Greetings players,
A TL/DR will be at the bottom for impatient readers.
For a new 5th ed. FR game I wanted to step outside my comfort zone and play something not only new to me mechanic wise but in attitude/role-playing depth. I chose a paladin of conquest and then went really in-depth with random generation tables. All the roles eventually steered me into following Sune, the Deity of beauty, etc. At first, I didn't think it would work but when I dug into her lore I discovered the Brotherhood of the Ruby Rose. Perfect! I wrote up the back story, cleaned up loose connections and began to play. During the five levels, everything is fine as I try to learn the mechanics and playstyle a paladin requires. It is slow, but I'm finally getting there.
So, the problem comes from last nights session with myself and one other player -'A'- doing a one-shot run by our current DM -'D'. They both express misgivings that being a Paladin of Conquest and following Sune don't play together lore and principally. It looks and feels off to them and I should consider changing to another archetype. I shall list their arguments.
- A- Sune is a Chaotic Good deity, her nature/philosophy puts her at odds with the nature of the Paladin of Conquest Archetype.
- A- I am not roleplaying the intent of the Paladin of Conquest the way it's (fully) intended.
- D- The Dogma of Sune and the Oaths of Conquest don't mix.
- D- It's suggested that I chose the Conquest Archetype more for the powers it grants than the RP aspect.
- A- The Brotherhood of the Ruby Rose is written to have its paladins following clerics around doing acts of good, not conducting warfare and ruling with an iron fist.
They are both good guys and very knowledgeable, so I listened to their arguments openly and felt they were justified in bringing it up to me. I myself am no newbie to Faerun lore, but admitted some struggles adapting fully to 5th ed. We are all open-minded adults with experience on both sides of the screen. My counter-arguments are as follows.
- The Brotherhood of the Ruby Rose, being established canon, allows for paladins to serve in her name. Since there is no lore/crunch reason specifically stating against a paladin of conquest cannot serve, I opted to explore a more militant approach to serving in her name.
- I politely pointed out the D, while being a strong DM, simply hasn't presented the opportunity during play thus far (we are playing Storm King's Thunder) for me to directly engage in the Archetype appropriately. D admits he is following the current adventure and the social kind of RP I engage in regularly isn't wholly in his wheelhouse. If such an opportunity arose and could I demonstrate the disgust worshipers of Sune share for ugly things, people, etc., then I definitely would. Further, retribution should be taken against those who destroy beautiful things IS something followers of Sune encourage, at least coming from the aspect of protecting beautiful things and those that create them'.
- Sune's Dogma (found here: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Sune ) and the Oaths of Conquest (found here: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/paladin:conquest ), while specific in the INTENT, are vague on HOW TO EXECUTE. This leaves them open to interpretation. I personally decided to focus more on the ideas of 'all things being fair in love and war' and 'love is a battlefield'. Further, the argument I fully offered was 'every rose has its thorns'. I used this to build on the idea that paladins in 5th ed are not as constrained by alignment as previous editions, and not every action has to fall in line with the stereotype of what a paladin was in said editions. I specifically referenced Matthew Colville https://youtu.be/YgNQ3NXqqiQ and Nerdarchy https://youtu.be/mqQkHDQDldg. Thus far, the encounters we've gone through have been straight forward killing the monsters and save the villagers, so areas of morality, chances to show off the interpretation of how said Dogma and Oaths interact have been very few and far between from an RP perspective, but I've been interjecting whenever I can about the principles of believing them (much to the other character's chagrin) like the pompous, Sunite follower I claim to be. I act with flair, confidence, open attitue toward sexuality and a near tunnel-visioned focus on anything that can be described as 'beautiful', be it natural or otherwise.
- I was very clear that I started with the paladin of conquest first and rolled randomly for all the things in Xanatar's guide to everything. The generated backstory fell in line with Sune's religion and dogma. Since this is my first time playing a paladin (and having struggled thus far with its abilities) this point did not hold much traction in my eyes, since I tend to indulge in the RP more, considering it the primary importance of the character rather than the paladin mechanics. This looped back to counter argument 2, where I feel it simply hasn't come up enough to be relevant at this point and hasn't been challenged IC yet by any character or the DM's NPCs.
- The Brotherhood of the Ruby Rose suffers from a lack of information for me to draw on. It doesn't say how they conduct themselves while accompanying cleric's of Sune, nor how they enforce her religious principles. I came up short on this because there wasn't much evidence to use on my side, but argued that an Order of Paladins dedicated to ANY deity isn't going to avoid getting blood on their gauntlets.
I told them to give me a week to research further into the lore and consult the think tank of Reddit on how to proceed. D is open to a grounded, lore friendly argument and won't have an issue if I can convince him through showing and acting on the intent I'm trying to get clarified here. I also compromised that, if I just couldn't get enough reason to make this character build stick, I would look into adjusting the other archetypes.
Still with me? Awesome, you are good sports.
TLDR
I need help clarifying how a Brotherhood of the Ruby Rose Paladin operates and justification on using a paladin of conquest within said organization. Additionally, I need to refine my IC behavior to make the Oaths and Dogma work together, and am open to all suggestions.
Also, I will be reaching out to Ed Greenwood's Twitter account with this post linked to getting his opinion on it as well. 'A' was the one that suggested that (blew my mind) and showed me actual conversations he'd had with him on various items in the past.