Paladin UA - Oath of Conquest and Oath of Treachery

[jaappleton]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/paladin-sacred-oaths

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

[MReav]

Link isn't working right now.

[jaappleton]

Link isn't working right now.

But it will be!

I'm kinda taken aback, I wasn't expecting Conquest and Treachery. Treachery is obviously a more Evil option, Conquest can likely be considered Neutral like Crown is Lawful. I was expecting something more along the lines of 'Shining hope in the darkness' style.

[lunaticfringe]

But it will be!

I'm kinda taken aback, I wasn't expecting Conquest and Treachery. Treachery is obviously a more Evil option, Conquest can likely be considered Neutral like Crown is Lawful. I was expecting something more along the lines of 'Shining hope in the darkness' style.

Which is what, Every other Paladin people play? My experience is that people still play them like LG is still a requirement. Horray for Evil!

[jaappleton]

Horray for Evil!

This may be my favorite thing I've ever read here. :smallbiggrin:

[jaappleton]

Given the nature of the titles, I'm really curious to see the bonus spells. I'm pretty excited for that, actually.

[Ninja_Prawn]

This may be my favorite thing I've ever read here. :smallbiggrin:

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There is no one I would rather be... than me.

But... yeah. I'm DMing for a nominally Chaotic Good paladin, and she sometimes seems to struggle with the chaotic part. The meta-role of the paladin just naturally lends itself towards lawful behaviour, I think.

[jaappleton]

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There is no one I would rather be... than me.

But... yeah. I'm DMing for a nominally Chaotic Good paladin, and she sometimes seems to struggle with the chaotic part. The meta-role of the paladin just naturally lends itself towards lawful behaviour, I think.

Totally agreed. A lot of players haven't been able to disassociate the class from its roots / stigma, I think. Which is fine, because you can totally play a Paladin that way. Any class that requires you to behave a certain way is best left to more experienced players that can work with it, and use it to develop their character in key moments.

[M Placeholder]

It's my duty. My duty as a complete and utter bastard!

That should be the flavour text of Oath of Treachery.

[Syll]

Given the nature of the titles, I'm really curious to see the bonus spells. I'm pretty excited for that, actually.

If I could natively get Hex, Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke on PLD I'd be just about as happy as could be :p

[jaappleton]

If I could natively get Hex, Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke on PLD I'd be just about as happy as could be :p

Sounds like that'd fit Treachery pretty well.

[Nishant]

what do you think conquest will feel like? It brings to mind Walhart from Fire Emblem; Awakening, right off the top of my head, in name alone, but What do you think the spells will be like?

[Balyano]

Looks like a lawful-evil and a chaotic-evil pairing. When will the link work?

[Syll]

what do you think conquest will feel like? It brings to mind Walhart from Fire Emblem; Awakening, right off the top of my head, in name alone, but What do you think the spells will be like?

Off of just the name alone, I could see a motif of "I'm imposing order for your own good" As for spells... Enthrall, Hold Person, Fear, Dominate Beast would seem fitting with a quick glance through the PHB

[jaappleton]

It's up! Direct line in the OP.

[jaappleton]

HOLY CRAP THE BLACKGUARD

I mean, Treachery...

The spell list. The abilities. WOW. That poisonous strike deals 20 + Paladin level poison damage if you have Advantage? WOW!

[M Placeholder]

Off of just the name alone, I could see a motif of "I'm imposing order for your own good" As for spells... Enthrall, Hold Person, Fear, Dominate Beast would seem fitting with a quick glance through the PHB

Enchantment spells would be the school I would most associate with Tyranny along with Evocation, so my guess would be the spells would be mostly from those two schools. As for Treachery, Illusion is the one school that comes to my mind.

[Ravinsild]

I love the Oath of Conquest but the Blackguard makes me a little sad. I loved 4e's Blackguard with its vices and so forth. This Blackguard doesn't seem as forthright but I guess the Conquest is more like 4e's Blackguard so from that point of view it's cool there's more choices!

These are interesting and pretty cool. I want to put in a good word for Conquest because I want to see it come in a real book to be official.

I think an Orc Barbarian/Paladin Vow of Conquest would be cool but I'm 99% sure you cannot smite while raging but it feels...so thematic of Gruumsh to have fanatics that believe in crushing and subjugating their enemies entirely. Especially against Elves. An Eye of Gruumsh Vow of Conquest Barbarian Orc would make for a fearsome battlefield champion.

[jaappleton]

I want a Half-Drow Treachery Paladin.

Faerie Fire coupled with the Treachery abilities? +20 damage every short rest? Are you kidding me?!

[Joe the Rat]

Tyranny reborn and an alternate oathbreaker. I'm happy with this. For the most part, it looks like a mishmash from other classes, but what's there is fitting the archetypes.

The bit that really sticks out to me is how the midrange abilities on Treachery are basically reverse pack tactics. He gets all sorts of bonuses when his enemies are adjacent.
Oath of Treachery / Swashbuckler: Sneak Attack no matter what!

[Callin]

Eh both dont excite me much. The Blackguard is the better of the two I think. Still trying to decide if its better than Vengeance though.

[Jarlhen]

I don't see how anyone is supposed to be able to play the conquest paladin with that Oath. It's incredibly restrictive and requires your party to just completely fall in line with you. I think this might be the most anti-party class I've ever seen. I mean the first part of the oath doesn't just let the paladin kill a couple of orcs and be on their merry way. The orcs have to submit to the paladin, so whatever organized group you're sending at them the paladin has to go hunt them down and defeat them utterly and thoroughly. Unless you take an extremely liberal view of it. The second part means the party has to fully submit to you. Your word is law. You could argue it only applies when you've conquered a place, though that's not how I read it. I read conquered in a more general sense. So the conqueror paladin has to be the group leader. And the group has to do what they say. Or the conqueror will have to crush their spirits until they do. And even the third part means the paladin always has to be the strongest in the party. So if someone is perceived as a threat the paladin is going to have to do something. I don't see how this would ever work in a party.

The treachery one I suppose is fine. They finally decided to give people what they want and remove the RP requirements. Now all you need to be is evil, which isn't that hard even in a good group, and then you get all the paladin goodies. And it doesn't look like a terrible oath either, so there you go I suppose.

[JackPhoenix]

No ranged oath? Boo.

Conquest gets nice capstone, but not like most games get there. Treachery abilities feels more useful overall, though I'm not sure if I like the whole concept.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Conquest is very underwhelming to me. Your aura usually does nothing, your level 15 ability just makes fewer things happen, and your capstone is just better numbers. That being said, they seem fine power-wise.

Treachery has great mechanics and a great name, but I personally don't like the idea that these are just another kind of Oathbreaker. I'd use them as Paladins of trickster gods.

[Quoxis]

Finally a tenet-free (therefore truly chaotic) alternative for a paladin (that doesn't necessarily scream evil mofo)!
Conquest's spell list makes it look like a beast, but even without spells etc. i'd take blackguard/treachery just for not imposing rules on me or taking my powers away and by that making me a necromancer knight somehow.

[VoxRationis]

I'm disappointed. The forum had a lot of good, paladin-ish ideas bandying about, and we get a couple of NPC classes.

[Joe the Rat]

Treachery has great mechanics and a great name, but I personally don't like the idea that these are just another kind of Oathbreaker. I'd use them as Paladins of trickster gods.I see no reason why you couldn't. It's not like they have any oath tenets to rewrite.
Plus I seriously doubt the Paladin or the trickster would hold to their oaths.

[lunaticfringe]

Tyranny reborn and an alternate oathbreaker. I'm happy with this. For the most part, it looks like a mishmash from other classes, but what's there is fitting the archetypes.

The bit that really sticks out to me is how the midrange abilities on Treachery are basically reverse pack tactics. He gets all sorts of bonuses when his enemies are adjacent.
Oath of Treachery / Swashbuckler: Sneak Attack no matter what!

My thoughts exactly Treachery screams Rogue-a-din and Swashbuckler has great Cha & Melee Synergy.

[Nishant]

Yeah, the first part of conquest is really troublesome for PCs, and I'll change or ignore it if allowing it in my own games. I can read the third as competitive spirit in the right light; Your barbarian friend is stronger than you? Then you must rise to his level. Outside that, I really enjoy the kit. Wish we had an exotic mount set though.

Treachery is solid, even if its not for me.

[Hawkstar]

The Conquest aura is completely useless. It probably would have been better with just "Enemies have disadvantage on saving throws", allowing enemies to be crushed before the might of a conqueror and his party.

[Temperjoke]

I like Oath of Conquest, I mean, if you want to be Lawful Evil, it's going to be a lot easier as Conquest than any of the other classes. I don't agree that it would be hard to play with a group with those Oaths, since they center around your enemies, and not allies. At the very least, they're not any more difficult than Devotion is.

[jaappleton]

I really like the spells lists on both. Treachery spell list is, IMO, superior to Vengeance, and is quite possible the best spell list for Paladins. I personally find Hold Person to be slightly overrated on a Paladin, since they can't take advantage of it until next turn.

Anyways, they're both immensely thematic and incredibly fitting. Really, really impressed there.

Totally agreed on the Conquest Aura, very 'meh' and doubt it'll come up much.

[Oramac]

I'm.........shocked, actually. I didn't anticipate Oaths like this at all. Which isn't to say I dislike them, just that I'm surprised they'd bring out two Oaths that are so clearly evil.

Conquest is the better looking of the two, imo. Mainly because I don't like playing purely evil characters, and I think I can refluff it to kinda walk the line between evil and neutral. Or, to use the whole "fight fire with fire" trope.

Treachery kinda looks like a refluffed Trickery Cleric to me. It's cool, but not really what I'd have expected for a purely evil Paladin.

[jaappleton]

I disagree with Blackguards being purely evil.

Purely selfish? Absolutely. No denying that at all.

Selfishness doesn't equal evilness in my eyes. More neutrality.

[Byke]

I'm all for strong and well balanced abilities, but the Oath of Treachery channel divinity is broken....2d10 + paladin level for 1 minute (max if you have adv), coupled that with the Aasimar and 3 levels Rogue + Smite, is completely ridiculous.

This isn't even close to being balanced with other class abilities or Paladin Oaths.

[Oramac]

The Conquest aura is completely useless. It probably would have been better with just "Enemies have disadvantage on saving throws", allowing enemies to be crushed before the might of a conqueror and his party.

While I agree the Conquest Aura is underwhelming, causing DA on all saves would be obscenely overpowered.

[Callin]

I'm all for strong and well balanced abilities, but the Oath of Treachery channel divinity is broken....2d10 + paladin level for 1 minute (max if you have adv), coupled that with the Aasimar and 3 levels Rogue + Smite, is completely ridiculous.

This isn't even close to being balanced with other class abilities or Paladin Oaths.

None of the UA is balanced with Multiclassing in mind. They have said as much

[Ravinsild]

I really like the spells lists on both. Treachery spell list is, IMO, superior to Vengeance, and is quite possible the best spell list for Paladins. I personally find Hold Person to be slightly overrated on a Paladin, since they can't take advantage of it until next turn.

Anyways, they're both immensely thematic and incredibly fitting. Really, really impressed there.

Totally agreed on the Conquest Aura, very 'meh' and doubt it'll come up much.

Well they learn the "Fear" spell and their channel divinity also can frighten the person they attack. So it seems more self serving when you want to dominate someone yourself with your own abilities so its synergistic with the class features and spells.

[jaappleton]

I'm all for strong and well balanced abilities, but the Oath of Treachery channel divinity is broken....2d10 + paladin level for 1 minute (max if you have adv), coupled that with the Aasimar and 3 levels Rogue + Smite, is completely ridiculous.

This isn't even close to being balanced with other class abilities or Paladin Oaths.

You're reading it incorrectly. While the poison lasts for 1 minute, it only takes effect on the next hit you make. Like how you cast Thunderous Smite on your weapon, and it lasts a minute, but only impacts your next strike. It lasts a minute so you don't lose it if your next attack misses.

[Joe the Rat]

I'm all for strong and well balanced abilities, but the Oath of Treachery channel divinity is broken....2d10 + paladin level for 1 minute (max if you have adv), coupled that with the Aasimar and 3 levels Rogue + Smite, is completely ridiculous.

