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



## dagger (Dec 19, 2016)

*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 (Dec 19, 2016)

dagger said:


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




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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

gyor said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Valetudo said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

View attachment 79311

Poor Rangers gotta wait.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 19, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Gladius Legis said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Mercule said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> 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......


----------



## kalil (Dec 19, 2016)

Bleh. I have not been impressed by the UA subclasses in general, but this was certainly a new low watermark.


----------



## akr71 (Dec 19, 2016)

Anybody got a link to the actual pdf yet?  I can get the synopsis from the WotC site, but no document.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 19, 2016)

akr71 said:


> Anybody got a link to the actual pdf yet?  I can get the synopsis from the WotC site, but no document.




http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf

there you go.  


And I really like the Treacherous strike ability.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 19, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> 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.




Hmm ...

2 "Good" Oaths (Devotion, Ancients)
2 "Neutral" Oaths (Vengeance, Crown)
3 "Evil" Oaths (Oathbreaker, Conquest, Treachery)

Yeah ...


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Dec 19, 2016)

I have to reject both of these. The don't feel like paladins. They don't even feel like oaths. The Oath of Conquest could work, if it focused on conquering a particular location. The Oath of Treachery is just an alternative to the oathbreaker rules.

I wouldn't mind an Oath of Liberty. I know people who loved that concept in 3E. I could also see an Oath of Law. A Lawful Neutral paladin with a borderline tyrannical faith in the law. Judge Dredd as a Paladin.


----------



## akr71 (Dec 19, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf
> 
> there you go.
> 
> ...




Thanks!


----------



## Patrick McGill (Dec 19, 2016)

Conquest should've been more about martial and war religion than lawful evil hell knights. No need to narrow it.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 19, 2016)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I could also see an Oath of Law. A Lawful Neutral paladin with a borderline tyrannical faith in the law. Judge Dredd as a Paladin.




This one already exists in the Crown Paladin.

Definitely want to see Oath of Liberty though.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 19, 2016)

Patrick McGill said:


> Conquest should've been more about martial and war religion than lawful evil hell knights. No need to narrow it.




Agreed.  When I was first starting to read it, I was thinking of the actual historical knights like the Templars.  Crushing your enemies is hardly limited to demons and devils.  The Church has a pretty storied history of taking that approach in the past as well


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 19, 2016)

Gladius Legis said:


> 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 ...




Hellknights are popular in Pathfinder, and based on their products (not to mention good sense), I suspect WotC/Paizo keep track of what works/doesn't work with each other's products.  It is part of the reason summoning is weaker in 5e, and the mystic has a connection to the Far Realm (to give that creepy feeling like the Occult classes [basically PF psychic classes] in PF).  It isn't all one-way, the PF witch is pretty much a 4e warlock without eldritch blast (which wasn't so important in 4e).

Still, it wouldn't have hurt for them to throw in a "good" paladin oath or 2 to balance out the bad ones.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Dec 19, 2016)

I like treachery. I hadn't thought of having alternatives to oath reakers., but as a dm who likes evil fallen Paladin npcs I'm happy with it.

Paladin as a whole is in a really good place this edition so I'm ambivalent to the hell knight.


----------



## Vymair (Dec 19, 2016)

Pass, I play a paladin to be a hero that people admire, not fear.  I see some value for interesting NPCs here, but not for player characters.


----------



## gyor (Dec 19, 2016)

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.

 And the Oath of Conquest Paladin has clearly been inspired by Pathfinder's Hellknights BIG time. For FR I can see Oath of Conquest Paladins for Tempus, Bane, Lovitar, Abbathor, Tiamat, Gilgamesh, Set, Sebek, Anhur maybe, Helm (rarely), the Grey Dwarf Gods, Various Archdevils, Garuth, Garagos, Grazzt dispite being Chaotic he's still master of Tyranny, Talona, Shar.

 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.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Litania (Dec 19, 2016)

I disagree with everyone who is saying they don't feel like paladins. Oath of treachery conjures up multiple classical figures for me, from lich king Arthas to lord Soth in Dragonlance. As for someone who read the original Oathbreaker and thought: "undead? Why?" I love having this option. 
The other oaths we have are already flexible enough that we didn't really need new archetypes. Chaos paladin and alternate evil paladin are good to me.


----------



## gyor (Dec 19, 2016)

I'd just use the Oath of Treachery as a stand in for the Oath of Liberty (and yes the idea is based on the Holy Liberator PrC from 3e).


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Dec 19, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 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......




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.


----------



## RSIxidor (Dec 19, 2016)

These feel more like DM tools for building villains than player options.


----------



## gyor (Dec 19, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




 I'm thinking of say an Aura of Freedom which acts like a always on Freedom of Movement spell for everyone in the Aura.

 Maybe a channel divinity that dispels one negative effect from an ally and another CD that turns fiends and constructs (like Modrons, Shield Guardians, Ineviblies, Golems, Eidelons which represent order).

 A feature that grants advanage to attacks when out numbered.

 And a Capstone called Avatar of Liberty that gives you an aura that boosts speed in yourself and allies, causes attacking enemies to have disadvantage, and bonus radiant damage.


----------



## gyor (Dec 19, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




 A lovecraftian Oath, I like it. Alternately an Oath to a Slaadi/Batrachi Lord or a deity of pure chaos.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## guachi (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Mercule (Dec 19, 2016)

gyor said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 19, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Oath of Conquest will make a great Paladin of Hextor.

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


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 19, 2016)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

gyor said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 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
> ...





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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Jester David said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

Patrick McGill said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 19, 2016)

#NotMyPaladin


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 19, 2016)

Jester David said:


> 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.




WOTC may already know people like or desire a concept, but those people in turn would want to see how WOTC executes it in terms of mechanics, or even if its flavor matches up with expectations.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Dec 19, 2016)

There is no reason why the Conquest Oath cannot be played by a LG or LN character.  The desire to utterly crush Evil and Chaos works fine for LG and their is nothing wrong with the strongest leader rules.  Can just be a practical rule to ensure that the strongest is leading the fight against the forces of Evil.


----------



## jgsugden (Dec 19, 2016)

Advantage on all attacks against foes that have an adjacent ally?  That is huge in a game without optional flanking, minor in flanking grants advantage games...  An interesting paladin design, nonetheless.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 19, 2016)

Gladius Legis said:


> WOTC may already know people like or desire a concept, but those people in turn would want to see how WOTC executes it in terms of mechanics, or even if its flavor matches up with expectations.



