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.

 

[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......