This isn't even close to being balanced with other class abilities or Paladin Oaths.It's 2d10+Paladin level (or 20+paladin level with advantage) once, if it happens within one minute.
"The next time you hit a target with an attack using that weapon or ammunition..."
It's got a bit more punch than Death Cleric, though I'd say necrotic is a better damage type than poison, based on how common the resistances show up. It also has to be activated prior to the strike. You could use the CD and never have a chance to deliver the damage.

Edit: What jaappleton said

[Byke]

None of the UA is balanced with Multiclassing in mind. They have said as much


Which is moronic...They developed the game...multi-classing is part of the game. A three year old can see how broken the ability is with the standard rule set.

[Tanarii]

I went into this UA, having read the names from the thread title, thinking "what the hell are they doing these aren't Paladins at all." I was wrong. These are very thematically Paladin Oaths. Or technically for Treachery, having discarded one.

Also, IMO Oath of Conquest makes a far better Paladin of Bane than Oath of Vengeance did. I love it's focus on fear & dominating. Although Blight and Insect Plague feel a little out of place.

[jaappleton]

It's 2d10+Paladin level (or 20+paladin level with advantage) once, if it happens within one minute.
"The next time you hit a target with an attack using that weapon or ammunition..."
It's got a bit more punch than Death Cleric, though I'd say necrotic is a better damage type than poison, based on how common the resistances show up. It also has to be activated prior to the strike. You could use the CD and never have a chance to deliver the damage.

And costs a bonus action to activate.

I mean, especially at low levels, when it hits, it HITS an enemy. But it IS poison. Still, a great ability, if you ask me.

[Oramac]

for 1 minute (max if you have adv)

I read it as the normal poison rules, where the poison in consumed by the attack.

[M Placeholder]

I like Oath of Conquest, I mean, if you want to be Lawful Evil, it's going to be a lot easier as Conquest than any of the other classes. I don't agree that it would be hard to play with a group with those Oaths, since they center around your enemies, and not allies. At the very least, they're not any more difficult than Devotion is.

Considering the 2nd Tenet is about how your word is law and that you must punish those that don't follow it, and the reading is "once you have conquered" (conquered what, exactly?), it can be construed as needing to apply to the Paladins allies. Or more accurately, "subjects".

[Ravinsild]

Considering the 2nd Tenet is about how your word is law and that you must punish those that don't follow it, and the reading is "once you have conquered" (conquered what, exactly?), it can be construed as needing to apply to the Paladins allies. Or more accurately, "subjects".

Once you have conquered your enemies on the battlefield. Why do people try to take the most obtuse possible reading of everything? It's very clearly implied by all indications this is a Paladin about battle. When you crush your enemies on the battlefield you subjugate them thoroughly. Why would you be fighting and conquering your own party?

[jaappleton]

Considering the 2nd Tenet is about how your word is law and that you must punish those that don't follow it, and the reading is "once you have conquered" (conquered what, exactly?), it can be construed as needing to apply to the Paladins allies. Or more accurately, "subjects".

The idea of a Small (Gnome? Goblin?) Paladin of Conquest constantly trying to subjugate his allies while they roll their eyes at him amuses me greatly. Though it'd take a cooperative table to do it right.

[Jarlhen]

I like Oath of Conquest, I mean, if you want to be Lawful Evil, it's going to be a lot easier as Conquest than any of the other classes. I don't agree that it would be hard to play with a group with those Oaths, since they center around your enemies, and not allies. At the very least, they're not any more difficult than Devotion is.

I think one of the problems here is how you interpret the term "enemies". Thing with paladin oaths is that they need to be restrictive. Not so restrictive the paladin can't function, but certainly enough to have a tangible effect on how they're played. An oath is always in effect. It's not up to the paladin when it is or isn't. Which means that there has to be consistency. So let's say a group of orcs attack. They're now the paladin's enemy. So does that mean the paladin can't just fend off the raid but has to chase after the orcs to break them? Or does it mean that despite being a chaotic group of people who can absolutely be conquered, the paladin can just ignore it and be on their merry way? That's a big problem to me and will probably cause issues.

[MasterMercury]

Which is moronic...They developed the game...multi-classing is part of the game. A three year old can see how broken the ability is with the standard rule set.

Officially, multiclassing isn't a part of 5e. It's just a very popular optional part.
It's also probably a huge headache to have to consider when making a new class, and so it's probably a good idea to just put it to the side at first.
I'd rather they start with a powerful class, then tone it down, then an underpowered mess because they were too scared to provide an OP option to a theoretical multi-class build

[Byke]

Officially, multiclassing isn't a part of 5e. It's just a very popular optional part.
It's also probably a huge headache to have to consider when making a new class, and so it's probably a good idea to just put it to the side at first.
I'd rather they start with a powerful class, then tone it down, then an underpowered mess because they were too scared to provide an OP option to a theoretical multi-class build

Fair enough...I stand corrected. But in games were multi-classing is allowed 6 Paladin / 3 Assassin will pretty much overshadow any other class when it comes to damage output.

[Hawkstar]

The idea of a Small (Gnome? Goblin?) Paladin of Conquest constantly trying to subjugate his allies while they roll their eyes at him amuses me greatly. Though it'd take a cooperative table to do it right.You better do as he said, or there shall be GNOMERCY!

[Joe the Rat]

The idea of a Small (Gnome? Goblin?) Paladin of Conquest constantly trying to subjugate his allies while they roll their eyes at him amuses me greatly. Though it'd take a cooperative table to do it right.If I didn't already have Doc the Gnome Death Cleric, we could probably pull it off.
"No you fools! Me! I am the leader! Put me down! I am the Fist of Conquest, you must listen to MEEeeeeeeeeeeeee" <splash>
-10 minutes later-
<knocking on the door> <dripping wet gnome> "I hate you all."

Actually, I am putting together a Linear Guild for the party... Hmmm...

[Regitnui]

After skimming it, the first thing that comes to mind is that the "blackguard" Oath of Treachery is really not a blackguard. It's a cowardly-seeming sneaky kinda oath that will stop at nothing. Perfect for the Mockery, to counter the paladins of Dol Arrah with their Oaths of Devotion. I suppose in opposing the "White Knight" LG archetype it works, but the Oath of Conquest seems to fit the fearsome anti-paladin Blackguard better.

Speaking of the Oath of Conquest, I can certainly see this as a Karrnathi Warlord; LN and devoted to their military superiority. It's not as anti-party as some might think; tenet 3 allows for adventuring with companions. Strength Above All. If they've proved themselves to be your equal or grudgingly admitted superior, party members are not in violation of the oath. Also, it's a great Oath for a Rival or Lancer character; they're there to defeat another party member or prove their strength against them. Essentially a mostly-friendly Only One Allowed To Defeat You (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOnlyOneAllowedToDefeatYou) for another martial or more traditionally heroic character.

[Belac93]

Hmmm. I want to play a kobold paladin of conquest. Strength penalty be damned! I am tiny death! Fear my wrath!

Treachery would be really good with a kobold, for constant advantage. However, I really enjoy the image of a 3 foot tall little dragon in full plate, wielding a longsword as big as he is. If you rolled stats, it could even work out ok.

[Syll]

I disagree with Blackguards being purely evil.

Purely selfish? Absolutely. No denying that at all.

Selfishness doesn't equal evilness in my eyes. More neutrality.

I agree with this sentiment; Honestly with a Treachery PLD's "overwhelming concern is power and safety" he just sounds like your typical adventurer. If you put more weight on the "especially if both can be obtained at the expense of others" bit, then he' just your typical murderhobo adventurer

[Regitnui]

then he' just your typical murderhobo adventurer

Well, they have a fairly good grasp of their player base. /sarcasm

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, they have a fairly good grasp of their player base. /sarcasm Yeah. I find conquest to fit the Paladin model better. The Treachery kit just doesn't ring true.

You better do as he said, or there shall be GNOMERCY! Best post in the thread.

[Foxydono]

A silly question, but poison strike is only once right? Or do they mean you get the extra damage each attack or once each turn? It says 'the next time you hit a target' which implies it is only for one attack, but seeing how it latsts for one minute you could interpret it differently.

[jaappleton]

A silly question, but poison strike is only once right? Or do they mean you get the extra damage each attack or once each turn? It says 'the next time you hit a target' which implies it is only for one attack, but seeing how it latsts for one minute you could interpret it differently.

See my earlier post. It's one attack, lasts a minute so you don't waste it. "Spend your bonus action, effects your next successful swing"

[KorvinStarmast]

A silly question, but poison strike is only once right? Or do they mean you get the extra damage each attack or once each turn? It says 'the next time you hit a target' which implies it is only for one attack, but seeing how it latsts for one minute you could interpret it differently.
Read the spell description of the various Paladin Smite Spells. This mechanic is drawn from that Paladin spell.

Example:

Branding Smite
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target,
which becomes visible if it's invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-*‐‑foot radius and can't become invisible until the spell ends.


Poison Strike.
You can use your Channel
Divinity to make a weapon deadlier. As a bonus action, you touch one weapon or piece of ammunition and conjure a special poison on it.

The poison lasts for 1 minute. 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. Think of it as a charge up that is released once.

[Ravinsild]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

[jaappleton]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

I believe yes. Spending a spell slot to utilize Divine Smite doesn't actually cast a spell. It expends a resource, like spending Ki for Flurry. Casting Branding Smite is another story, a Raging character can't do that.

[Byke]

A silly question, but poison strike is only once right? Or do they mean you get the extra damage each attack or once each turn? It says 'the next time you hit a target' which implies it is only for one attack, but seeing how it latsts for one minute you could interpret it differently.

The way I read it is it's active for up to one minute and one the next attack that hits within that minute it goes off.

It make for the best alpha strike when you mix in Assasin, since you have adv and the poison dice are max, assuming Pal 6 / Ass 3 ....26 poison dam + 26 poison dam + 2d8 weapon dam + 4d6 sneak dam + 6d8 smite dam + stat + 2nd attack 2d8 wp + 6d8 smite + stat = BBEG dead.

[BigONotation]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

Yes.


Aura of Treachery in any campaign where enemies fight side by side (read a lot) giving Advantage is too powerful.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack? It can't use the Smite spells as they require concentration, but the Divine Smite isn't a concentration spell, so some folks allow that to work.

From sage advice:

Q: Can a barbarian/cleric use spiritual weapon to attack while raging, if it is cast before entering Rage?

A: A barbarian’s Rage makes concentration impossible but has no effect on spells, like spiritual weapon, that don't require concentration.

See also this detailed question and ans (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/86745/22566)wer.

[jaappleton]

Also, the text in Aura of Treachery:

The 3X per short or long rest part? That applies ONLY to Treacherous Strike. Cull the Herd is always on.

Confirmed to me by Crawford on Twitter.

[jaappleton]

Yes.


Aura of Treachery in any campaign where enemies fight side by side (read a lot) giving Advantage is too powerful.

Choke points... Stand in a doorway where you can fight one at a time, while enemies wait behind eachother. :smallbiggrin:

[Joe the Rat]

The way I read it is it's active for up to one minute and one the next attack that hits within that minute it goes off.

It make for the best alpha strike when you mix in Assasin, since you have adv and the poison dice are max, assuming Pal 6 / Ass 3 ....26 poison dam + 26 poison dam + 2d8 weapon dam + 4d6 sneak dam + 6d8 smite dam + stat + 2nd attack 2d8 wp + 6d8 smite + stat = BBEG dead.Funny thing. By the rules, you only get the 26 poison damage once. There are no dice rolled (20+level), so there are no dice to double.

Still makes for a dead boss monster.

[Byke]

Funny thing. By the rules, you only get the 26 poison damage once. There are no dice rolled (20+level), so there are no dice to double.

Still makes for a dead boss monster.

" The poison damage equals 2d10 + your paladin level, or 20 +your
paladin level if you had advantage on the attack roll"

Implies to me dice are rolled..they are just always maxed if you if you have adv. I will agree to disagree, but yes either way the boss is still dead.

[Aegis013]

I like Treachery, but not as a blackguard. I wanted a church assassin, and Treachery can fill that niche well.