And people will see... when that content is published in a book. 
It's only when they're departing from the baseline expectations, changing the flavour, or doing something else funky where they need to go to the public and check the survey results. 

For actual balance, WotC uses private playtesters, and has for years. Groups where they have a better idea of the variables, and they're not sure what mix of homebrew and house rules is doing to the playtest content.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 19, 2016)

jgsugden said:


> Advantage on all attacks against foes that have an adjacent ally?  That is huge in a game without optional flanking, minor in flanking grants advantage games...  An interesting paladin design, nonetheless.




I'm not sure what flanking has to do with it. An enemy's allies don't generally provide a flanking bonus...


----------



## Leatherhead (Dec 19, 2016)

*Oath of Conquest*
Everybody wants to rule the world.

*Spells*
Some real windfalls, however Spiritual Weapon Doesn't work with Smites. Speaking of which, smites still deal extra damage to undead and fiends, weird for an "evil" Paladin.

*Channel Divinity
*A fear or +10 to hit on one attack. Better than _Abjure Enemy_, and worse than _Sacred Weapon_.

*Aura of Conquest*
Makes your Channel Divinity Fear more useful. Kind of weak compared to other auras.

*Implacable Spirit* 
Now you are immune to charm, way later than a devotion paladin would get it, who also gets protection from evil at this level giving them even more immunities. Other Paladins get cooler things like not dying or a use for their reaction.

*Invincible Conqueror*
Finally something to dominate the battlefield. An extra swing per attack, resistance to everything, and bonus critical hit range. Barbarians wish they had a rage that good.
Possibly the best capstone for Paladins so far, too bad it's a Capstone.

Thoughts:
Smites being tied to banishing undead and fiends is weird. The Spells are good, the features are rather underwhelming. Except maybe the part where they can inflict fear and keep it going for a long time, that's at least mechanically interesting, perhaps a more palatable and less obtrusive way to introduce something akin to marking. Basically a Controller in playstyle, an odd pick for something that is supposed to be a Conqueror. Maybe it's just me but "conqueror" implies a person who is more competent in fighting a war than being a bully. Perhaps I expected something more like a reverse-warlord.

*Oath of Treachery* 
Not quite faithless. This is more like someone who couldn't cut the mustard instead of someone who was betrayed by the things they swore an oath to.

*Spells*
You are really good at running away and hiding. Also a smattering of charm for some reason. _Haste_ is the real combat booster here.

*Channel Divinity*
_Conjure Duplicate_  You are your [-]own best[/-] only friend, or alternatively the sock-puppet account. It's mechanically interesting, you can use it to cast spells (even though none of your spells make very good use of that feature) or give yourself advantage. 
_Poison Strike_  Now this is a good idea for a traitor. Unfortunately it's anti-synergistic. You want to get advantage, but can't get it via your duplicate because they use the same limited resource. Also, if you actually do manage to get advantage, you lose the benefit of having damage dice instead of flat bonus damage, meaning your Crits actually get weaker for your trouble!

*Aura of Treachery*
_Cull the Herd_  This is how you get advantage without your Duplicate. Unfortunately, it makes using your duplicate that much more questionable due to the fact that advantage is the only tangible benefit of using the duplicate.
_Treacherous Strike_  This is really fun. Too bad it only works within 5'. It really should be tied to whatever attack triggered it, melee reach breaks all kinds of abilities that it really has no right to be breaking. Or just let it apply to any attack, using your enemy (or a victim) to block an arrow aimed at you is a tried and true narrative beat that demands to be catered too.

*Blackguard’s Escape*
So you are really good at running away. HOWEVER the thing is you are still a paladin, likely rocking some heavy armor with a movement speed of 20' so you aren't going to get away. Meaning you want to use this to set up a second ambush. HOWEVER the thing is you are still a paladin, likely rocking some heavy armor with no real DEX bonus so you aren't going to be able to use the hide action. Meaning you are only going to use this to get advantage on an attack. HOWEVER the thing is you are a paladin, with the Oath of Treachery so you have a plethora of redundant ways to set up advantage. Meaning this ability is simply a free teleport as a reaction to get some better positioning.

*Icon of Deceit*
This is another really good capstone.
Basically it's "you get 20 extra damage on all of you attacks, also you can make the enemy hit themselves when they hurt you"
Well in theory it's really good, in reality you are invisible so things are going to have the damnedest time trying to hurt you.

Thoughts:
Anti-synergies abound, this Oath is it's own worst enemy. A fitting fate for a traitor, but not as fun as it could be to actually play as.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 19, 2016)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I have to reject both of these. The don't feel like paladins. They don't even feel like oaths. The Oath of Conquest could work, if it focused on conquering a particular location. The Oath of Treachery is just an alternative to the oathbreaker rules.
> 
> I wouldn't mind an Oath of Liberty. I know people who loved that concept in 3E. I could also see an Oath of Law. A Lawful Neutral paladin with a borderline tyrannical faith in the law. Judge Dredd as a Paladin.




Amusingly, one of my first reactions to the Oath of Conquest was "Hey, this could totally be Judge Dredd."


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 19, 2016)

Jester David said:


> And people will see... when that content is published in a book.




Not good enough.

Otherwise, why have an open playtest at all? Why did they have an open playtest of 5e, and classes WOTC clearly knew people wanted? Even on concepts WOTC already "knows" people want, feedback on whether the execution of it is headed in the right direction is important?

Example: The recent Fighter UA. People have wanted an Arcane Archer for a while. But we'd also like to see the first drafts of how WOTC plans to execute bringing it about. As we've seen from the feedback, they're not exactly on the right track. Useful information.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Dec 19, 2016)

Dragonhelm said:


> 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).




I'm not surprised that you had the same thought that I did. Even the nature of the Tenets sounds familiar to the Blood Oath and Vision.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 19, 2016)

I wish they would stop making the paladin flavour texts clearly "good" or clearly "evil".

Some of the wording of conquest could do with an adjustment that would make it much more generally useful. Currently the oath very much sounds like it prohibits you from being a member of an organization: Judge Dredd doesn't fit here because he's a policeman, not a ruling dictator.

The flavour text is far too heavy on "this is a bad guy".

Douse the flame of hope is fine as an oath: good or evil, having your foes NOT rise again is great.

