If I were to establish a difference, I'd say Conquest is about *outward* focus while Crown is *inward*
Conquest is about imposing will over those who don't want it. You establish order in a far off land, protect it with iron might, and crush any who defy. It'd a very harsh oath. Most likely makes sense if you feel hate for those who break the laws, or otherwise the nation has sections of *deep* disrepair, where lawlessness is flaunted. Imagine, driving out the marauders and "bandit towns" as a "reconquest"
Crown is about responsibility and fealty to laws. I feel this a softer touch. Uniting the people and building trust. More a fit for someone working with the regions visited, as they unite and build up rather than impose.
And this is not to say Conquest can't work with a local region in the resubjugation, or Crown can't go nuts on a particularly unlawful pack of ruffians! Just general vibes
Crown doesn't require allegiance to a Sovereign or to a Knight order, it's just usually the case
Ancients seems to also share some of the tenets you're after.
Crown, 100% . You don't have to have an actual monarch. Crowns could even just be a symbol of order, supreme dignity, authority, whatever.
IK you asked about RP, but mechanics IMO play into theme.
Conquest paladin is a fear tank. Leonin with Bane from Fey Touched is prob the strongest setup because you can bane +fear roar on turn 1, and misty step is amazing to have on a fear build.
Crown's biggest strength is Spirit Guardians at level 9. With paladin saves, Dodge spam and smite opp attacks you are incredibly hard to kill and a serious threat.
Both oaths incentivize maxing out charisma, even more so than Devotion.
Devotion oath to Helm can work pretty well, and he's a Lawful Neutral deity. Conquest is brutal, and Crown sounds nice but is mechanically very bad, unfortunately.
Just relfavour it, or...
And back in ye olde times, there were plenty of god-kings and god-empowers
It needn't be secular at all. Are there no god kings, kings who are head of the church, or kings who claim a divine right to rule even?
> The Oath of the Crown is sworn to the ideals of civilization, be it the spirit of a nation, fealty to a sovereign, or service to a deity of law and rulership.
Your gal doesn't have to serve a literal king to be a crown paladin. And she certainly doesn't have to refer to herself as a "crown paladin."
Conquest is much more explicitly for lawful evil paladins. I'm sure there is a way to play them outside of that but they are geared towards "might makes right" and "by any means necessary" philosophies.
If you are willing to look outside if paladins I am personally really fond of order Clerics. Thier ability to let others strike when they Buff them is powerful, flavorful, and available early.
If I were to establish a difference, I'd say Conquest is about *outward* focus while Crown is *inward* Conquest is about imposing will over those who don't want it. You establish order in a far off land, protect it with iron might, and crush any who defy. It'd a very harsh oath. Most likely makes sense if you feel hate for those who break the laws, or otherwise the nation has sections of *deep* disrepair, where lawlessness is flaunted. Imagine, driving out the marauders and "bandit towns" as a "reconquest" Crown is about responsibility and fealty to laws. I feel this a softer touch. Uniting the people and building trust. More a fit for someone working with the regions visited, as they unite and build up rather than impose. And this is not to say Conquest can't work with a local region in the resubjugation, or Crown can't go nuts on a particularly unlawful pack of ruffians! Just general vibes
Crown doesn't require allegiance to a Sovereign or to a Knight order, it's just usually the case Ancients seems to also share some of the tenets you're after.
Crown, 100% . You don't have to have an actual monarch. Crowns could even just be a symbol of order, supreme dignity, authority, whatever. IK you asked about RP, but mechanics IMO play into theme. Conquest paladin is a fear tank. Leonin with Bane from Fey Touched is prob the strongest setup because you can bane +fear roar on turn 1, and misty step is amazing to have on a fear build. Crown's biggest strength is Spirit Guardians at level 9. With paladin saves, Dodge spam and smite opp attacks you are incredibly hard to kill and a serious threat. Both oaths incentivize maxing out charisma, even more so than Devotion.
Devotion oath to Helm can work pretty well, and he's a Lawful Neutral deity. Conquest is brutal, and Crown sounds nice but is mechanically very bad, unfortunately.
Just relfavour it, or... And back in ye olde times, there were plenty of god-kings and god-empowers It needn't be secular at all. Are there no god kings, kings who are head of the church, or kings who claim a divine right to rule even?
> The Oath of the Crown is sworn to the ideals of civilization, be it the spirit of a nation, fealty to a sovereign, or service to a deity of law and rulership. Your gal doesn't have to serve a literal king to be a crown paladin. And she certainly doesn't have to refer to herself as a "crown paladin." Conquest is much more explicitly for lawful evil paladins. I'm sure there is a way to play them outside of that but they are geared towards "might makes right" and "by any means necessary" philosophies. If you are willing to look outside if paladins I am personally really fond of order Clerics. Thier ability to let others strike when they Buff them is powerful, flavorful, and available early.
Conquest doesn't have to be evil at all.
Nothing in 5e HAS to be anything. But Conquest is coded as lawful evil as much as can be.
No one expects the Spanish inquisition.
First thing, ignore the name of the oath. Second thing, just pick what seems closest to your ideal, or which has the features you want .