I honestly don't really like Conquest, it's not poorly designed, I'm just not crazy about having Fear Oath 2.0 when there are so many other interesting design spaces that could've been explored.

[Ravinsild]

It can't use the Smite spells as they require concentration, but the Divine Smite isn't a concentration spell, so some folks allow that to work.

From sage advice:


See also this detailed question and ans (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/86745/22566)wer.

Well I took it from the PHB "If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging." that you could not enter a Rage and then could not subsequently cast a spell even a Cantrip like Firebolt, so I was not sure if Divine Smite was "casting a spell" or if it was just a special...effect of the "Make an Attack Action" Attack.

So the Conquest+Barbarian combo could be decent. Just an angry smitey man that can support himself in combat with cool spells and stuff normally, then when it's time to bring the pain goes into a Rage dropping all pretense and just killing stuff en masse.

[Ravinsild]

I like Treachery, but not as a blackguard. I wanted a church assassin, and Treachery can fill that niche well.

I honestly don't really like Conquest, it's not poorly designed, I'm just not crazy about having Fear Oath 2.0 when there are so many other interesting design spaces that could've been explored.

Yeah I was hoping for the "Vice" design of 4e where they pick a vice like...Domination or Fury. Dread Smite, Dark Menace, Shroud of Shadow, Rewards from your Vice and other such themes. I was just such a giant fan of 4e Blackguard I was hoping for a..."Recreation" of sorts.

[Maxilian]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

It uses a Spell Slot but its not a spell itself so yeah you can (Note: The Rune Master (UA), fire run allow something like that.)

[Squeeq]

" The poison damage equals 2d10 + your paladin level, or 20 +your
paladin level if you had advantage on the attack roll"

Implies to me dice are rolled..they are just always maxed if you if you have adv. I will agree to disagree, but yes either way the boss is still dead.

The wording "immediately after the attack" implies that it's not doubled for a crit because it's not part of the attack, it's after the attack.

[Foxhound438]

-so no uber heals paladin, I guess those tranquility monks will just be better paladins in that regard forever

-conquest gets spiritual weapon on its list, wrathful smite on a channel divinity (minus the concentration), and a very GWM capstone. I'd say the key to success with the capstone is finding advantage. The aura could be nice to make sure your channel and wrathful smite land, but otherwise is more or less flavor. Implacable spirit is potentially good, but very niche.

-trechery gets a good list of utility/trick spells, which I like, and a channel that is effectively "divine smite, except poison and can't crit". It does do notably more damage than a smite, does better when you attack from advantage. Normally I might say that one subclass shouldn't get something that's strictly better than the base class's mainstay, but between costing a bonus action like a "smite" spell without the tack on effect and competing for the CD use with free advantage, I'd say it's fine. the "totally an aura, guys" is fine, but advantage isn't impossible to come by, and in a fight against a big boss monster it does nothing. blackguard escape is lame and un-paladin, worst tank feature ever. Icon of deceit screams polearm master, since it gives free advantage and +20 damage per hit. Funny that it says "bonus equal to paladin level" when there's exactly one level at which you can use this, but whatever.



Overall I'd say these are fine. I wouldn't use either, I'll stick to ancients for the most part and crown when I want to have a spirit guards on a pally.

[Byke]

The wording "immediately after the attack" implies that it's not doubled for a crit because it's not part of the attack, it's after the attack.

RAW vs RAI

Sage advise i read points to no if a saving throw is involved.

There is no save against this attack, thus RAW the dice are double on a crit.

Guess it comes down to how each table plays it. Still one of the strongest abilities out there even at low levels and it scales.

[LudicSavant]

I find it extremely disappointing to see them abandoning the idea of oaths as philosophies and instead reverting back to merely checking alignment stereotype boxes. An oath with no tenets was especially cringey.

To me, this seems like they're throwing one of the best ideas for the 5e paladin out the window. Have they really run out of ideas this quickly?

[jaappleton]

RAW vs RAI

Sage advise i read points to no if a saving throw is involved.

There is no save against this attack, thus RAW the dice are double on a crit.

Guess it comes down to how each table plays it. Still one of the strongest abilities out there even at low levels and it scales.

There's no RAW VS RAI here. You're simply incorrect.

In this instance, if you attack with Advantage, the damage calculation outright changes. It no longer utilizes dice at all, and is instead calculated differently. It becomes a flat number, plus your level. Nothing is rolled.

Therefore, nothing at all is doubled in regards to critical hits.

[Oramac]

I find it extremely disappointing to see them abandoning the idea of oaths as philosophies and instead reverting back to merely checking alignment stereotype boxes. An oath with no tenets was especially cringey.

To me, this seems like they're throwing one of the best ideas for the 5e paladin out the window. Have they really run out of ideas this quickly?

Gotta say I do agree with this. I tend to play Tenets more as guidelines than actual rules, with interpretation up to each individual Paladin.

It would be nice if the Tenets were a bit more vague and open-ended.

[Ravinsild]

RAW vs RAI

Sage advise i read points to no if a saving throw is involved.

There is no save against this attack, thus RAW the dice are double on a crit.

Guess it comes down to how each table plays it. Still one of the strongest abilities out there even at low levels and it scales.

Rules as Written it is a flat 20 damage.

If it were what you're trying to say it is it would use the wording that the Monster Slayer UA class uses as follows:

"At 7th level, whenever you expend superiority dice to add to a damage roll, you can expend up to two dice instead of just one, adding both to the roll. Both dice are expended as normal. If the target of your attack is an aberration, a fey, a fiend, or an undead, you deal maximum damage with both dice, instead of rolling them."

As you can see it specifies you expend your dice. It does say "instead of rolling them" but it also says you expend them so it is just rolled at maximum damage. The Blackguard doesn't say you expend any dice it doesn't have the same wording as the monster hunter to imply dice are involved.

[Temperjoke]

I find it extremely disappointing to see them abandoning the idea of oaths as philosophies and instead reverting back to merely checking alignment stereotype boxes. An oath with no tenets was especially cringey.

To me, this seems like they're throwing one of the best ideas for the 5e paladin out the window. Have they really run out of ideas this quickly?


Gotta say I do agree with this. I tend to play Tenets more as guidelines than actual rules, with interpretation up to each individual Paladin.

It would be nice if the Tenets were a bit more vague and open-ended.

Well, one of the common arguments around here is around Paladin Oaths, trying to find ways to make evil characters using Oaths that are largely inclined towards good in design. Frankly, having Oaths that are evil in apparent alignment is refreshing.

[LudicSavant]

Well, one of the common arguments around here is around Paladin Oaths, trying to find ways to make evil characters using Oaths that are largely inclined towards good in design. Frankly, having Oaths that are evil in apparent alignment is refreshing.

The objection isn't that the oaths are villainous, it's that they represent bland stereotype alignment boxes rather than a more nuanced philosophical oath. Villains deserve better fluff than this, especially in the case of Treachery.

[Oramac]

Well, one of the common arguments around here is around Paladin Oaths, trying to find ways to make evil characters using Oaths that are largely inclined towards good in design. Frankly, having Oaths that are evil in apparent alignment is refreshing.

I suppose so. I guess I'm more of a "play the character, not the alignment" kind of guy. An evil person rarely declares himself evil, and could pervert a "good" set of tenets to his own views.

Just my thoughts. Not trying to start a debate on alignments here. That horse has been killed several times over.

[MasterMercury]

So Paladins get 2 Oaths, Monks got 2 paths, but every class before that got 3 options. Whats going on here.

As for the evil Paladins, sure, why not. Expand some options for a rigid RP class. Do you think there is a way to flip these to good, they way you can try to flip the others to Evil?

[Ravinsild]

And here I thought the Conquest Vow could easily be run by a good Paladin whose thoughts were along the lines of "The Evil races that plague our lands have run rampant long enough. I shall go forth and cull them, cowing them until they fear the might of man" and goes on a crusade against the nearby raiding goblinoids/orcs/gnolls/kobolds and so forth scattering them before him as he hews through their numbers for justice.

You know kind of like a Demacian...Garen or something.

Or a Dwarf who is just really tired of warring with Goblins and decides to take matters into his own hands to protect his home and city against these troublesome raiders. What better way than to entirely destroy them and send them scattered. They're wicked and vile creatures who only understand strength so this Dwarf will show them the mightiest war hammer they've ever seen...and good riddance.

[Oramac]

As for the evil Paladins, sure, why not. Expand some options for a rigid RP class. Do you think there is a way to flip these to good, they way you can try to flip the others to Evil?


And here I thought the Conquest Vow could easily be run by a good Paladin whose thoughts were along the lines of "The Evil races that plague our lands have run rampant long enough. I shall go forth and cull them, cowing them until they fear the might of man" and goes on a crusade against the nearby raiding goblinoids/orcs/gnolls/kobolds and so forth scattering them before him as he hews through their numbers for justice.

You know kind of like a Demacian...Garen or something.

Or a Dwarf who is just really tired of warring with Goblins and decides to take matters into his own hands to protect his home and city against these troublesome raiders. What better way than to entirely destroy them and send them scattered. They're wicked and vile creatures who only understand strength so this Dwarf will show them the mightiest war hammer they've ever seen...and good riddance.

Kinda like that. lol.

I think the Conquest Oath is easier to make good than Treachery. I would play the Conquest Paladin as a "fight fire with fire" kind of guy. Possibly refluffing the Infernal influence into more of a neutral god of war kind of thing.

[JumboWheat01]

I'm not one to play evil characters, Neutral's about as south as I go, but I like the fact that they have options like this for those who want to play evil.

[Foxydono]

Does anyone know whether the next UA will be ranger or rogue, seeing as the ranger has had two UA's already. And will there be a UA next week as it is Chhristmas?

This may not be the correct place to ask, but It's stilly to start a whole new thread just for this question.

[jaappleton]

Does anyone know whether the next UA will be ranger or rogue, seeing as the ranger has had two UA's already. And will there be a UA next week as it is Chhristmas?

This may not be the correct place to ask, but It's stilly to start a whole new thread just for this question.

I'll try to find out.

Either way, the next UA is January 9th.

[Tanarii]

It would be nice if the Tenets were a bit more vague and open-ended.lol if they were any more vague and open-ended than the PHB ones you might as well not have them at all, they'd be so pointless.'

Interestingly, per SCAG, ALL FR paladins have a huge list of more traditional & strict 'paladin' tenets. Conquest would violate them completely, as do many coommon interpretations of Vengeance. In fact, they make it very hard for FR Paladins of any Alignment other than LG to avoid flirting with violating those new tenets.

Anyone know if AL, which is set in Forgotten Realms, is supposed to enforce the SGAC Paladin Tenets?

[Foxydono]

I'll try to find out.

Either way, the next UA is January 9th.
Noooo, three weeks is too long. I need a new rogue UA before I level up!

[Anderlith]

I was so excited for this UA. So dosappointed. Instead of cool thematic & flavourful oaths we get alignment based ones. Its the Tyranny,Freedom, & etc. All over again. Well, i guess im back to being excited for Sorc, Warlock & Wizard

[Secret Wizard]

I'm really happy to get the Monk UA Survey to pan the Ways released last week so very hard.

[Rixitichil]

I can see Oath of Treachery working quite well as a Trickery God faith militant. I can also see it working ok on an ex-Oath of the Crown Paladin who found out his leaders were doing something so unspeakably evil they couldn't stomach it, (Jaime Lanister type situation.) I can see room for them being more than just the CE option alongside the Oathbreaker's NE.

[Ravinsild]

I can see Oath of Treachery working quite well as a Trickery God faith militant. I can also see it working ok on an ex-Oath of the Crown Paladin who found out his leaders were doing something so unspeakably evil they couldn't stomach it, (Jaime Lanister type situation.) I can see room for them being more than just the CE option alongside the Oathbreaker's NE.

A Paladin who has found out his Holy Order was corrupt. They know he knows and now he's on the run. Forsaking his Oath and using any means to survive he plans to fight back and restore the order to the righteous institution he believed in, and believed it to be before the truth was revealed. Using all manner of tricks and deceit to shake his relentless pursuers he rallies with faithful comrades for a stand against the Evil Order.