Rule with an iron fist: Also fine, but perhaps remove the "once you have conquered".

Strength above all: This one is where it kind of falls apart, because it's the only one that forces you to rule. If you take this away, you can have Batman (willing to sort the place out, but unwilling to rule) and Judge Dredd (a member of an order keeping organization) under this Oath. Perhaps change it to "Never compromise: There is no partial compliance. There is no deal making. There is only law. Be strong enough to enforce it or fall to your own ruin".

Similar with the oath of treachery: if you're not going to give it tenets, then you can't really say "these guys are evil". Either give it a set of tenets revolving around making other people break oaths, tear down authority and generally free themselves from expectation OR cut the evil flavor text and make it a path you end up on if you don't fulfil your oath, but don't want to consort with demons and undead.

Also interesting note, my reading suggests that treacherous strike will let you make a foe hit themselves. Which is great, because it means it doesn't stop working against a solo foe.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 19, 2016)

Gladius Legis said:


> Not good enough.
> 
> Otherwise, why have an open playtest at all? Why did they have an open playtest of 5e, and classes WOTC clearly knew people wanted? Even on concepts WOTC already "knows" people want, feedback on whether the execution of it is headed in the right direction is important?



First, it's barely a playtest. It's a concept test. 
How many people do you _actually_ think are testing these classes via play? 
Giving away everything, including the content that doesn't need as much testing, turns these articles into previews. 

Second, WotC is a business. They're not going to give away the entire contents of a book to publically test. Even Paizo doesn't do that for their mass playtests. 
If they give away everything, fewer people will buy the final product. And that's a foolish move.

Third, releasing everything reduces the amount of useful feedback gained. There's more content to be absorbed, so small details will be missed in order to absorb it all. The amount of discussion won't significantly change, just the percentage per new option: fewer people are going to be talking about each new option. There's higher odds certain options will catch the attention at the expense of other more fringe options. 

Fourth, they _are_ getting feedback. From the private friends & family playtest groups. They've been testing and looking at options for years. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Example: The recent Fighter UA. People have wanted an Arcane Archer for a while. But we'd also like to see the first drafts of how WOTC plans to execute bringing it about. *As we've seen from the feedback, they're not exactly on the right track.* Useful information.



Which is probably why we saw the arcane archer at all. 
Very likely there was some internal concerns and mixed feedback from the F&F playtesters, so they decided to get wider opinions. To see if it worked for fighters, or if it would be better for rogues or rangers or wizards.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 19, 2016)

I'm very disappointed they didn't give us an Oath of Liberty.  Maybe someday.


----------



## The Human Target (Dec 19, 2016)

So...

Death Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin= must be evil.

Treachery Paladins and Hell Knights= no alignment restrictions?

What?


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 19, 2016)

I think they look mechanically interesting and different from the Oaths we already have. That's a good thing. 

Like other's I'm not so interested in tying Conquest to Hellknights, but that's easily fluffed away.

Regarding Treachery I link it's poorly named. There's nothing about it that really ties it to betrayal/treachery, though the abilities it gets would certainly help one who wishes to betray others. I think they should have gone a simpler route and named it Oathless since it has no Tenets. Or they should have come up with a better way to say Oath of Selfishness. I do think it makes a better Blackguard than Oathbreaker, which got necromantic abilities for for breaking it's Oath somehow.


----------



## gweinel (Dec 20, 2016)

Although the UA was so far more miss than hit, this one was really unexpected. I really LOVED Oath of Conquest.

The God of War and Conquest and his mercenary units have now a new champion!


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 20, 2016)

The Human Target said:


> So...
> 
> Death Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin= must be evil.
> 
> ...




I think removing alignment restrictions was always a good idea. I ignore them for Death Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins. 

I for one don't think there is anything inherently evil in Treachery's abilities, just a double dose of sneakiness and selfishness. If I can play a Good Rogue, I can play a Good Treachery Paladin. Conquest on the other hand... I think it's hard to justify conquering and subjugating as not evil but if anyone can do it it'll be my players ;-)


----------



## Duan'duliir (Dec 20, 2016)

I just realised that the Treachery capstone says the bonus damage is equal to the paladin's level. Why bother saying that if it's always going to be 20 damage?

I doubt it, but future proofing for epic level play?

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 20, 2016)

Oath of Conquest
Like it. Seems that the 7th & 15th level powers could both go to 7th level. Making room for a better 15th feature - even a reduced version of the 20th level feature.


----------



## The Human Target (Dec 20, 2016)

BookBarbarian said:


> I think removing alignment restrictions was always a good idea. I ignore them for Death Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins.
> 
> I for one don't think there is anything inherently evil in Treachery's abilities, just a double dose of sneakiness and selfishness. If I can play a Good Rogue, I can play a Good Treachery Paladin. Conquest on the other hand... I think it's hard to justify conquering and subjugating as not evil but if anyone can do it it'll be my players ;-)




I agree with alignment restrictions being pretty stupid.

However, they exist for the paladin and it's weird for them to be absent here.

Especially two builds that scream evil in the flavor text.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 20, 2016)

Jester David said:


> First, it's barely a playtest. It's a concept test.
> How many people do you _actually_ think are testing these classes via play?
> Giving away everything, including the content that doesn't need as much testing, turns these articles into previews.
> 
> ...





To your point, they play tested a few of the subclasses for SCAG, but not even most of them: good call.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 20, 2016)

Mearl's just confirmed the inspiration of the Oath of Conquest... Darth Vader:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/811062451047317504


----------



## Jester David (Dec 20, 2016)

userZynx_name said:


> I just realised that the Treachery capstone says the bonus damage is equal to the paladin's level. Why bother saying that if it's always going to be 20 damage?
> 
> I doubt it, but future proofing for epic level play?
> 
> - Zynx, from the EN World mobile app



There's nothing that prevents a DM continuing to allow levels via multiclassing.


----------



## Duan'duliir (Dec 20, 2016)

Jester David said:


> There's nothing that prevents a DM continuing to allow levels via multiclassing.



It specifies paladin level, not character level.

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 20, 2016)

Saeviomagy said:


> Some of the wording of conquest could do with an adjustment that would make it much more generally useful. Currently the oath very much sounds like it prohibits you from being a member of an organization: Judge Dredd doesn't fit here because he's a policeman, not a ruling dictator.
> 
> The flavour text is far too heavy on "this is a bad guy".
> 
> ...




