New UA Paladin Sacred Oaths are Oath of Conquest and the Oath of Treachery

I'm disappointed about no Oath of Liberty, but I'll take a look at what they are bringing, when they get around to getting the page to work.

 

[dagger]

Save​

The latest Unearthed Arcana (and the last of 2016 - WotC's Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that WotC will be closed over Xmas) contains two new Paladin Oaths. The Oath of Conquest is for paladins who seek glory in battle; the Oath of Treachery is for blackguards, paladins who serve only themselves. The next Unearthed Arcana will be on Monday, January 9th, 2017.

Save​

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Sacred Oaths

The page is not opening yet....but they are coming soon!

http://dnd.wizards.com/

If you scroll down you will see them both.


Not loading yet: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/paladin-sacred-oaths


View attachment 79306

More evil-ish/creepy subclasses--between this, the bard, the cleric, the druid, and Volo's monstrous races, it sure seems like a creepy/evil AP is in the works......Still, if it is anything like Pathfinder's last evil adventure sequence that will mean more celestials for the PC's to fight, so it is a win in my book.

 

[Valetudo]

The current pally subs are some of the most solid. Lets hope these one are able to hang. Maybe a wargod pally? Weird the second one sounds very close to the oathbreaker and very unpally like.

 

[Valetudo]

I'm disappointed about no Oath of Liberty, but I'll take a look at what they are bringing, when they get around to getting the page to work.

Kinda like the 3rd edition CG one?

 

[Mercule]

Hmm... I wonder if Tyranny will be more of a LE anti-paladin whereas the Oathbreaker is more the traditional fallen knight. Conquest sounds LN, but I could also see it being a CE anti-paladin. Either way, neither sounds exciting for PCs, but I'll withhold judgement until I see them.

I've always had mixed feelings about the Liberty Paladin (by whatever name). Something about freedom-fighters always seems like they should be lighter-armored and more guerrilla -- like a Ranger zealot, maybe. But... there's no reason why a freedom fighter should forego the heavy armor and smiting.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Kinda like the 3rd edition CG one?

Yeah, that one, though you could easily frame any such Oath of Liberty in 5e into something that's not necessarily either Chaotic or Good.

I was really hoping for an Oath of Liberty, too. Thought that'd be a no-brainer for this. I can't imagine Tyranny being anything but an LE bent, so, meh, guess we'll see how it goes. Conquest interests me a little more, could be a more Warlord-ish Paladin?

 

[guachi]

Conquest and Treachery

Hmm... Maybe Conquest would fit with a LN type Paladin? Though maybe that was more Crown oath.

Treachery sounds like a good oath to use with NPCs, though.

 

[Gladius Legis]

View attachment 79311

Poor Rangers gotta wait.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Conquest sounds LE to me and treachery sounds NE (at least in terms of goals). I don't know that the oath-breaker is particularly CE (as opposed to just being E), but I suppose "you broke your oath, you must be chaotic" or something.

Edit: some more thoughts: conquest could be a more warlord paladin and treachery could be an assassin-like paladin.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

both seem to be evil paladins the oath Treachery is also refered to as blackguard

 

[Aldarc]

Ugh all around. No Liberation paladin, but just two evil variants? Nope. Pass.

 

[Parmandur]

More evil-ish/creepy subclasses--between this, the bard, the cleric, the druid, and Volo's monstrous races, it sure seems like a creepy/evil AP is in the works......Still, if it is anything like Pathfinder's last evil adventure sequence that will mean more celestials for the PC's to fight, so it is a win in my book.

Perkins has said in no uncertain terms: no official support for evil PCs, ever, particularly APs will remain "good guy focused."

 

[TwoSix]

Ooh, I really like both of these. The "max damage if you have advantage" abilities for Treachery are an interesting mechanic I'd like to see more of.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It's up. Initial thoughts:

Conquest's flavor is ... disappointing. Would've much preferred it be strictly of a military bent, or like that of a Crusader. The Nine Hells flavor (which I get is optional, granted) just comes out of left field. Don't particularly care for the fact you have to be a strong-armed tyrant after, either.

Treachery is just another way to be a Blackguard/Oathbreaker. Ehhh ...

 

[Gladius Legis]

Perkins has said in no uncertain terms: no official support for evil PCs, ever, particularly APs will remain "good guy focused."

Yeah, well, that'd better be in the next Paladin UA. This one's unfortunately all about The Edgelords, as if Oathbreaker and even Vengeance to a point didn't satisfy that itch enough already.

 

[TwoSix]

Treachery is just another way to be a Blackguard/Oathbreaker. Ehhh ...

Treachery is rogue/trickery flavored, though, as opposed to Oathbreaker's necromantic bent. It's nice to see multiple options for Blackguards for a change.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wow, now it seems there are more evil paladin oaths then good guy oaths (if you count DMG). THat feels.....really weird, since I grew up with paladins being the pinnacle of good.

 

[gyor]

Hmm... I wonder if Tyranny will be more of a LE anti-paladin whereas the Oathbreaker is more the traditional fallen knight. Conquest sounds LN, but I could also see it being a CE anti-paladin. Either way, neither sounds exciting for PCs, but I'll withhold judgement until I see them.

I've always had mixed feelings about the Liberty Paladin (by whatever name). Something about freedom-fighters always seems like they should be lighter-armored and more guerrilla -- like a Ranger zealot, maybe. But... there's no reason why a freedom fighter should forego the heavy armor and smiting.

Its Treachery, not Tyranny.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Perkins has said in no uncertain terms: no official support for evil PCs, ever, particularly APs will remain "good guy focused."

Since they just gave us hellknights and blackguards, I am not sure if the first statement is still in effect, to quote:

Fallen Paladins
The Oath of Treachery is an option for the paladin who has strayed from another Sacred Oath or who has rejected the traditional paladin life. This option exists alongside the Oathbreaker in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide. DMs are free to use either option to model villainous or fallen paladins.
If you switch to this oath from another one, replace all of the previous oath’s features with the features of this one, and if you renounce this oath, replace its features with the features of the new one.

I would not be surprised if the Big Book of Crunch has a DM section where these paladins and the skeezy bards end up.

They sure seem to be providing a lot of creepy options, but I agree that under the current AP release rate, it would be a bad decision to release an evil AP. Of course, if they started releasing more AP's......