Jason Bourne style or all those movies where a field agent is sent out by the government then betrayed by the government and go rogue trying to survive until they can clear their name. I think even the A team is based on this premise.

Even Soldier 76 reminds me of this a bit, "I'm just trying to survive..." kind of attitude from the Overwatch lore.

[Sigreid]

I think they didn't know what to do. Felt they had to do something. Did this. Neither of these scream "We had a passion for these new archetypes" to me.

[Fuzzy Logic]

And here I thought the Conquest Vow could easily be run by a good Paladin whose thoughts were along the lines of "The Evil races that plague our lands have run rampant long enough. I shall go forth and cull them, cowing them until they fear the might of man" and goes on a crusade against the nearby raiding goblinoids/orcs/gnolls/kobolds and so forth scattering them before him as he hews through their numbers for justice.

You know kind of like a Demacian...Garen or something.

Or a Dwarf who is just really tired of warring with Goblins and decides to take matters into his own hands to protect his home and city against these troublesome raiders. What better way than to entirely destroy them and send them scattered. They're wicked and vile creatures who only understand strength so this Dwarf will show them the mightiest war hammer they've ever seen...and good riddance.

These are both fantastically nuanced evil motivations, but if people think they're good, I'm a little worried... Oh and the second one reminds me of the dwarf paladin from the webcomic goblins

[MrStabby]

So after a bunch of UA that didn't live up to my expectations I find this one quite exciting. Solid spell lists in keeping with other class abilities - fun new things to try and abilities that support more different concepts than before.

Also, Holy Capstones Batman! These things really turn you into a monster. Sure you expect that for level 20 but either of these let you pick one fight per day to do on easy-mode.

[Ravinsild]

These are both fantastically nuanced evil motivations, but if people think they're good, I'm a little worried... Oh and the second one reminds me of the dwarf paladin from the webcomic goblins

I thought of it more along the lines of "I'm sick and tired of these raiders coming in and raping our women, pillaging our crops, stealing our valuable resources like livestock and steel and it's about time somebody stood up to them! They only understand strength so I'll give them something to be afraid of!" kind of like the farmer with the shotgun on his back porch telling you to get off his property. Except he's a Paladin and he's tired of your goblin **** and he's going to wreck you and your whole crew forever and don't you come back 'round here no more kind of thing.

Or a Righteous Crusader who is just sick and tired of all the evil races bringing so much pain, death and misery on this world and going on a Holy Mission to purge them through feats of divine strength to rid the world of their pestilence and tip the ETERNAL BALANCE toward the good side of the scale for awhile so people can live in peace and prosperity for awhile. Basically doing the dirty work no one else will do and trying to be so brutal that it just scares the poop out of all the monsters and they just clear out giving the civilization he protects a super wide berth. Then he ventures forth to bring the same peace and prosperity to other towns and becomes a monster races hunter bent on the destruction of wicked races like the Yuan-Ti and all their weird human sacrifices to appease their wicked gods. He'll be like "get that out of here" and scare them all by brutally murdering them until they go away forever :P

I guess kind of like "The Punisher" of Paladins or even "Batman" except he kills the villains because Gnolls and stuff can't be anything except evil unlike the Joker who is a human and just might one day change.

[Petrocorus]

I think the Conquest Paladin can make a good Paladin of Tyranny and i like that. I did like the concept in 3.5. I think it is not limited to that and, for instance, it could make a good Paladin of Tempus. This is actually the first thing that come to my mind when i read it.

Concerning the Treachery Paladin, am i the only one to think his spell list is way too good? Invisibility (which synergise too well with poison strike), Mirror Image, Haste, Greater Invisibility, Dominate Person. According to me, this is the best Oath spell list so far.
As others have pointed out, Poison Strike is potentially very powerful, and it's too easy to gain advantage when you really want to.

[Malifice]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

Yes, they can. Uses a spell slot, but is not casting a spell.

Wild shaped Druid/ Paladins can do it as well in beast form.

[Malifice]

Or a Righteous Crusader who is just sick and tired of all the evil races bringing so much pain, death and misery on this world and going on a Holy Mission to purge them through feats of divine strength to rid the world of their pestilence and tip the ETERNAL BALANCE toward the good side of the scale for awhile so people can live in peace and prosperity for awhile. Basically doing the dirty work no one else will do and trying to be so brutal that it just scares the poop out of all the monsters and they just clear out giving the civilization he protects a super wide berth. Then he ventures forth to bring the same peace and prosperity to other towns and becomes a monster races hunter bent on the destruction of wicked races like the Yuan-Ti and all their weird human sacrifices to appease their wicked gods. He'll be like "get that out of here" and scare them all by brutally murdering them until they go away forever .

So an Evily aligned PC who fights for the 'greater good'.

Which is how most Evilly aligned people probably view themselves anyway. As 'good' people, driven to commit acts of evil and torture and murder 'because reasons'.

[MasterMercury]

Oath of Treachery can really easily be refluffed as Oath of Rebellion.
Spells and CDs focused on damage, and running, auras based on fighting greater numbers, and abilities based on running away.
It could even be literally the same thing. Treachery or Rebellion is just a matter of perspective.

[Anderlith]

So an Evily aligned PC who fights for the 'greater good'.

Which is how most Evilly aligned people probably view themselves anyway. As 'good' people, driven to commit acts of evil and torture and murder 'because reasons'.

I dont see how you see this as evil only. This is no more evil than killing orcs. Killing orcs isnt evil. Killing them up to eleven isnt evil. (Simply) Walking into Mordor, staring down Sauron & calling dibs, claiming that the light will shine here under your banner & driving all the orcs out isnt evil.

Forging your own kingdom, reclaiming lands lost to the greenskins could be a characters entire storyline. Maybe after he has his kingdom he forces a gate to Hell to uncorrupt the f*ck out of it & using the light of his will to conquer the Shadow.

[Ravinsild]

I dont see how you see this as evil only. This is no more evil than killing orcs. Killing orcs isnt evil. Killing them up to eleven isnt evil. (Simply) Walking into Mordor, staring down Sauron & calling dibs, claiming that the light will shine here under your banner & driving all the orcs out isnt evil.

Forging your own kingdom, reclaiming lands lost to the greenskins could be a characters entire storyline. Maybe after he has his kingdom he forces a gate to Hell to uncorrupt the f*ck out of it & using the light of his will to conquer the Shadow.

At least you get what I was trying to say.

[Malifice]

I dont see how you see this as evil only.

Genocide is evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Torture is evil. Slavery is evil.

Seriously, argue otherwise in from of the International Court of Justice or any other court and see how far it gets you.

Im not saying a person cant engage in such practices and genuinely believe they're a good person. Heck most people who engage in those practices do view themselves as good people.

They're not good people.

This is what makes races like Orcs and Drow (and thier socieites) generally evil. They do those things, and their society condones them.

Its also what makes halflings (and their societies) generally LG. They dont do those things, and their society prohibits them and finds those acts repulsive.


This is no more evil than killing orcs. Killing orcs isnt evil. Killing them up to eleven isnt evil. (Simply) Walking into Mordor, staring down Sauron & calling dibs, claiming that the light will shine here under your banner & driving all the orcs out isnt evil.

Check your PHB. The Paladin art. Get back to me.

Orcs in DnD are not inherently evil. They're (very often) evil because (fluff) Gruumshs creation pulls them that way, and because of the societies they grow up in. They can be of good alignment. They can be raised to (or otherwise) reject that pull to darkness and savagery, and to renounce the evil of their societies.

They still get a choice. Unlike Orcs in Middle Earth that... well dont.

Elves can be evil. Orcs can be good. So can Drow reject their evil and be good. Heck, DnD cannon features CE Devils (Grazzt) LG Succubi (3E), LE Angels (Erinyes), CG Drow (Drizzt) and so forth.

If your CG Elf waging a guerilla war against the Drow resorts to genocide, slavery, rape and torture he aint CG anymore. He's no better than the Drow he fights against.

[Sigreid]

Genocide is evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Torture is evil. Slavery is evil.

Seriously, argue otherwise in from of the International Court of Justice or any other court and see how far it gets you.

Im not saying a person cant engage in such practices and genuinely believe they're a good person. Heck most people who engage in those practices do view themselves as good people.

They're not good people.

This is what makes races like Orcs and Drow (and thier socieites) generally evil. They do those things, and their society condones them.

Its also what makes halflings (and their societies) generally LG. They dont do those things, and their society prohibits them and finds those acts repulsive.



Check your PHB. The Paladin art. Get back to me.

Orcs in DnD are not inherently evil. They're (very often) evil because (fluff) Gruumshs creation pulls them that way, and because of the societies they grow up in. They can be of good alignment. They can be raised to (or otherwise) reject that pull to darkness and savagery, and to renounce the evil of their societies.

They still get a choice. Unlike Orcs in Middle Earth that... well dont.

Elves can be evil. Orcs can be good. So can Drow reject their evil and be good. Heck, DnD cannon features CE Devils (Grazzt) LG Succubi (3E), LE Angels (Erinyes), CG Drow (Drizzt) and so forth.

If your CG Elf waging a guerilla war against the Drow resorts to genocide, slavery, rape and torture he aint CG anymore. He's no better than the Drow he fights against.

But conquest oath doesn't require rape, torture, slavery or genocide. It requires that you strike at your enemies with everything you have until they completely and without qualification surrender. Essentially the war is on full ahead until such time as there is literally no fight left in them. Evil conquest paladins may resort to rape, torture, slavery or genocide but good and neutral ones are just advocates of total war. Total war is not necessarily evil provided you accept total surrender when your enemy capitulates.

[Malifice]

But conquest oath doesn't require rape, torture, slavery or genocide.


Intrestingly Vengance paladin oaths kind of do require this. 'No mercy', and 'by any means necessary' definately allows those kinds of actions (heck the argument can be made that it requires them via a certain interpretation).

Conquest requires subjugating your enemies with violence, and then ruling them through fear and tyranny. That certainly wouldnt have been called 'good' in past editions of the game, certainly isnt viewed as 'good' today, and certainly isnt fluffed as 'good' in the text on the oath itself.

I can clearly see LE members of the oath (it expressly mentions 'Hell knights' who mirror themselves after Baator, and others have pointed out it suits Banite Paladins perfectly), and maybe LN Paladins of the oath (Judge Dredd style Conquest Paladins).

LG is a bridge too far for mine. You'd either violate your oath, or your alignment. I see similar problems with Vengance paladins.


It requires that you strike at your enemies with everything you have until they completely and without qualification surrender. Essentially the war is on full ahead until such time as there is literally no fight left in them.

Thats only part one of the oath. The latter bit also requires you to rule through fear. Parts two and three take it to another extreme once they surrender.

Effectively the oath compells you into being a warmongering tyrannical fascist dictator.

Im struggling to see how to combine that oath with a good alignment. And thats putting it lightly!

[Tanarii]

I dont see how you see this as evil only.Because he's Malifice. To him, anything that isn't LG is evil. Exaggerated misrepresentation of course, but his posts often make it seem that way. :smallbiggrin:



Orcs in DnD are not inherently evil. They're (very often) evil because (fluff) Gruumshs creation pulls them that way, and because of the societies they grow up in. They can be of good alignment. They can be raised to (or otherwise) reject that pull to darkness and savagery, and to renounce the evil of their societies.
"These races have strong unborn tendencies to match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the Orc God, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined towards evil. Even if an Orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life."
PHB p122

They have inborn tendencies making them inclined towards evil. Even if raised in a peaceful, kind, LG society, they are still likely to end up CE. And if they don't, they still have to fight against their own nature their entire lives.

This is done intentionally of course, so that players and DMs can just enjoy a game of 'destroy Team Evil' if they don't want to play 50 shades of morally grey.

That said, I entirely agree that Conquest is basically a LN or LE oath, with strong inclinations to LE. Trying to play a LG (or for that matter, any non-Lawful) Conquest Paladin would require some mental gymnastics with the Oath Tenets.

[Anderlith]

To conquer a place does not need genocide.
The Oath gets no bonuses to rape, genocide, torture or slavery, therefore it must not have to rely on these features in game anymore than any other class. Dont confuse one thing for another to justify your narrow viewpoint. Nationbuilding, just like orcs, is not inherently evil.