I thought a lot of the same at first, but rereading Strength above All… what if we were to read it as a plural “you”? 

“You [organization] shall rule until a stronger one [organization] arises. Then you [organization] must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.”

If anyone should be building armies of followers for a militaristic society, it should be these guys, so having oaths that are a little more society based makes more since. You are the arm of the militaristic society; you enforce the laws others must follow.

It seems evil, because history and the literature that followed it, but it is possible to be “good” in that you believe in this organization, and its tenants… hard to make that a PC that plays well with others though. 

Mechaniclly, I agree that the aura and the 15th level ability are lacking. Most paladins are practically immune to effects by the time you get that charm immunity, and I feel these guys should also make it harder for others to be charmed or frightened. 

Maybe in addition to causing the enemy to have disadvantage on frighten, you grant allies advantage against being frightened, because you are so terrifying that the enemy looks more manageable by comparison?

Both the capstones for these subclasses are amazing. Just, ridiculously good. 


Aura of Treachery is interesting, because it makes the Paladin very, very good at fighting by themselves when outnumbered. Seems appropriate for these guys.

I do have to agree with [MENTION=53176]Leatherhead[/MENTION] with some of these observations, this is a paladin who is better if they can stealth at least a little, due to illusions and invisiblity. Maybe this is the guy who wants medium armor master and goes dex based, same as wearing plate and using a longsword?

Also the fact that getting advantage makes their crits weaker if they used Poison Strike is probably an oversight. My first thought was if they have advantage they get to deal max damage, they could probably add a line about a bonus for critting…. But is it really necessary? Getting the 23 to 40 damage (remember it is 20+lv) and double dice on your actual attack and the smite you are most likely dropping? Plus another 20 if you have Icon of Deceit active. That it a lot of damage to be flinging around, even for a paladin. Too bad it is poison for the Channel Divinity, but they can chose not to use it if fighting something immune. 


So, I think so re-flavoring of the Conquest, to make it more super LN instead of LE, and I think they are solid, if not exactly what I want subclasses. 

I wanted more neutral paladins I guess, people who weren’t super-good, but these guys are a bit more evil empires and lieutenants to dark lords than I really wanted. Not bad, but not what  wanted.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Dec 20, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 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......




They also seem to focus their books around stories, I don't think they will just produce a book with options that has no story behind it.

Maybe a story of a secret war between the feywild and shadow fell, where many of the battles are fought out by proxies on te prime.
could be a reason why we see a lot of Fey and shadow/evel themed subclasses so far


----------



## Dualazi (Dec 20, 2016)

In the other thread speculating on this week's offering, I asked for a hell-knight/blackguard revamp, and got two instead! Christmas IS real!

More seriously I like the general gist of both of these options, though I would agree that things like smite should probably be more thematically in-line with the assumed alignment of the paladin in question, although that does risk shifting power quite a bit due to undead/fiends being far more consistent enemies than the forces of good.

Aura of Conquest is fine, the synergy is good with your main ability and can also be tapped into by other party members. If the monster's successive saves once affected are also with disadvantage, then that's pretty excellent debuff potential with some help. They also have the fear spell, for when their channel is used up.

The level 15 feature needs to be buffed, though, charm immunity coming that late isn't super amazing, and that's all that's here. 

The capstone for conquest is insane, basically stealing the limelight of the fighter and barb simultaneously.

I really like treachery as well, and I think the earlier concerns of its abilities not working well together are slightly overblown, since this seems to be a real candidate for a dex based paladin. Even if you go the more traditional method, I think it works well enough, save needing some way of making the poison use not be worse on a crit with advantage.

While I know no one really cares about capstone balance, Icon of Deceit is too good in my opinion, namely from the CC part of the ability. It's triggered on any damage, and can repeatedly neuter an enemy's entire offense. This does require the paladin to be hit, obviously, but the paladin taking one hit to shut down the next is essentially the damage reduction from conquest, coupled with the ability to make sure your allies aren't targeted. Throw in some amazing damage boosts and Invisibility and it's a bit much I think.


----------



## gyor (Dec 20, 2016)

The Oath of Conquest Paladins appear to have two subgroups Tyranny Knights and Hellknights.  People are getting confused thinking all Oath of Conquest Paladins are Hellknights, they aren't, only the ones that serve the powers of hell are called Hellknights. 

 So an OoC that serves Bane,  Tempus, Lovitar would be called a Tyranny Knight or Iron Monger,  one who serves Asmodeaus , Glazya, Belial, ect... would be a Hellknight,  it's just a subset of OoC Paladins. 

 So you can have LG OoC Paladins consistent with the fluff , maybe they focus on defeating an Empire of Chaotic Evil via conquest by an Empire of Lawful Good.

 As for the Oath of Treachery, could see Chaotic Good characters attracted to it, believing in their own judgement over a ridged code of conduct.


----------



## unknowable (Dec 20, 2016)

I wish people would stop talking about Conquest as if it has to be evil. Heck even Treachery doesn't have to be evil it can be an example of a coward paladin that has fallen from their ways or become disillusioned. Admittedly Treachery mechanically is a bit harder to explain.

But nothing out of the conquest abilities or even  their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.


----------



## questing gm (Dec 20, 2016)

My thoughts on the new Sacred Oaths. http://questinggm.blogspot.my/2016/12/unearthing-arcana-paladin-sacred-oaths.html


----------



## Morrus (Dec 20, 2016)

questing gm said:


> My thoughts on the new Sacred Oaths. http://questinggm.blogspot.my/2016/12/unearthing-arcana-paladin-sacred-oaths.html




I'll leave my reply to your thoughts behind the tree in my back garden.


----------



## Wolfreich (Dec 20, 2016)

I don't understand the hate on the Oath of Treachery. It seems a perfect fit for a Gnomish Paladin of Baravar Cloakshadow. My favorite kind of Gnomish religious characters. May throw some Rogue (Thief) in there for a little more sneakiness and skills. Go Dex and Charisma build, Rapier and Medium/Light Armor.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 20, 2016)

unknowable said:


> I wish people would stop talking about Conquest as if it has to be evil. Heck even Treachery doesn't have to be evil it can be an example of a coward paladin that has fallen from their ways or become disillusioned. Admittedly Treachery mechanically is a bit harder to explain.
> 
> But nothing out of the conquest abilities or even  their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.




