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.
I think they're trying to get at least 1 Paladin Oath for each alignment. With Protection (LG), Ancients (NG), Vengeance (N), Crown (LN), Oathbreaker (NE), Conquest (LE), and Treachery (CE).
They just need to fill out CG and CN. I feel they just need to think of something distinct for those 2 alignments and then there'll be one of each alignment.
Many have proposed Liberation of CG, as that existed before. It just needs it's mechanics and story background that make it different enough from Protection and Ancients.
I have my idea of Madness for CN, which would be about delusions, insanity and possibly Great Old Ones.
So it is. In that case, I'm going with Treachery = CE anti-paladin and Conquest = LE anti-paladin.Its Treachery, not Tyranny.
It might be they are doing more then one book.
In 4th you had the books Heroes of shadoe and Heroes of the feywild.
Heroes Of shadow had shadowfelloptions and some more evel class options ( we seen plently of those in the UA so far)
And heroes of the feywild had fey based options and we also have seen a number of those in the UA articles.
The "Book of Stuff People Love", and the "Book of Stuff People Hate"?That is true. They have said "major mechanical expansion", not "one book." Their publishing style has been more "one book", but who knows? Feelings towards most of these UA options seem bimodal (some love, some hate), so that could lead to 2 or more books......
I have to reject both of these. The don't feel like paladins. They don't even feel like oaths.
From the UA PDF (emphasis added):I notice the irony that because Oath of Treachery has no tenents, you can be a Lawful Good Oath of Treachery Paladin, there is absolutely nothing that requires or encourages evil unlike like Oath Breaker.
How is this for an irony, a Lawful Evil Oath of Conquest Paladin can fall by doing a act of mercy and kindness to become a Lawful Good Oath of Treachery Paladin.
Since they just gave us hellknights and blackguards, I am not sure if the first statement is still in effect, to quote:
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......
Again, this is a PLAYTEST people. A concept test. They don't need to get feedback on the easy, obvious classes. Because they know people will like them.
True. I'm just reacting to the "awww man, why not the <X> paladin?!" reactions. And the answer is the pretty obvious, "because they already know people like it."You're quite right, but I think everything in this thread would be useful feedback for Wizards in some way. They probably want to gauge initial reactions as well as deeper survey stuff.