The real world does not have a naturally occuring "evil" that actually exists, in a proactive way, to destroy goodness & light. So lets use gnolls & demons as an example of those you could theoretically kill without needing to check your handy-dandy Karma-o-meter, both are pure evil in 5e.

D&D does have ultimate evil. The idea of conquering Hell, can be a Good thing. The idea of charging into the teeth of Hell to force monstrous abominations to kneel to you, to finally subjagate to the will of your god, through you, is an awesome character idea. Or perhaps you are a noble living in a nation of debauched aristocracy, & swear to Heronious that you shall depose them, bring them low & show the filthy cravens what real valor looks like. Or perhaps you know that soon, the dragon armies of Tiamat will scour the land of all non scaly life. You alone have seen this vision, granted by Bahamat, now you must ride forth & unite the unruly lands of the Redstone Wastes, to force them to kneel to you, for only united do the clans & tribes of your land stand a chance.

Actually... thank you for resisting this idea because its made me passionate about defending Ravinslid's point & made me excited about this Oath where as earlier today i was pretty underwhelmed.

[Malifice]

Because he's Malifice. To him, anything that isn't LG is evil. Exaggerated misrepresentation of course, but his posts often make it seem that way. :smallbiggrin:

The class is expressly fluffed as being agents of Hell, its been called out by all as suiting Paladins of Bane, and its core schtick is 'fascist tyrannical warmongering dictator'!

I mean come on. I know this is a Paladin thread and all, but we seem to be in agreement here that this oath is pretty 'LE' flavored (LN at a slight stretch).


"These races have strong unborn tendencies to match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the Orc God, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined towards evil. Even if an Orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life."
PHB p122

They have inborn tendencies making them inclined towards evil.

Which is exactly what I said. They have choice. A struggle, but a choice. Even Outsiders like Fiends and Angels can (extremely rarely) choose actions that violate their alignmnents (and cause them to fall, becoming a different type of outsider completely).

At least Orcs have a partial excuse when they kill, murder and rape. Whats the Human Paladins excuse for his evil when he does it? He isnt inherently pulled towards brutality, violence and murder. He chooses these acts in the cold light of day.

I dont want to get all 'Walking Dead' on you, but who is truly evil? The walkers (who cant help themselves from killing people) or the people around them who can? Its a theme they heavily use on that show.

Carol for one has changed alignment from Neutral Good to Lawful/ Neutral Evil (and now rather jarringly to Neutral). Rick bounces between LN and LE (depending on the season). Morgan is sticking to his NG guns (well... his stick anyway). Neegan is LE through and through. Glenn was LG, as was Tyreese. Daryl kind of straddles the CN spectrum. Jesus seems pretty CG. Etc.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

The idea of a Small (Gnome? Goblin?) Paladin of Conquest constantly trying to subjugate his allies while they roll their eyes at him amuses me greatly. Though it'd take a cooperative table to do it right.

Killgore from My Life as a Teenage Robot

[Malifice]

Nationbuilding, just like orcs, is not inherently evil.

This isnt 'nationbuilding' with no context. The oath is expressly sold as fascist warmongering tyrannical dictators.

A particular type of nation. Like the Nazis. Or the Empire in Star Wars. Or Mega City one (for a more dystopian LN perspective of how to run one).


The real world does not have a naturally occuring "evil" that actually exists, in a proactive way, to destroy goodness & light. So lets use gnolls & demons as an example of those you could theoretically kill without needing to check your handy-dandy Karma-o-meter, both are pure evil in 5e.


No, they are not. Alignment (even for outsiders) is a choice. A difficult one, but a choice. Grazzt was a Devil once remember. Erinyes were all Angels once.


D&D does have ultimate evil. The idea of conquering Hell, can be a Good thing.


Not when you use evil means to do it. Then you dont conquer squat. You just create more evil.

A good person realises this, and conquers evil by doing good - not by doing more evil. He shows kindness and mercy. He saves souls and reduces suffering. He fights when he needs to protect others, and avoids unessary harm or violence (sometimes avoids killing alltogether).

Look to Morgan on TWD. Or Tyreese. Or Glenn.

Nothing wrong with playing a dude (like Carol) who is prepared to kill or torture children for 'the greater good' Just realise youre not a good person when you're doing it. Youre just another evil monster.


The idea of charging into the teeth of Hell to force monstrous abominations to kneel to you, to finally subjagate to the will of your god, through you, is an awesome character idea.

Dont forget once you conquer Hell, you have to rule it through fear, force and tyranny, subjugating those that dont bow down to you to on pain of death or torture.

So whats changed down there?


Or perhaps you are a noble living in a nation of debauched aristocracy, & swear to Heronious that you shall depose them, bring them low & show the filthy cravens what real valor looks like.

I have a feeling that Heironeous wouldnt be down with you forcing them to abide by your sole rule via force, fear and tyranny. Thats more... what his half brother is all about.

You know.. that Hextor bloke. Whose methods Heroneous is opposed to, methods that you're sworn to oppose, and methods that you are now... using?

[PotatoGolem]

Not to derail a perfectly good pointless argument that's been had a million times whenever paladins are mentioned about D&D alignment and whether it lines up well with real-world morality, but how do you feel about the mechanics of these classes? I will say, insect plague feels a bit odd for conquest. The rest of the spell list is more enchantment- focused, bugs seem a bit out of place. Although I suppose it could help with the "total war" vibe, if you destroy the enemy's agriculture.

[Belac93]

What would happen if a paladin of conquest realized they were doing something evil, and broke their oath to become a treachery paladin?

Also, I see the treachery paladin being refluffed pretty well as an oath of freedom, maybe with a different spell list.

[Anderlith]

Again with torture... nothing in the Oath says you have to torture.

Gnolls are ravenously, monsterously hungery. They eat people. Its okay to kill things that eat people. If one doesnt want to eat people thats fine, they can join the new nation that im building that doesnt allow people eaters.
Demons are the archtypical ultimate evil. Yes there are stories where a demon might come back to the light. Fine with me. That changes them, they are no longer evil incarnate. They are now off my conquer list. Perhaps the best way to bring demons back to the light is to put the FEAR of the gods back in them.

How can you say it is immoral to have a lawful society? Yes there are morally wrong lawful societies but not all lawful societies are evil. In D&D there are Gods who are the ultimate moral authority, & you can talk to them. Building a totalitarian state in the name of a being of ultimate moral authority cannot, by definition, be evil. Pelor says its Good, it must be Good.

You say making something fearful is evil. Does that mean a normal LG Paladin has to put down his sword once the arrogant demon he is fighting has an Oh Sh*t moment? No. You smite.

As for the Heronious example, i chose that on purpose because of the dicotomy of Hextor being the Tyrant. It would make a good story. Someone who must tread so close to the edge of philosophy & morality

Also without trying to bring real world religion here....
There is a story of a prominent religious ruler of a faith that is seen around the world as very much LG, who subjugated demons to build himself a temple. This was not seen as morally wrong by his deity or faith.

[Fuzzy Logic]

Again with torture... nothing in the Oath says you have to torture.


Rule with an iron fist 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.
I wonder what the punishment is? Immediate cessation of chocolate rations?

Having said that, obviously you play your way and have fun. I think a tyrant paladin could be fun as all hell. I just personally could never be seen as good.

[Anderlith]

Here is an interpitation of the Oath that can be used to justify an LG Paladin.

Douse the Flame of Hope
Destroy evil with such fevor that they hesitate to perform villiany again. Remove their lairs & safe places, drive them before the unrelenting dawn. If they waver in their devotion to the Dark bring them to you with a strong hand, remove their need of evil, with good works & charity.

Rule with an Iron Fist
Your Law is the Law of your god, let no one blasphem against them. Those you conquer may be villianous & criminal in there behavior, rule harshly & fairly but never cruelly. Peace is found in structure & law. It is by your example that you will guide your nation back into the light with a firm hand.

Strength Above All
Yours is a dangerous path, you must be strong enough to conquer your own fears, strong to match your enemies savagery, but most importantly strong in your faith & reason, for if you are weak in judgememt you may turn into what you fight. If you find yourself wanting, then you are not fit to lead.

[Malifice]

Again with torture... nothing in the Oath says you have to torture.


No... you just have to 'shatter their will to fight forever', rule through fear, tolerate no dissent, punish (and make examples of) those who defy you, and take down anyone who threatens your rule.

Hextors dogma (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Hextor):

'The strong rule the weak, and power is the only reward worth having. Cruelty and mercilessness are necessary tools. Order must be forged from Chaos and law from anarchy, but order is meaningless without the will to enforce it. Tyrants are to be obeyed, and dissenters are to be oppressed or killed. Slaves must obey their masters.'

So... pretty much this exact oath. Remind me, what his alignment again? And what exactly does his brother Heironeous think of his actions?

There is a reason that the fluff of this oath is tied to Hell and Devils man. But Im not going to argue it with you. If your DM is cool with your weaseling this into a good alignment, more luck to you.

For what its worth, I have no idea why it matters. Your character concept is totally viable (a man trying to bring about a greater good by evil means sounds like a perfectly common trope). The difference is between whether there is an 'E' on your character sheet or not.

The only reason it matters is if you personally condone such actions, and it bothers you that others see those actions as evil.


How can you say it is immoral to have a lawful society? Yes there are morally wrong lawful societies but not all lawful societies are evil. In D&D there are Gods who are the ultimate moral authority, & you can talk to them. Building a totalitarian state in the name of a being of ultimate moral authority cannot, by definition, be evil. Pelor says its Good, it must be Good.

Lawful good societies can be good.

A fascist militaristic tyrannical government that rules by fear, isnt good.

Build a time machine, travel back to Germany in the 30's, and get back to me if you reckon otherwise.


As for the Heronious example, i chose that on purpose because of the dicotomy of Hextor being the Tyrant. It would make a good story. Someone who must tread so close to the edge of philosophy & morality

It would make a good story. A LE Paladin of Heironeous who (mistakenly) thinks he is doing his Gods work. Plently of misguided heretics in the real world as well. Not a day goes past where we dont see acts of absolute evil like mass killings or beheadings or slavery or rape perpetrated in the name of a God or for 'the greater good' or whatever.

Those people are evil.

Of course, if your DM is happy with a 'LG' theocratic genocidal fascist tyrant ruling through force and fear with the approval of his LG deity who opposes such crap, go nuts.

[Jarlhen]

I don't think the problem is whether the oath is good or evil. Technically treachery doesn't have to be evil either. Specially not since it's not an oath, it's just fluff text. My problem with conquest is that tenets 1 and 2 pretty much state that the paladin has to conquer any foe it fights. Conquering a bunch of zombies, no problem, they dead. But what if orcs attack a caravan? Or there's a group of evil noblemen and their henchmen? Or kobolods? Or bandits? All these many, many, groups that you will guaranteed encounter multiple times throughout an adventure.

These groups are evil and chaotic and they're the enemy. According to the oath the paladin can't just defeat the raiding party and then be on their merry way with the main quest. It has to conquer them. Conquer the evil group that carried out the raid. Pretty much every encounter that has a group that's organized and can be seen as evil or chaotic by the paladin, its oath dictates this group has to be conquered. That's way more than just beating a few of them up.

As I read this oath it's nearly unplayable. Because the paladin will have to run off and conquer a bunch of random groups. Its mission will change all the time. I'm sure it can ignore the cult group for the duration of the current mission. But once that mission is done that list of groups needing conquering will have grown. You start with going out to hunt down a basilisk. You end with having to conquer 5 different groups of enemies. So whatever the DM planned is no longer a go because the paladin has to pick these people off his list and impose his will on them. It's so rigid!

I find the vengeance paladin and the devotion paladin to also have very rigid oaths. they're not easy to follow as written. But this, I think, takes the cake. And if you start interpreting it more liberally then you gotta ask yourself what's the point? The wording in the oath is all about crushing your enemy, not killing them, and forcing them to follow your rules. That's conquest. And conquest is taking over by military might. Not defeating, not killing, not scaring off, taking over. That's a tall order.