They aren't forced to be evil, that is true, but as written it is really really hard for them to be good. Ruling through Fear, brooking no dissent, at best they can go Lawful Neutral, but that sort of slavish devotion to might makes right and unquestioning devotion to an iron-fisted rule have some incredibly negative connotations in history and literature.

I think they should do just some minor tweaking to make them more law and less iron-fisted law, and that will help.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Dec 20, 2016)

Wolfreich said:


> I don't understand the hate on the Oath of Treachery.




Labels have consequences, nobody likes a traitor. Maybe Oath of Deception would get more love.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 20, 2016)

Connorsrpg said:


> Oath of Conquest
> Like it. Seems that the 7th & 15th level powers could both go to 7th level. Making room for a better 15th feature - even a reduced version of the 20th level feature.




Yeah, that fear aura is super niche and weak. Unless I'm mistaken, the conquest paladin doesnt even have any fear spells on his list other than the equally unimpressive channel divinity feature.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 20, 2016)

ehren37 said:


> Yeah, that fear aura is super niche and weak. Unless I'm mistaken, the conquest paladin doesnt even have any fear spells on his list!



Their channel divinity Conquering Strike uses fear.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 20, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Their channel divinity Conquering Strike uses fear.




Yeah, and he has fear, I'd missed that on my initial read. I blame lack of caffeine! Still, pretty lame. The ancients get half damage vs magic for comparison.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 20, 2016)

Mechanically, Treachery seems a lot better. 

I like the flavor of Conquest, but the late level features are things that other classes get much earlier.  

Maybe it's just me, but an aura which gives targets disadvantage on fear saves seems a lot less useful than an aura which gives me advantage on melee attacks.  Hello Great Weapon fighting!


----------



## Istbor (Dec 20, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> They aren't forced to be evil, that is true, but as written it is really really hard for them to be good. Ruling through Fear, brooking no dissent, at best they can go Lawful Neutral, but that sort of slavish devotion to might makes right and unquestioning devotion to an iron-fisted rule have some incredibly negative connotations in history and literature.
> 
> I think they should do just some minor tweaking to make them more law and less iron-fisted law, and that will help.




Nations/organizations allowing for dissent to exist is a pretty modern occurrence.  In the past and in a lot of fiction, dissent is usually dealt with quickly and viciously.  Even by 'Good' or 'Rightful' rulers.  I see nothing there that declares it as evil.  I do see things that walk a line.  A line that the player has to deal with and roleplay.  Once that could potentially cause the kind of internal conflict that fuels interesting stories, or that leads to an oath-breaker(or treachery)  that is also not evil. Maybe even a tragic telling of a good person who falls due to these tenets and later has a chance to redeem themselves, and maybe the organization as well. 

I hear a lot of grumpiness and disinterest, but all I see are chances for interesting, real, and compelling characters that drive the story to interesting places.


----------



## gyor (Dec 20, 2016)

"Gyor [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION]1
  [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls I find it funny that you can fall as a Hellknights by showing mercy 2 become a Chaotic Good Oath of Treachery Blackguard	"

 Mike Mearls liked my above comment.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 20, 2016)

gyor said:


> Mike Mearls liked my above comment.




That just got weird.


----------



## Lord Twig (Dec 21, 2016)

I think a lot of people are missing that the Poison Strike dice are not effected by a crit...

"The next time you hit a target with an attack using that weapon or ammunition, the target takes poison damage *immediately after the attack*. The poison damage equals 2d10 + your paladin level, or 20 + your paladin level if you had advantage on the attack roll."

The poison damage is not part of the attack. It is a separate effect that takes effect immediately after attack. Therefore, no crit.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 21, 2016)

More to the point, it's not classified as "extra damage."


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2016)

unknowable said:


> nothing out of the conquest abilities or even  their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.



Well, there is the stuff about _crushing_, about  _tolerating no dissent_ and _breaking a foe's will_. This doesn't seem especially respectful of the welfare or dignity of others, and looks more like _methodically taking what they want_ or _doing whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms_, which per p 34 of the Basic PDF are LE and NE respectively.

EDIT: I see [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] already gave a similar reply.

Also,



Istbor said:


> Nations/organizations allowing for dissent to exist is a pretty modern occurrence.  In the past and in a lot of fiction, dissent is usually dealt with quickly and viciously.  Even by 'Good' or 'Rightful' rulers.



D&D has always taken a somewhat anachronistic approach to past political practice - in the original DMG, for instance, Gygax defines _good_ alignment by reference to human rights.

But here are two models for a good king: the LotR (Aragorn, Theoden) and REH's Conan (say, in The Scarlet Citadel and the Hour of the Dragon). These rulers do tolerate dissent, and don't set out to break the will of their political enemies through fear (see eg the account of Aragorn's dealings with the Easterlings and Haradrim).

A good king is honourable, and deals with foes as equals (think of the famous story of Saladin providing King Richard with a horse) - a good king does not set out to crush and destroy his enemies.


----------



## unknowable (Dec 21, 2016)

pemerton said:


> Well, there is the stuff about _crushing_, about  _tolerating no dissent_ and _breaking a foe's will_. This doesn't seem especially respectful of the welfare or dignity of others, and looks more like _methodically taking what they want_ or _doing whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms_, which per p 34 of the Basic PDF are LE and NE respectively.
> 
> EDIT: I see [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] already gave a similar reply.




I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral. 

Good is the intent behind action and these could be the views of a pragmatist. 
Also as for Chaosmancer's response. There have been lots of historic figures that have taken a pragmatic or harsh approach that have been viewed in a positive light, the difference is the framing they are given when talked about regarding their actions. 

I repeat, I do not believe that conquest in any way has to represent an evil character. A hard and uncompromising character for sure, but not evil. 

"It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire."
Make sure those who would do evil or upset balance won't spread their activities around and stop their actions permanently.

"Once you have  conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law.  Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who  defy it shall be  punished as an example to all  who might follow."
Strictly uphold the laws that are created to give no quarter to those who would destroy order and peace.

I see conquest as a pragmatic paladin's way of strictly enforcing their ideals and fear is a great way to influence events without having to resort to violence or to lessen the risks of a violent altercation/repercussion.

