• xxjackthewolfxx
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    then ur an oath of redemption get fucked dumbass, read the lore

    • Lemdee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      read the lore

      Me as the GM:

      This comment brought to you by homebrew

    • TheGreatDarknessOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      All serious tho, one of ideas I know I will never be able to do is to play the same Paladin in 3 succesful campaigns in one setting, first as Oath of Conquest, then Oathbreaker, then Oath of Redemption. I first it’s a better growth if there is a transition phase before adopting the Redeption.

    • gerusz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The problem with Redemption is that it’s an externally-focused oath, trying to redeem others. A conquest paladin having an “am I the baddy” moment and turning into a redemption paladin is like a douchy bully who suddenly finds Jesus then tries to convert people without apologizing for the years of bullying.

      D&D needs an Oath of Atonement which would be specifically focused on making up for the shit you did as a previous less-than-moral paladin subclass (mostly conquest, sometimes revenge, occasionally crown or devotion).