at sources for inspiration regarding a good conqueror. I watched Fate/Zero, and its portrayal of Alexander the Great is excellent as far as making a lovable, memorable character goes. In it, he wants to take over the whole modern world, and he's loud, greedy, brash and arrogant. But he's the kind of ruler that would immensely benefit his conquered and protect and allow them to govern themselves while paying taxes to him (that would benefit them btw) without trampling on their culture or forcing them to assimilate under his own culture. At that point, future subjects would probably throw their arms open in welcome at the sight of such a conqueror because it means their life is going to improve vastly. This type of conquest certainly "douses the flame of hope," for who would want to hope to go back when things are so much better under the paladin's rule? Conquest does not have to equate to destruction, for destroying the other leaves you with nothing to rule over.
In the end, you're the DM, and you can choose to highlight or omit tenets or even modify certain tenets to better reflect both the ideals of Set, your player, and the setting.
Just to clarify, the "hope" that is doused doesn't mean hope of a good life or liberty but rather just the hope that the paladin can be defeated. I mean, the hope that Japan would win WW2 was doused pretty harshly in august 1945...
I like this idea. Thanks.
RAW nothing in Oath of Conquest says it has to be evil. But being a good aligned Oath of Conquest paladin is a more difficult roleplay than many. The class may not be evil per se, but the tenets make it easier for an evil character, than a good one. As cgarciao said: "evil-leaning," is how I see the subclass also. So it can be done, to play a lawful good conquest paladin...but it's a difficult roleplay if you want to adhere to your tenets. Some people do more "roll play," than roleplay though. So the tenets matter more in some games, than others.
I try to play my paladin pretty close to his tenets. Not perfectly, but they are always the guideposts or lighthouse, giving me the direction I should be doing my roleplay. As a matter of fact, on the top of my notes, are my vengeance paladin tenets as a reminder. I try to align my roleplay with my tenets, usually subtly and never mentioned, but the underlying theme is there, if one is paying attention.
Something that gets a little lost in alignment discussions about Paladins is that they don't have to be Good or Evil. A Paladin who often uses violent and harsh means to achieve an end that is arguably "good" for society overall could well average out to Neutral if you assume that alignment is something mostly static rather than something circumstantial. B/c 5e has very few spells or hard rules about how alignment impacts your character (even as a Paladin), you could also say that a Paladin is both Good and Evil, which is much like most human beings in real life.
Maybe switch the tenants out for the Oath of Glory instead? The Oath of Glory is kind of like a less harsh version of the Oath of Conquest.
My only good homebrews: Races, Subclasses.
An aspiring DM and Homebrewer. Ask me if you need anything.
I think the toughest tenet for a good aligned character is "Rule With An Iron Fist." Not generally the way we see "good" government in the 21st Century! ;)
Much easier for an evil alignment player to have no issues with that "iron fist."
"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."
Well its more Grimdark. Look at Warhammer 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. The quote on quote good civilizations in the stories are very very bad to their people. Hell Bretonnia is all about chivalry and Authorian Legend and they treat the peasants like absolute crap.
Personally it’s not that hard to do a LN which I think is a good compromise. For example being incredibly loyal and ruling justly but when someone betrays them they burn their fields, salt the earth, and feed the offending npc to a gelatinous cube