As per usual it boils down to roleplay, but nothing in it's tenants or abilities necessitates an evil character. Unless we are trying to make the argument that subjugation and a judicial system backed up by enforcement is somehow worse than just going around killing things... The standard problem solving method.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2016)

unknowable said:


> I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well



From the Basic PDF:

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.​
I don't see how crushing your enemies, breaking their will and filling them with fear really counts as _helping others according to their needs_; nor does it remind me much of stereotypical elves or unicorns.



unknowable said:


> Unless we are trying to make the argument that subjugation and a judicial system backed up by enforcement is somehow worse than just going around killing things.



There is a difference between "a judicial system backed up by enforcement" and _subjugation_.

I don't think elves are, in general, averse to killing in self-defence. (My evidence here is Tolkien plus decades of D&D lore.) But I don't think they're very much into _subjugation_. (Drawing on the same evidence base.)


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Dec 21, 2016)

Alignment is not such a big deal in 5e, but I see no issue with a lawful good character and Oath of Conquest.  A rigid system in place to make sure the leader is the best is not evil.  Fanactic desire to destroy your enemy sounds Paladin like to me.  To make the demon of Hell fear to leave and face my justice?  Nothing evil in that.

It does work for Evil alignments but I would have no issue with a player in my group playing a good Paladin with that Oath.


----------



## unknowable (Dec 21, 2016)

pemerton said:


> From the Basic PDF:
> 
> Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
> 
> ...



So? you just listed two motivations, can you explain why someone cannot crush enemies and break their will be doing it because they are "doing the best they can to help others according to their needs" 
or acting within their conscience and with little regard to what others expect but with concern to how their actions will play out in the long run. 



pemerton said:


> There is a difference between "a judicial system backed up by enforcement" and _subjugation_.
> 
> I don't think elves are, in general, averse to killing in self-defence. (My evidence here is Tolkien plus decades of D&D lore.) But I don't think they're very much into _subjugation_. (Drawing on the same evidence base.)



Again, just because you are going out and subjugating your foes it doesn't mean you are doing it in offense, it could be entirely in defense of others or a greater peace. 

Correct they aren't, elves tend to be fairly xenophobic in most circumstances. Conquerer SPECIFICALLY states that if the subjugated live within the rules/laws that are placed upon them that they will be treated fairly. 

The conquerer type isn't wanton warlord behavior, it is just that it can easily be adapted to that. 
Ontop of this just because a race or enemy is subjugated it does not mean they have to be dominated forever, especially if they can be brought around to a new ideology which fits in fantastically with a zealot paladin order. 

A good and simple way to explain alignment.
Good, Neutral, Evil: These are your core/general motivations, the reasoning behind actions that the character may take and what drives them.
Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: These are the common manifestations of how a character will enact their core motivations.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2016)

unknowable said:


> A good and simple way to explain alignment.
> Good, Neutral, Evil: These are your core/general motivations, the reasoning behind actions that the character may take and what drives them.
> Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: These are the common manifestations of how a character will enact their core motivations.



I don't find this in the 5e Basic rules alignment section. Nor in the alignment sections of the d20 SRD, or my AD&D books.

I'm not too fussed how anyone else runs alignment. But if you're wondering why many posters associate Conquest with evil, I don't think it's very mysterious.



unknowable said:


> So? you just listed two motivations, can you explain why someone cannot crush enemies and break their will be doing it because they are "doing the best they can to help others according to their needs"
> or acting within their conscience and with little regard to what others expect but with concern to how their actions will play out in the long run.



I mean, maybe Demogorgon is acting within his conscience too - but another way of describing Demogorgon would be as having no conscience. Is the difference between a CG conquest paladin and Demogorgon that the latter feels bad about subjugating his/her enemies?

As for the NG Conquest paladin - I just don't see how crushing people, and breaking their will, counts as helping them according to their needs. It doesn't seem very helpful. It doesn't seem very respectful. It doesn't conform to any major moral code of the sort that Gygax referred to in describing good alignments (eg it is not human rights respecting; it is not pursuing the greatest happiness of the greatest number; it is not treating others with dignity).

It looks pretty ruthless to me, and normally good alignment is contrasted with ruthlessness. 



unknowable said:


> Again, just because you are going out and subjugating your foes it doesn't mean you are doing it in offense, it could be entirely in defense of others or a greater peace.



Again, I can reiterate the examples like that of Aragorn or Conan. The good king does not subjugate his/her foes - having defeated them, the good king seeks a just peace.

By way of contrast, this looks rather ruthless.



unknowable said:


> just because a race or enemy is subjugated it does not mean they have to be dominated forever, especially if they can be brought around to a new ideology which fits in fantastically with a zealot paladin order.



Again, I'm not clear how that sort of forced conversion fits with the NG alignment (of helping others in need) or with CG alignment (of acting in accordance with the dictates of conscience, and - to use the original AD&D language - of favouring self-realisation rather than social control as the means of achieving human wellbeing).


----------



## Azzy (Dec 21, 2016)

unknowable said:


> I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral.




Because tyranny and imperialism isn't evil, huh?


----------



## Bitbrain (Dec 21, 2016)

pemerton said:


> A good king is honourable, and deals with foes as equals (think of the famous story of Saladin providing King Richard with a horse) - a good king does not set out to crush and destroy his enemies.




Slightly off topic, but King Richard would make an almost perfect role model for a hellknight Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Isn't he credited as once telling his soldiers "We are sons of the Devil, and until him we shall return!"?


----------



## Istbor (Dec 21, 2016)

I think a lot of confusion comes from the connotations that come with a word like subjugation. They are generally negative, at least in this day and age. 

The definition of such a word does not discuss anything particularly evil.  To bring one to submission or under one's governance (usually through conquest) it in my opinion totally neutral.  

We could discuss how a 'good' nation would have stopped once it was clear it had the upper hand in a war, and seek immediate peace.  We don't all see everything the same way. As well, not every foe is going to agree to play nice.  In a world of stark good and evil, one could argue that evil must be opposed and expunged. If mercy or reasoning does not work, then you can turn to the strong will of a Paladin of Conquest. 

People can stick to suggestions in books if they like.  I tend to run a far more grayer world morality wise. There can still be objectively good and evil things, but the vast majority of creatures are simply trying to live as best they can. 

I guess they should refrain from even mentioning Hell Knights and wait to place them in a side-bar once or if the path comes to print. I will make sure to note this in the survey.


----------



## jayoungr (Dec 21, 2016)

Gotta say, on a gut level these don't really sound like paladins to me.  Just "very determined fighters" or "fighters who have sworn to do something."