[Malifice]

Here is an interpitation of the Oath that can be used to justify an LG Paladin.

Douse the Flame of Hope
Destroy evil with such fevor that they hesitate to perform villiany again. Remove their lairs & safe places, drive them before the unrelenting dawn. If they waver in their devotion to the Dark bring them to you with a strong hand, remove their need of evil, with good works & charity.

Rule with an Iron Fist
Your Law is the Law of your god, let no one blasphem against them. Those you conquer may be villianous & criminal in there behavior, rule harshly & fairly but never cruelly. Peace is found in structure & law. It is by your example that you will guide your nation back into the light with a firm hand.

Strength Above All
Yours is a dangerous path, you must be strong enough to conquer your own fears, strong to match your enemies savagery, but most importantly strong in your faith & reason, for if you are weak in judgememt you may turn into what you fight. If you find yourself wanting, then you are not fit to lead.

An opposing church (CG) opposes your tyranny and seeks to have you overthrown from your rule via democratic elections, and political manouvering. They seek to impose a liberal government with a seperation of the powers, representation by the people for the people, free and fair judiciary, and equal rights for all races, humans and non-humans alike.

They actively blaspheme against your Gods dogma (they fundamentally oppose it on the L-G axis), and argue that you, your church and your God are not fit to rule, and that your Church should be excluded from all public functions (a secular state). They seek to abolish your harsh laws, and end the constant war with neighboring tribes to establish trade and peaceful relations.

They have a large support base from the population, who are staging peaceful sit ins and public protest in defiance of your laws. Public support for you is wavering. A figure of peace is leading them (a Aasimar Serenity Monk called Gwandi), who has renounced violence, carries no arms, and promotes peace and tolerance. He is breaking many laws against your government (treason by public dissent, heresy against your church, sedition, blasphemy, consorting with the enemy etc).

They are backed up by a small contingent of redeemed Gnolls who have renounced savagery and also laid down arms.

What do you do to stop them (and still keep your oath and alignment)?

[Anderlith]

Not genocidal
No torture
Fear isnt evil, people fear getting arrested for breaking the law, doesnt mean cops are evil.
Tolerate no desent, like say go to war with a bunch of people wanting to split from an existing nation because they wanted to keep enslaving people?

The nail in the coffin for me is that the Gods are the Ultimate Authority on morality, not narrow human ideals. If Yolanda says to my halfling "Go into the badlands & tame them, but be careful the seeds you sow, you must be hard & you must be fierce for what lies in the badlands is touched by Nerull & will not cleave easily to your plow" then my little halfling is gonna manifest that destiny. If Pelor or Heronious want you to conquer & you do not anger them in your fulfillmemt of your duties than you cannot be evil.

Im not saying the Oath isnt a big ol' thumbs up to playing Darth Vader
Im just saying that you can twist it to be a good guy.

[Malifice]

Not genocidal

Lol. Tell that to the Gnolls as you march them and their howling pups to the gas chamber after invading their lands.


No torture

How would you punish dissent and make people fear and obey you? Tickle fights?


Fear isnt evil

Yoda is curious about this theory and wishes to subscribe to your newsletter.


Tolerate no dissent,

Isnt that... really problematic for a Good guy?

What are you supposed to do to those who dissent from what youre doing (as CG people certainly will do?). What does your code require you to do if they challenge you for leadership, try and overthrow your rule, dissent and blaspheme against you (as they will)?


The nail in the coffin for me is that the Gods are the Ultimate Authority on morality, not narrow human ideals.

Lol. Exactly. Its a pity your PC hasnt cottoned on to this idea yet.


Im not saying the Oath isnt a big ol' thumbs up to playing Darth Vader

Vader was CE. Not LE. As was the Sith Code (It boils down to 'do what you want, as your anger, fear and hatred dictate').

As a Jedi he was CG.

He betrayed and destroyed (in no particular order) his wife, best friend, the Republic, the Empire, the Jedi order, and the Sith order. He literally existed outside of the normal herirarchy (in both the Jedi order and the Empire), basically did his own thing, and acted (as a Sith) however his hatred, greed, fear and anger dictated.

Unless you think 'choking ranking Admirals to death' was in the regulations or something? The dude couldnt follow orders to save himself. He existed outside the law.

I mean, he followed the Emperors orders (well... aside from secretly training a second apprentice, staying on the sanctuary moon, and pegging him down a shaft at the moment of his ultimate triumph). But even that was simply out of fear of his own death, and his own anger at what he was.

I mean the Sith 'code' has one rule (the Rule of Two), and he even managed to break that.

He served a LE empire. But he wasnt exactly Lawful himself.

[Anderlith]

An opposing church (CG) opposes your tyranny and seeks to have you overthrown from your rule via democratic elections, and political manouvering. They seek to impose a liberal government with a seperation of the powers, representation by the people for the people, free and fair judiciary, and equal rights for all races, humans and non-humans alike.

They actively blaspheme against your Gods dogma (they fundamentally oppose it on the L-G axis), and argue that you, your church and your God are not fit to rule, and that your Church should be excluded from all public functions (a secular state). They seek to abolish your harsh laws, and end the constant war with neighboring tribes to establish trade and peaceful relations.

They have a large support base from the population, who are staging peaceful sit ins and public protest in defiance of your laws. Public support for you is wavering. A figure of peace is leading them (a Aasimar Serenity Monk called Gwandi), who has renounced violence, carries no arms, and promotes peace and tolerance. He is breaking many laws against your government (treason by public dissent, heresy against your church, sedition, blasphemy, consorting with the enemy etc).

They are backed up by a small contingent of redeemed Gnolls who have renounced savagery and also laid down arms.

What do you do to stop them (and still keep your oath and alignment)?
As a benevolent dictator,
Disparage them for trying to destroy the nation that protects them from the savage wildlands, remind the gnolls that before I came their own kind would have devoured them for being weak. I am the strength under which you shelter. Publically state admiration for Gwandi & ask if he would like to be my ambassador to all those pesky savage people beyond our borders, for we should seek to be safe from outside threats before we weaken ourselves by becoming divided. & while all faiths are welcome to preach in this nation (apparently) they must respect that this nation was founded with the power of (insert name of deity) & in thier name. Should they feel unwelcome in my nation, they are free to carve one out for themselves in the wilds. I will even assist them as long as it is benefical to citizenry of my nation. Just because one man rules does not mean he is power hungery or evil. I have Angels of (deity) who advise me summoned straight from the Holy Mountain.

Probably some more politicing, im not much for it myself.

[Durazno]

It might be fun to mix an assassin rogue with a paladin of treachery, but I have no idea where I'd put the break.

[Regitnui]

The two Oaths seem more about Ultimate Law and Ultimate Chaos than Evil, in my opinion. Anyone remember the Inevitables? They were a category of monsters replacing Mechanus' more beloved and slightly silly Modrons. They were basically constructs that enforced the universal Laws. A Kolyarut would hunt done those who willingly broke contracts. A Marut would hunt those who denied or avoided death. A Zelekhut hunted fugitives and others who denied justice. Tell me, when a Kolyarut started hunting a CG PC for breaking a contract with an Evil devil they never intended to keep, is the Kolyarut Evil? When the same Kolyarut then hunts down a hireling who stole the PC's hat of disguise, are they Good?

The tenets of Conquer are very hardline. They don't lend themselves towards Good works, but they do tend themselves towards forging powerful and unbreakable Law. The Conquer Paladin reminds me of the inevitables; they're deadly, implacable, and they will not stop. Where Vengeance is a single-target instrument of retribution, Conquer is the sort of unstoppable force that paradoxes are made of. A Conquer oath can be taken for Good or Evil purposes, but the conviction that drives someone like this makes them more Lawful than anything else.

Similarly, the Treachery Oath may be predisposed to treachery, but it's not a specifically Evil thing to do. Everyone loathes Chaotic Neutral simply because at any moment and for any reason, they can up and leave. The Treachery Oath isn't party-friendly, precisely because a party has a certain amount of Lawful nature or unspoken bonds holding them together. Treachery doesn't have the slightest wish for that. You can't trust a Slaad. Not because they're Evil, but because they're untrustworthy by nature. A Treachery paladin has no rules. To have rules would be against the Chaotic nature of their oath. Even demons obey the law of the jungle, where weak must bow to strong. Treachery cannot even be trusted with that, because there's no assurance that they'll even have to face their punishment.

So while the two new Oaths aren't exactly typical of PC paladins, they're not Evil on their own. They're lined up with the axis most paladins ignore; Law and Chaos.

[Lord Raziere]

I like both of these.

Oath of Conquest can be interpreted in different ways:
-Can be the Oath a paladin takes to unite a bunch of warring states into a single unified empire that brings prosperity to all.
-can fit someone who wants to be as strong as possible to protect those he loves

not inherently good, but with no strict alignment restrictions, the only limit is your interpretation of it to obey the letter of the Oath.

While Oath of Treachery is literally "I got no principles, I'mma do whatever I want" and therefore can be any alignment. awesome.

I doubt any person who takes these Oaths would obey the spirit of them anyways, even IC. Aside from mustache-twirling supervillains, but thats why they are mustache-twirling supervillains and why interesting characters are better.

[Malifice]

As a benevolent dictator,
Disparage them for trying to destroy the nation that protects them from the savage wildlands, remind the gnolls that before I came their own kind would have devoured them for being weak. I am the strength under which you shelter. Publically state admiration for Gwandi & ask if he would like to be my ambassador to all those pesky savage people beyond our borders, for we should seek to be safe from outside threats before we weaken ourselves by becoming divided. & while all faiths are welcome to preach in this nation (apparently) they must respect that this nation was founded with the power of (insert name of deity) & in thier name. Should they feel unwelcome in my nation, they are free to carve one out for themselves in the wilds. I will even assist them as long as it is benefical to citizenry of my nation. Just because one man rules does not mean he is power hungery or evil. I have Angels of (deity) who advise me summoned straight from the Holy Mountain.

Probably some more politicing, im not much for it myself.

(They refuse, and the public dissent grows. Rumors spread that you are growing weak. Acts of civil disobedience accelerate. People are tired of constant warfare).

Remember, your oath requires you to 'Douse the flames of Hope' and 'Rule with an Iron Fist' and 'Strength above all' It requires you to punish dissent and those who defy you. To Rule via Fear.

How have you done this? How have you already not broken your oath? You have a virtual rebellion on your hands, and you havent punished a thing, and you certainly are not ruling through fear.

I wouldve thought an accurate response would have been:

'Declare martial law, and send out the jackbooted stormtroopers to quell the dissent via force of arms. Imprison the dissenters, excommunicate the CG church as heretics (via a pogrom if necessary) and tear down the temple. Capture, publicly parade and then publicly execute the leader as an example to the others. Weed out any supporters of this movement in the heirarchy and have them killed via a thousand knives. Send the Gnolls to the gas chambers. This is not their country and they have no rights. Any people that complain are enemies of the State, and are to be imprisoned. A secret police force is to be set up to monitor any further acts of dissent. Rewards are to be given for turning in family members to the secret police for 'reconditioning'.

Its a sad thing we do, and I take no pleasure from it, but its for the greater good'

[Anderlith]

Lol. Tell that to the Gnolls as you march them and their howling pups to the gas chamber after invading their lands.



How would you punish dissent and make people fear and obey you? Tickle fights?



Yoda is curious about this theory and wishes to subscribe to your newsletter.



Isnt that... really problematic for a Good guy?

What are you supposed to do to those who dissent from what youre doing (as CG people certainly will do?). What does your code require you to do if they challenge you for leadership, try and overthrow your rule, dissent and blaspheme against you (as they will)?



Lol. Exactly. Its a pity your PC hasnt cottoned on to this idea yet.


So are you actually going to discuss this or keep reposting the same mantra.
Stopping or killing people eaters is not evil T/F?
(If they change their ways then I have conquered them)
Fear of a gods wrath or Fear of punishment for breaking the rightful law is not evil T/F?
(Seriously cops & security guards cannot be evil by nature of executive power)
If a Good deity condones an action that action cannot be evil T/F?
(Gods are an actual absolute authority, through the DM)

[Anderlith]

(They refuse, and the public dissent grows. Rumors spread that you are growing weak. Acts of civil disobedience accelerate. People are tired of constant warfare).

