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?