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 21, 2016)

Bitbrain said:


> Slightly off topic, but King Richard would make an almost perfect role model for a hellknight Oath of Conquest Paladin.
> Isn't he credited as once telling his soldiers "We are sons of the Devil, and until him we shall return!"?




Even Richard knew there was no point in taking Jerusalem if they couldn't hold it. So yeah I guess if he couldn't subjugate his enemy, or at least the populace of the City he was trying to conquer, than he saw no point in fighting the battle. That seems to fit to me.

As an aside I would argue that Richard was not "Good" by the D&D definition, but I think that's likely true of any historic king.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 21, 2016)

Just because it seems we can stack so many instances of damage with Poison strike, here are two more

-It isn’t a concentration spell ability, so you can cast a smite spell and add that on top (requires an extra round of prep)

-You can coat your weapon in a mundane poison as well, adding more potential dice for damage

This can get kind of ridiculous



Istbor said:


> Nations/organizations allowing for dissent to exist is a pretty modern occurrence.  In the past and in a lot of fiction, dissent is usually dealt with quickly and viciously.  Even by 'Good' or 'Rightful' rulers.  I see nothing there that declares it as evil.  I do see things that walk a line.  A line that the player has to deal with and roleplay.  Once that could potentially cause the kind of internal conflict that fuels interesting stories, or that leads to an oath-breaker(or treachery)  that is also not evil. Maybe even a tragic telling of a good person who falls due to these tenets and later has a chance to redeem themselves, and maybe the organization as well.
> 
> I hear a lot of grumpiness and disinterest, but all I see are chances for interesting, real, and compelling characters that drive the story to interesting places.




I mostly agree with you, but I do see a lot of potential problems caused by this role-playing as well. “Your word is law and you brook no dissent” has been pointed out as ripe for bad times in the party. If the paladin feels their oath requires them to be obeyed, then they don’t do well in the structure of the typical adventuring group.

I’m not saying it is impossible, and it could very well be interesting, but there are a lot of pitfalls here that could lead to that character causing hard feelings at the table. I’m not excited about that since those crop up often enough on their own. 


Continuing to read the thread… I think we may have two different approaches.

If conquest focuses on LAW, then things can be slightly different. It says brook no dissent, but if you set up an appeals court, is using the court dissent or following your Law? 
If conquest focuses on MIGHT, then it becomes much harder to defend as a good-aligned option.


This is why I want a slight reworking of the language. I like the paladin who is the Iron Law, who works within a system and promotes strict adherence to that system, and destroy or converts those who seek to undermine the system.

I’m not so excited about the paladin who seeks to impose his will, his law, and brooks no dissent with his words. The paladin who sets out to be an tyrant ruling the lands with an iron will and iron fist. 


Make the oath more centered around a society of laws instead of personal power, and I think we’re okay, but right now I think the blurriness of that line is what is causing a lot of the dissent. 

It is the difference to me of being a Tyrant, or the arm of an Empire. Tyrant is more evil, Arm of the Empire is more neutral.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 21, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> Just because it seems we can stack so many instances of damage with Poison strike, here are two more
> 
> -It isn’t a concentration spell ability, so you can cast a smite spell and add that on top (requires an extra round of prep)
> 
> ...




Right, I think, if the flavor text used isn't in fact provisional but what they intend to use in the finished product, then problems could be had.

Regardless I think that unless a very clear idea of a campaign is used, a session zero to help set party dynamic is needed. I honestly have fallen in love with the session zero talks now, as I makes my job so much easier as a DM and it curtails a lot of conflict that could happen down the road is some of the more... unique parties. 

An example I suppose for my campaign mention would be like... if your players were all coming from the same Government or Order of knights or something. They would have a reason to stick with one another and not really oppose one another as much as a random rogue partying with this Conquest guy he met at a tavern. I think this path at least would work well if the whole party is at work against a common and clear goal. 

Treachery is a harder one to figure out, party dynamic wise, but not impossible.  I would ultimately make mine off this concept of the oaths or order you belonged to left you feeling broken or betrayed and that is now why you are seeking your own power.  And would be a good reason for being custom to running away, if say a Knightly order was after you.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 21, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> Just because it seems we can stack so many instances of damage with Poison strike, here are two more
> 
> -It isn’t a concentration spell ability, so you can cast a smite spell and add that on top (requires an extra round of prep)
> 
> ...




When the conquest paladin's player starts hinting that it would be appropriate for a persuasion check (or worse yet an intimidation check) against the other PC's if they disagree with his/her paladin (and reminding everyone about the paladin's nice charisma score), you know it will be a long, unpleasant session......

About the arm of the empire bit, that seems like the oath of the crown's gig.  Not that they couldn't start doing that (say with an oath of justice paladin who more concerned about bring his/her prey than the death-dealing vengeance paladin), but there aren't so many paladin subclasses (yet) that it would be necessary to fill in that level of detail.

I think I am coming around to Jester David's POV on these subclasses--they are testing the waters to see if we want more creepy/evil PC options (bard and paladin), more magic barbarians (and more magic but spell-less PC options in general), fighter classes with built in fluff, etc. As such, I think these are evil by intent and that intent is to see if a bunch of people go "cool" or "how could you?" in the survey.  [And for the record, my answers are:  yes, evil is okay, but putting it in the DM section is best (forbidden fruit); magic barbarians are good; I appreciate keeping the number of magic systems low in 5e and I am sure at some point I will think there are too many magical class/subclass features for noncasters, but that is a long way in the future and may not happen; and I think the convenience of fluffed fighters for new/casual/busy players outweighs the problems, but I would also be open to sidebars:  here is the most convenient way to make a samurai with a battlemaster, etc.  not listing out every step, but some of the big steps, like the quick start instructions in the PHB.]


----------



## phantomK9 (Dec 21, 2016)

I found these Oaths to be bad on their face. 
Didn't even bother to read through the mechanics of the abilities, I disliked them that much.


----------



## Satyrn (Dec 21, 2016)

jayoungr said:


> Gotta say, on a gut level these don't really sound like paladins to me.  Just "very determined fighters" or "fighters who have sworn to do something."




Welcome to a brave new world. Or should that be the new world order?


. . . or . . . 

View attachment 79350He’s noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it —View attachment 79350

View attachment 79350He’s a New World paladinView attachment 79350


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 21, 2016)

phantomK9 said:


> I found these Oaths to be bad on their face.
> Didn't even bother to read through the mechanics of the abilities, I disliked them that much.




