I was ambivalent about it, but havong now DM ed for one, i can say with utter certainty the dissonance between Conquest and the idea of what a paladin should be hurts my brain.

It’s like saying Superman, but really you’re referring to this guy.

Originally posted by detectivecomicsgifs

Someone who would look upon Darkseid as the ideal shouldn’t associate with the word paladin.

I personally take Conquest as an Oath of Vengeance taken to a whole other level. Like, picture a campaign where you not only have to kill the big bad monster, but also claim back a whole land that’s been overtaken by their forces, with the oppressed population wholly welcoming this imposing knight who gets the job of expelling their oppressors done. So instead of becoming a tyrant by conquering the innocent, he becomes a liberator by conquering the forces of evil/chaos.

So how I see the tenets in this context is:

• Douse the Flame of Hope - Break evil’s resolve so they never return.
  
• Rule with an Iron Fist - The laws you impose should be to ensure no evil comes back, not to be a douche to the people.
  
• Strength Above All - Evil can and will return some day, so you best keep your forces strong to defend this land you protect now.
  

That is the standard justification used by those who want to make a “Good” Conqueror. I am not impressed by it. .

If I may cut in, what you @gearholder, are describing is simply an oath of vengeance paladin. As an avenger it should not be enough that the big bad is dead, you must ensure that the people who suffered under their tyranny no longer suffer. Restitution for their crimes must be carried out.