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.

 

[Dragonhelm]

To me, the Oath of Conquest would work well for the Knights of the Skull from Dragonlance. Skull Knights are the divine arm of the Knights of Neraka (Knights of Takhisis).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

While Oath of Treachery suggests that it's CE, it could be used for a tragic figure that used to believe in something.

 

[guachi]

I like Conquest. It fits perfectly as a Heldannic Knight Paladin of Thyatis in my Mystara campaign. Though I hated the "You're a Hellknight thing." It just doesn't seem necessary.

I'm indifferent to treachery.

 

[Bitbrain]

Well, they're not exactly what I was expecting, but I suppose I should have.

Oath of Conquest might be interesting to play on certain occasions (my group sometimes plays evil campaigns).

Oath of Treachery does not look appealing to me in the slightest, but I have to admit they did a good job with the feel of it.

EDIT
Interestingly, I can easily see (from a characterization standpoint) a Conquest Paladin breaking his oath and eventually becoming a Devotion or Ancients Paladin, rather than just a Treachery Paladin.

sort of like Finn's story-arch in The Force Awakens.

 

[Valetudo]

I have to ask myself, are these made for me and my group and for the most part almost every UA so far has been no. Im guessing there will be no warlord class for me next year either. I guess wizards really doesnt want my money, because I also dont buy the APs.

 

[manduck]

Well, I'm one of two guys in my group who plays paladins. Neither of us are really interested in the evil paladin style of character, as we really don't do evil campaigns. It's never held much interest for me personally. So these likely won't see any play at my table. Interesting ideas though. I may steal these for some villains next time I'm in the DM chair. Other than that, not much for me here. I was hoping for more good leaning oaths. Though really, the PBH and Oath of the Crown are all so good I guess you don't need much in the way of "good" paladin options right now.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

The Tome of Beasts had a Derro Shadow Antipaladin that seemed like a good start in this direction (CN madness paladin).

 

[Mercule]

Its Treachery, not Tyranny.

So it is. In that case, I'm going with Treachery = CE anti-paladin and Conquest = LE anti-paladin.

Presumably, there will be no formal alignment restrictions. Instead, I mean fluff that clearly favors one or the other.

Edit: Having read the article, now, I was wrong about it not being explicit. I guess that means they found good names for them.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

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......

 

[seebs]

Have any two UA PDF files had names that used the same numbering/naming convention?

 

[TwoSix]

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......

The "Book of Stuff People Love", and the "Book of Stuff People Hate"?

 

[Barantor]

Oath of Conquest will make a great Paladin of Hextor.

I like these, good additions and fill in some spots for paladin.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have to reject both of these. The don't feel like paladins. They don't even feel like oaths.

My thoughts exactly...

"Just caring for yourself" isn't much of an Oath, I would prefer that Paladins keep representing warriors that are empowered by a very strong and epic ideal. Just having a demon sponsor that grants you a couple of abilities because you amuse him, doesn't sound like it makes you an (un)holy warrior, you could be a Fighter with Magic Initiate (Warlock).

If you want to have a LE/CE Paladin, rather than making a character who merely enjoy conquest/treachery, you should make a character who believes in conquest/treachery as the meaning of everything.

Maybe it's just a matter of presentation, but if you want to get a good start, pick the best model ever i.e. Darth Vader.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

From the UA PDF (emphasis added):

A paladin who embraces the Oath of Treachery owes allegiance to no one. There are no tenets of this oath, for it lacks any substance. Those who are unfortunate enough to have close contact with blackguards have observed that a blackguard’s overwhelming concern is power and safety, especially if both can be obtained at the expense of others.​

The first emphasised bit seems at odds with "lawful", and the second with "good".

If we look at the class abilities, they are based around deceit (eg invisibility, illusion, poison, mind control). That doesn't really scream "lawful good" to me either.

 

[Parmandur]

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......

Weeeelll, the power sources are questionable; but the PHB already lets you deal with Cthulu or the Devil for Arcan power, without requiring the PC be Evil (indeed, insisting that the DM shouldn't let an evil aligned Warlock of Asmodeus!), so the Big Book of Crunch will probably similarly dissuade using these subclasses for an evil PC.

So now we have seven Paladin types: LG/LN Devotion, NG/TN Green Knight, CG/CN Avenger, LE/LN Hell Knight, NE/TN Oathbreaker, CE/CN Treachery knight,giving the alignment chart (and crown out there doing its thing...).

 

[Istbor]

Well first off, it pretty much says the 'Oath' of Treachery doesn't adhere to any actual oaths, but simply wants to accumulate power and continue to exist. The other clearly does adhere to a set of oaths or frames of mind. Whether you like them or not is a different story. There are a lot of example of order working the way the Conquest portraits itself. The Strong rule the weak.

I like these both. I am so tired of the clean and spotless fairy tale paladin. These are real people, who can do terrible things for what they perceive as good intentions. I am glad there there are some more areas of grey for myself and my players to work in. I certainly don't view these as 'must be evil' sub-classes. One who no longer follows a set of ideals or broke their oaths is not an evil person, there is a lot of room for wiggle there. The same can be said for the paladin of Conquest. I see a lot of talk on keeping the rule of law after taking new territory, but nothing that says you have to be cruel or be evil.


I don't know. I don't see the end of the Good paladin in this, I see an end to the MUST be good all the time paladin though. I see a strict militant sect of a church, and an interesting way to play a paladin when you no longer want to follow some oaths you swore, but also don't want to raise the dead.

I mean, people know that the fluff here, is first off provisional, and second off just one way to play it. Right? I am not alone in understanding that you can take these mechanics and apply them to similar but different fluff for your use.

 

[Jester David]

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.


Conquest. Not *really* evil, although the big example is. They could easily be the Templar/inquisitor hardass version of lawful good. "The impure must burn" type good. LN could also fit for them.
Really, they're just hardcore Lawful.
Although... the heavy emphasis on making this frightened is odd in that case. Still, I could totally picture this as a Judge Dredd type guy. Or the goddamn Batman.

Oh man, I totally want to make a Dark Knight conquest paladin now...

Treachery. The trickery paladin. Another nice alternative to the Oathbreaker. Blackguard and anti-paladins are slightly different things. It does the job.

 

[Patrick McGill]

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.

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.

 

[Jester David]

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.

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."
Unearthed Arcana isn't just free content for free, it's free content that they're curious what people think about, either in terms of flavour or in terms of mechanics.

 

[renevq]

Am I the only one getting a Khorne Berserker/Sorcerer of Tzeentch vibe from this article?