This always bugs me. Even the worst stuff can have one or two ideas worth saving. I just don't get declaring something so bad you won't even look at it. 

Bad enough to ban, totally, but... I like knowing what each design idea was, in case I want to steal something from it for another project


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2016)

Istbor said:


> I think a lot of confusion comes from the connotations that come with a word like subjugation. They are generally negative, at least in this day and age.
> 
> The definition of such a word does not discuss anything particularly evil.  To bring one to submission or under one's governance (usually through conquest) it in my opinion totally neutral.



For subjugate, I get this - from the Random House dictionary:

1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.​
To subject others to one's will doesn't seem to be respecting their life or dignity or rights (which are standard formulations of "good" since AD&D was first published). At best it is valuing order over those things - which is one traditional understanding of LN. At worst, it is treating the subjugated peoples merely as a means to one's own ends - which is one traditional understanding of "evil" alignment. (See eg Gygax in in his DMG; or the d20 SRD, which says ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.")



Istbor said:


> We could discuss how a 'good' nation would have stopped once it was clear it had the upper hand in a war, and seek immediate peace.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This goest to the question of what alignment is for.

Some D&D players seem to treat it as a universal scheme for classifying moral outlooks (hence we get "What alignment is Batman?", "What alignment is Darth Vader?", etc). I think this is obviously hopeless - apart from anything else, all the major divisions of philosophical opinion (Kantian and other rights theories vs Aristotelean-type theories vs impersonal consequentialist-type theories) are bundled up by Gygax into the single category of "good".

As I see it, the logic of alignment is to impose a certain moral frame onto the gameworld. If, for whatever reason, one isn't interested in that framework, then alignment is redundant.

When it comes to making sense of traditional paladins, and the good alignment more generally, I tend to turn to JRRT and similar anti-modernist fantasy themes. A key element of these ideas is that a good person has _hope_. Whereas the idea that evil has to be expunged seems (by these lights) the counsel of despair, and hence at odds with goodness.

In the real world, that sort of providential hope might be pollyanna-ish (see eg Walzer on "dirty hands", or Weber's "Politics as a Vocation"). But if the gameworld is going to ressemble the real world in this way, then alignment doesn't seem to be of much use except as a rough-and-ready behavioural tempalte for monsters.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2016)

BookBarbarian said:


> Even Richard knew there was no point in taking Jerusalem if they couldn't hold it. So yeah I guess if he couldn't subjugate his enemy, or at least the populace of the City he was trying to conquer, than he saw no point in fighting the battle.



I'm not sure that holding a city (or province, or . . . ) is the same as subjugating it.

"Subjugate" ins't just a synonym for "rule".


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Dec 21, 2016)

I am sharply reminded of the essentials blackguard, both of these seem to be paladin oaths that correspond to the vices of that blackguard. Conquest feels like "domination" in it's nature, Treachery sounds like the vice of betrayal- while I would like more good oriented oaths as well, I would love to have virtues and vices as paladin oaths like this.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 22, 2016)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> I am sharply reminded of the essentials blackguard, both of these seem to be paladin oaths that correspond to the vices of that blackguard.



In flavour, yes, but I don't think there is a lot of mechanical overlap. (Or, if there is, I missed it.)


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Dec 22, 2016)

pemerton said:


> In flavour, yes, but I don't think there is a lot of mechanical overlap. (Or, if there is, I missed it.)




Yeah, i meant structurally, in that eventually you might be able to clearly delineate a set of "Paladin" oaths and "Blackguard" Oaths, which might be the goal of this design- in essentials 4e, they were at least nominally equal subclasses under the full paladin moniker. 

Personally? I like the idea, reflavoring could make the mechanics useful for any paladin style you want, and it expands the range of flavors we could use in expressing different mechanics. I also kind of dislike the "evil class options" ghetto, i feel that the good vs. evil player dynamic should play out in session zero, not when the rules are being written.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 22, 2016)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure that holding a city (or province, or . . . ) is the same as subjugating it.
> 
> "Subjugate" ins't just a synonym for "rule".




True, but I think holding Jerusalem amidst a hostile insurgency (and given what happened at Acre I would very much think they would have been hostile) would have taken subjugation. I just don't think there is such a thing as a nice conqueror.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 22, 2016)

Satyrn said:


> Welcome to a brave new world. Or should that be the new world order?
> 
> 
> . . . or . . .
> ...




I kinda felt a Rush after that quote....


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 22, 2016)

So, we've had a lot of discussion about the flavor, about what is good and evil, but what are we thinking abut the mechanics.

The conquest fear channel divinity is cool, but their aura only giving disadvantage to fear checks seems to weak, as does their high level immunity to charm. 

I think the aura can be improved by giving allies advantage on fear saves (Darth Vader effect) but what should we do about the level 15 ability? 


Treachery is facing some opposite problems, they are almost too powerful. Their channel divinity strike offers some huge nova potential on one of the best nova classes in the game, their aura gives them advantage when their enemies are near each other and allows them to redirect 3 attacks a day to hit some one else. 

Are these abilities too powerful, or is the fact we are dealing with poison damage and limited times per day enough of a balance?


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 22, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, we've had a lot of discussion about the flavor, about what is good and evil, but what are we thinking abut the mechanics.
> 
> The conquest fear channel divinity is cool, but their aura only giving disadvantage to fear checks seems to weak, as does their high level immunity to charm.
> 
> ...


----------



## Regulas (Dec 26, 2016)

For Oath of Treachery I kind of feel like the Oath was just overly vaguely worded. Given Blackguard I imagine the intent was "You're so extremely treacherous you don't have tenets because you inevitably betray them" rather then just "make-up your own oath" attitude a lot seem to read no tenets to mean...


----------



## Staffan (Dec 26, 2016)

I disapprove of the Oath of Treachery as a matter of principle.

The core of the 5e paladin is a warrior so devoted to an ideal that the ideal empowers him or her with supernatural powers. In light of that, an oath that "lacks any substance" makes no sense. Oath of Conquest is better in that regard - it gives you a direction and compels you to act in a certain way, even if that way isn't very nice.

In the words of Walter Sobchak: "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos!"

Someone without a firm moral ground on which to stand should not be able to be a paladin. There are certainly other avenues of power to explore, such as that of an Eldritch Knight, or a Warlock of the Blade, but they should not get to be paladins.


----------