Remember, your oath requires you to 'Douse the flames of Hope' and 'Rule with an Iron Fist' and 'Strength above all' It requires you to punish dissent and those who defy you. To Rule via Fear.

How have you done this? How have you already not broken your oath? You have a virtual rebellion on your hands, and you havent punished a thing, and you certainly are not ruling through fear.

I wouldve thought an accurate response would have been:

'Declare martial law, and send out the jackbooted stormtroopers to quell the dissent via force of arms. Imprison the dissenters, excommunicate the CG church as heretics (via a pogrom if necessary) and tear down the temple. Capture, publicly parade and then publicly execute the leader as an example to the others. Weed out any supporters of this movement in the heirarchy and have them killed via a thousand knives. Send the Gnolls to the gas chambers. This is not their country and they have no rights. Any people that complain are enemies of the State, and are to be imprisoned. A secret police force is to be set up to monitor any further acts of dissent. Rewards are to be given for turning in family members to the secret police for 'reconditioning'.

Its a sad thing we do, and I take no pleasure from it, but its for the greater good'

I responded to your hypothetical. The problem is how did the situation get to that point to begin with? I wouldnt have allowed it. Literal Angels would be summoned to keep people in line. Other faiths would not be allowed unless my god was cool with that. Etc. Of course its easy to fail a hypothetical. What if i say, the monk does become my ambassador because i have high charisma & good persuation being a paladin. The gnolls who are perfectly welcome as citizens btw go with him to protect him. The other church starts to expand into the wilds & becomes my most trusted trading partner. & also my god is LG, & its a theocracatic benevolent dictatorship, you could almost fluff King Arthur as a Conquer Paladin. I was sent to conquer. If the world has turned to peace then my god will tell me when it is right to step down. If i start to fail then i am weak & need to step down but can still easily serve my chosen replacement or go conquer more territory for its new ruler etc.

[MrStabby]

So are you actually going to discuss this or keep reposting the same mantra.
Stopping or killing people eaters is not evil T/F?
(If they change their ways then I have conquered them)

Killing people eaters may be evil or it may not be evil. Are you killing them because it is needed to protect others? Maybe not evil. Are you killing them for fun? Probably evil. Are you killing them to protect your position of authority? Again, probably evil.



Fear of a gods wrath or Fear of punishment for breaking the rightful law is not evil T/F?
(Seriously cops & security guards cannot be evil by nature of executive power)

Fear of a god is neither good nor evil. It is just fear. I also don't see why this means cops and security guards can't be evil. Police who are too zealous in their use of force, indiscriminately violent, obeying cruel orders, taking pleasure in torture - yeah pretty evil.




If a Good deity condones an action that action cannot be evil T/F?
(Gods are an actual absolute authority, through the DM)
If a good deity condones an action it can be evil. The gods are not infallible nor do they know everything (take a look at the divine divination spells for evidence). A god can have a personality as much as any other NPC and a personality is more than an outside perception of alignment.

Hopefully this can clear things up for you.

[Malifice]

I responded to your hypothetical. The problem is how did the situation get to that point to begin with?

Because people (rightly or wrongly) rebelled against your tyranny and warmongering. They wanted freedom from your opression, freedom of religion, human rights, dignity and to live from under your iron fist and free from fear.


Literal Angels would be summoned to keep people in line.

Hey angels, can you help me rule with an iron fist and with fear? The citizens are rebelling against my efforts to keep them in line?

They'd likely turn on you. Angels are emissaries of Lawful Good Gods. Your LG God (Heironeous) is opposed to people who rule with iron fists through fear.

His whole religion is predicated on this fact. Its why he opposes Hextor and precisely what Hextor does (its what makes Hextor evil). You reckon his angels are gonna be on your side?

Youre better off summoning Devils. They'll help you get the unruly citizenry into line, no problems.

You'll also have your 'iron fist' and 'rule through fear' tenets sorted all in one hit.


Other faiths would not be allowed unless my god was cool with that.

How would you stop them? Outlaw other good faiths? On pain of banishment, imprisonment or worse?


Etc. Of course its easy to fail a hypothetical. What if i say, the monk does become my ambassador because i have high charisma & good persuation being a paladin.

He doesnt want to become your ambassador, any more than Ghandi wanted to become the British Crowns ambassador to India, or Thomas Jefferson wanted the same for the 13 colonies., or the French Revolutionaries wanted Marie Antoinette's ambassador.

You're a fascist tyrant, supressing other faiths, engaging in non-stop war, putting down dissidents, and enforcing your (absolute) rule through fear and an iron fist.

If you're not doing this, you're breaking your oath.

I mean I have no problem with your concept (Its a cool concept). I have no problem with you running this guy as someone who genuinely believes in his heart of hearts he's a good and righteous man, and is doing the world a favor.

But hes not a good and righteous man. Hes a fascist warmongering tyrant who rules through fear and an iron fist. Hes a monster. Whether he knows it or not.


Stopping or killing people eaters is not evil T/F?

Stopping a person from killing someone is not evil. Killing them (as a last resort, in self defence to an imminent threat when no other option reasonably presents itself) is not evil either. A Police officer shooting an armed suspect about to shoot him or a citizen. A soldier shooting an enemy soldier who has invaded his lands. A person shooting an armed intrunder to his home.

Its not a good act either mind you. Its morally neutral.

Your character isnt reducing fear, killing, suffering and death in the world; he's creating more of it. He's the source of it in fact.

Your argument is this:

1) Creatures who kill, invade and cause suffering to us are evil.
2) Gnolls and Demons do this.
3) Therefore Gnolls and Demons are evil.
4) Gnolls and Demons cant be reasoned with. This is how they are.
5) So we must kill, invade and cause suffering to Gnolls to stop them.
6) I cant be reasoned with on this. I brook no arguments to my rule.

Do I really need to point out why that argument is self defeating?

You cant fight evil with evil and claim to be good. Two wrongs dont make a right.


Fear of a gods wrath or Fear of punishment for breaking the rightful law is not evil T/F?


Causing unecessary suffering is evil. Making a person live in fear is evil.


If a Good deity condones an action that action cannot be evil T/F?

No Good deity condones such an action. In Krynn they hurled a mountain on the Kingpriest and Istar for doing half what you're claiming to do! There is a reason the fluff for this oath mentions Devils and Hell explicitly.

Good is about mercy, compassion, kindness and aleviating suffering. Evil is about killing, harming and oppressing others. Your PCs entire mantra is literally 'Kill, harm and oppress others'.

Your PC is not a good person. At best you're LN, and even thats a stretch.

[Kane0]

Aasimar Treachery Pally.
Holy damage spike batman!

[rlc]

Icon of deceit screams polearm master, since it gives free advantage and +20 damage per hit. Funny that it says "bonus equal to paladin level" when there's exactly one level at which you can use this, but whatever.


I figured this implied that they were starting to think about levels beyond 20.

[Giant2005]

Where does an Oath of Treachery Paladin's power come from?
Normally their power comes from the strength of their own conviction or possibly an outside source. The Oath of Treachery has lost either their convictions or that outside source, so where does their power come from?

[Regitnui]

Where does an Oath of Treachery Paladin's power come from?
Normally their power comes from the strength of their own conviction or possibly an outside source. The Oath of Treachery has lost either their convictions or that outside source, so where does their power come from?

They have their convictions of saving their own butt.

[Slayn82]

I liked both vows a lot. Conquest would also allows for a King Conan Palladin. You rule with strength, and allows for people to do their own things, as long as they don't bother others or destabilise your Kingdom. If they do, your guards will dish out the proper punishment - flogging, forced work, jail, cutting a limb, public execution. People argue all the time that a lighter hand would guide the Kingdom through an age of peace, but whenever that happens, the Kingdom falls prey to an even worse regime - the rival kingdoms invade, pillage, murder and loot, evil sorcerer's control the Kingdom from the Shadows, and extorsive taxes are imposed.

Would King Conan be LG? Never. But who said great heroes need to be LG?

Gwandi Knock off comes to Aquilonia asking for a peaceful change of Regime? Conan takes a liking to the guy, and makes the same proposal already discussed - fine, go carve a Kingdom for you guys out there, I will even help you some. His proposal is rejected, and people do sit ins and whatever? Conan orders the leadership arrested, and makes a public announcement: "You fools, have you people grow so soft from drinking the good wine from Aquilonia? Have the Gods of Madness clouded your judgements? Who was the one that freed you from your torment, when no man or woman could walk unmolested through these lands? Have you forgotten when your Kings would take your wives and your daughters to their Harem's, and your food to their dogs? The lament of your children as the Stygian Wyrms burned your cities and farms? Didn't I make the people of this land safe, isn't this Kingdom prosper, didn't you achieve happiness?

There's clearly some among you who disagree. Very well, as your King I will take your grievances. Through my whole life I opened my path through the Sword, and by the judgement of the Sword I shall abide.

Whoever among you supports this dissent, whoever thinks this man (Gwandi Knock Off) and his ways, can make a better King, can take your Sword, come here and fight me for the throne. But if I'm still King by the time the Sun sets, then by Crom, he and his supporters shall be exiled to the Stygian lands (and may the Gods take mercy of their souls, for the Stygian don't know any)".

Putting his Charisma to work along with a demonstration of his Strength, he would fight head on those willing to challenge him, after isolating the leadership that would argue for peace.

Pacifism works far better when you don't need a strong and experienced leader to fight for your survival. It would take some generations for people to truly forget the Conqueror Palladin achievements - and funny enough, it would make the savage races who live less and reproduce fast a somewhat constant source of rebellions to be smacked as example for others.

Also, I don't think "Conquering the enemy" means rooting out every last enemy, as long as you can dissuade others from opposing you by properly punishing the Guys you can get to. Public execution, heads on spears, Hanging. That's a way to deal with the issue.

[Millstone85]

Where does an Oath of Treachery Paladin's power come from?I would say the Lower Planes, mainly the Abyss.
Many of these paladins pay homage to demon lords, especially Grazz’t and Orcus. Even the Lords of Hell are loath to ally with these champions of chaos, but sometimes Baalzebul and Glasya find a kindred spirit in a blackguard’s penchant for double dealing and treachery.Even if the paladin has never met a fiend, they might be attuned to the plane itself.

My own problem with this UA is: How does the Oath of Treachery compare to the Oathbreaker, thematically?
I am not familiar with the lore of "blackguards".

The Oath of Conquest feels distinct enough and is something I was waiting for.
I like the images brought to my mind by the various names:
* "knight tyrant". A faithful of Bane, truly convinced that democracy is a failure.
* "iron monger". Something of a Sauron wannabe, still mortal at the moment.
* "hell knight". The one who embraces their lawful evil alignment to the fullest.

[Zalabim]

Where does an Oath of Treachery Paladin's power come from?
Normally their power comes from the strength of their own conviction or possibly an outside source. The Oath of Treachery has lost either their convictions or that outside source, so where does their power come from?
The other. Either from the strength of their betrayal, or the strength of how hard they were betrayed. A crown paladin gets used as a patsy for a royal assassination and goes on the run until he can clear his name, rather than submit to the lawful authorities for what would no doubt be a sham trial, if any trial at all. A devotion paladin abandons their duty to the order to try and save their family and loved ones. Their order betrays them, so they learn how to survive and fight back. They fail despite their convictions and they turn to a teacher that offers a better way.

Maybe they even exchange one conviction for another. An anti-kobold gnomish vengeance paladin learns that gnomish tricks as are bad as kobold traps and decides to either unite the two species or wipe them both out. Hijinks ensue either way.

Also, they have no common tenets, but that doesn't mean that they all have no tenets. They still want something, usually something selfish, but something.

[Morphic tide]

You keep defining the Paladin as hardline LE with delusions of being good, with a side of Lawful Stupid in that they absolutely never compromise, even when shown evidence that their views are factually incorrect, not the LN they should be for the situation to make sense as an example of Oath of Conquest. Either add all the important things you can think of to the post, or be more detailed in your refusals as something more than "No, you don't get to try that and the rebels won't accept it." You are making us work with woefully incomplete information of the situation and a viewpoint character we don't have actual control of.

Also, obeying cruel orders and laws is a Lawful Neutral thing, not Lawful Evil. Lawful Neutral is "The law is always right." Rather important is that a Lawful Neutral character doesn't have any moral restrictions on laws they follow. If they are from an empire so evil that they qualify as Evil just for not trying to end it, then end up in a LG kingdom, there's a rather significant chance that they will swap over to following the laws of that kingdom with no fuss.

My solution, assuming that the example justification for a LG Paladin of Conquest is in play, is to go over the laws in place and make the letter and spirit of the law clear, then go about turning the population against the CG church. Anything that is something the people like with the CG church is to be inspected and, if it does not damage the stability of the empire, integrated into the law. Tear apart their support base by implementing many of the things they want on my terms. I see proof that Gnolls can be Good? Replace the current laws regarding consorting with enemies with more lax ones that permit such individuals to live here.

Remove as many of their points as possible to gut their powerbase. Make the laws more just, filling in gaps that allow such immense cruelty that the people turn against their nation. Don't tolerate the threat to the empire's power, dismantle the threat by any means available, starting with the merciful ones and getting worse as needed.

[Joe the Rat]

Is anyone else feeling Conquest as a good foundation for a hardliner of St. Cuthbert?

[Gwendol]

I don't see conquest or treachery work for good aligned characters. Dominance, breaking of will and soul, those are not workings of good. LN could work for conquest and likewise CN for treachery, but as has been stated above these archetypes really are on the (non-good) chaotic - lawful axis. You could have an interesting campaign based on PC's getting caught in the middle of a conflict between two paladins of conquest and treachery, respectively.

[Âmesang]

It might be fun to mix an assassin rogue with a paladin of treachery, but I have no idea where I'd put the break.
That's what I've been doing with my current character, a typical Lolth-worshiping drow, except her multiclass is oatherbreaker paladin/assassin rogue (reversing effects whenever appropriate, such as divine smite dealing necrotic damage with extra against celestials).

Guess I'll have to stop calling her a "blackguard," though. :smalltongue: Granted, my intent was to replicate 3rd Edition's blackguard which itself appears to be based off of 1st Edition's anti-paladin, so I could just go with that. Treachery does look fun, but at the moment oathbreaker has that "classic" feel to me.

[jaappleton]

That's what I've been doing with my current character, a typical Lolth-worshiping drow, except her multiclass is oatherbreaker paladin/assassin rogue (reversing effects whenever appropriate, such as divine smite dealing necrotic damage with extra against celestials).

Guess I'll have to stop calling her a "blackguard," though. :smalltongue: Granted, my intent was to replicate 3rd Edition's blackguard which itself appears to be based off of 1st Edition's anti-paladin, so I could just go with that. Treachery does look fun, but at the moment oathbreaker has that "classic" feel to me.

Call her a Blackguard! A class name isn't a job name.

I've seen Bards played as Magicians and Clerics played as Blacksmiths. Do your thing.

[Anderlith]

Thank you to the other posters that phrased arguements better than i did. Late night rants are rarely coherent >_<

The idea that a Conquerer must be evil is childish. If you go into evil lands & are forcing them to be good, while using the virtues of goodness, yourself. In ancient Rome the Senate would elect a dictator during times of unrest & war, his word was law. After the crisis he would give it up (til Caesar came & changed everything) A Conquerer could be seen the same way. LG with a strong L first. So many paladins are LG with a strong G, that any lawful first ideology makes people think you are just LN. But if you conquer Hell to make Paradise, especially with guidence from your Deity, then you arent evil. Instilling law onto an unruly land so that compassionate people are safe to live & thrive, that can work as LG.

[jaappleton]

Thank you to the other posters that phrased arguements better than i did. Late night rants are rarely coherent >_<

The idea that a Conquerer must be evil is childish. If you go into evil lands & are forcing them to be good, while using the virtues of goodness, yourself. In ancient Rome the Senate would elect a dictator during times of unrest & war, his word was law. After the crisis he would give it up (til Caesar came & changed everything) A Conquerer could be seen the same way. LG with a strong L first. So many paladins are LG with a strong G, that any lawful first ideology makes people think you are just LN. But if you conquer Hell to make Paradise, especially with guidence from your Deity, then you arent evil. Instilling law onto an unruly land so that compassionate people are safe to live & thrive, that can work as LG.

The numerous interpretations of what X or Y must concisely be is part of what makes D&D terrific. So many ideas and concepts can be taken in so many different directions and played so differently. It's part of why I love the game so much.

"This has to be done this way or you're wrong!" is such a terrible concept.

[Oramac]

The numerous interpretations of what X or Y must concisely be is part of what makes D&D terrific. So many ideas and concepts can be taken in so many different directions and played so differently. It's part of why I love the game so much.

"This has to be done this way or you're wrong!" is such a terrible concept.

This is exactly why I adhere to the "play your character, not your alignment" rule.

[Ravinsild]

Douse the Flame of Hope.
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.

My Paladin would douse the Hope of Flame in the enemy Orcs he smites. Upon entering battle he lays down a ferocious attack smiting the Orc Chieftain in the name of Pelor crushing him before his ranks. The ranks break and flee in terror upon seeing my righteous zeal. I continue my crusade to cull the Orcs from the countryside until they are driven far from this land. They relocate and the borders to my city and my country are safe from savage barbarians that would harm my family and those I love, the citizens of my city. Safety and prosperity blossom in the city.

Rule with an Iron Fist.
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.

Any Orcs who try to raid within the borders of my patrol are culled and sundered. There will be no raiding on my watch. There will be no plundering. They will face the justice of my sword and the law of my holy might. Those who take up arms to defend this city are favored. Those who try to invade are punished by death. Eventually the Orcs give up. Their Chaotic Evil God Gruumsh can take it up with Pelor if he's butthurt his dumb minions can't go around killing for fun anymore.

Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.

I must maintain and hone my skills to be stronger than any Orc, smarter than any Hobgoblin, greater than any wicked Giant that would threaten my lands. Like Goku I continue to train to protect the Earth from any great evil that might come to challenge and conquer. I continue my training and devotion so I do not slip. I must maintain my peak at all times.

Giant Edit: I never said my paladin would be "lawful good" I said it makes for a fun "good paladin" which can be any good alignment. Malifice put words in my mouth and started arguing from the viewpoint said Paladin was Lawful Good. It was a false argument the entire time. My Paladin doesn't care about the law, he just wants to protect the city and run out all the evil raiders that keep trying to invade. He cares about clearing out a huge perimeter around his city from: Gnolls, Goblinoids, Giants, Orcs, Kobolds, Dragons and any other would be conqueror that wants to abuse, kill, steal from and pillage the farmers and citizens of the city just trying to get by in a tough life. A staunch defender of the weak he will conquer any would-be invader until the day he dies. If you're a would-be raider whose god says you need to feed some eternal hunger or murder for fun then you can get off his lawn, punk.

[Syll]

I will say, insect plague feels a bit odd for conquest. The rest of the spell list is more enchantment- focused, bugs seem a bit out of place. Although I suppose it could help with the "total war" vibe, if you destroy the enemy's agriculture.

I think insect plague was included based on its name more than anything. If you use the biblical examples of plagues it fits the theme of "crush their spirits and break their will"


Is anyone else feeling Conquest as a good foundation for a hardliner of St. Cuthbert?
St Cuthbert is my go to deity,and from my perspective Oath of Vengeance is a better base for him

[Tanarii]

This is exactly why I adhere to the "play your character, not your alignment" rule.

5e Alignment is supposed to be that anyway. It's a single line of typical behavior description to consider in conjunction with all your other personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw) and other things like a Paladin's Oath, when making in-character decisions (aka Roleplaying).

In fact, given the way 5e Alignment works, you could very easily play a character who is sticking to his Oath despite his Alignment not matching. In every other aspect of their life, Alignment might be a consideration for how they behave, but due to their oath Tenets they constantly fight their own nature and override it when the Tenets apply. Of course, that only works to a degree ... a Chaotic Good character would probably rapidly fall from 'grace' as a Conquest Oath Paladin as their natural instinct to to follow their own conscience kicked in. :smallwink:

[VoxRationis]

Interestingly enough, I think Oath of Conquest would work just as well for a CE orc warlord as for a LE tyrant. The tenets don't necessarily favor an actual rule by law—they support a structure ruling by decree, based on the personal power of the ruler and how much people fear the leader being able to personally crush them. That's a CE social structure right there.

[Ravinsild]

Interestingly enough, I think Oath of Conquest would work just as well for a CE orc warlord as for a LE tyrant. The tenets don't necessarily favor an actual rule by law—they support a structure ruling by decree, based on the personal power of the ruler and how much people fear the leader being able to personally crush them. That's a CE social structure right there.

Yes my first instinct for the Conquest Paladin was an Eye of Gruumsh Orc Barbarian who also had a touch of Conquest Paladin using the Divine Powers of Gruumsh to smite his enemies and see them driven before him in fear of his mighty power.

Then I reversed that for a character to be a good guy fighting against the Orcs. Conquest Paladin of Good Guy meets Conquest Paladin of Gruumsh. Epic battle ensues of who can break the spirit of their competitor first and see their ranks broken and fleeing before their mighty blade.

Edit: I view personally the "Rule Through Fear" as ruling the battlefield, not necessarily a nation or territory. So it's a temporary rule in the midst of combat, not an actual government. That way it's portable rule as each battle takes place in a different location as you adventure. The rule of fear right now is in this dungeon against the kobolds. Later on it's in the Underdark against the Drow. Later on it's in the sky against...whatever evil stuff lives in the sky.

[jaappleton]

Wouldn't Conquest work well as a Paladin of Tempus?

[Syll]

I think its interesting what Treachery establishes, precedence wise. I have seen so many arguments about PLD that revolve around 'the strength of their convictions' granting them their powers... and treachery flies in the face of that.

I approve personally, just because PLD is the only class that seems to get this treatment of 'live up to my image of your character or you lose your powers'

[jaappleton]

I think its interesting what Treachery establishes, precedence wise. I have seen so many arguments about PLD that revolve around 'the strength of their convictions' granting them their powers... and treachery flies in the face of that.

I approve personally, just because PLD is the only class that seems to get this treatment of 'live up to my image of your character or you lose your powers'

In a roundabout way, Treachery has sworn an Oath.

To themselves. They swear to put their interests above all else.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Is there actually anything in the Oath of Conquest that prevents me from running a tickles and chocolate rations based justice system?

Also, the Oath never actually requires you to conquer anything, and it does require you to give up power when someone stronger arises. Not even when someone stronger overpowers you, just when someone stronger arises.

Primus Aurelius Augustus of the Gnoman Empire rose to power after riding around on his dinosaur mount, scattering the orcish horde with his cone of fear. His single-handed victory over that vast army crushed all hope that invaders or seccessionist armies could ever win against him. For fifty years, he lead tireless inqusitions into the loyalty of his people. Each month, the most loyal citizens would be feasted with fine Gnoman delicacies, while the disloyal were publicly shamed, having to watch the feast on an empty stomach and enduring the tickles of playful children (including those abandoned by the fleeing orcs) from the imperial orphanage. The next day, of course, the disloyal citizens were given double breakfast rations to make sure that they weren't malnourished, but it was a particularly bland breakfast. Unfortunately, his reign came to an end one day when an adventurer reached level 17. Primus was only level 16, and so he promptly abdicated to join an adventuring party and get more XP.

[Ravinsild]

Is there actually anything in the Oath of Conquest that prevents me from running a tickles and chocolate rations based justice system?

Also, the Oath never actually requires you to conquer anything, and it does require you to give up power when someone stronger arises. Not even when someone stronger overpowers you, just when someone stronger arises.

Primus Aurelius Augustus of the Gnoman Empire rose to power after riding around on his dinosaur mount, scattering the orcish horde with his cone of fear. His single-handed victory over that vast army crushed all hope that invaders or seccessionist armies could ever win against him. For fifty years, he lead tireless inqusitions into the loyalty of his people. Each month, the most loyal citizens would be feasted with fine Gnoman delicacies, while the disloyal were publicly shamed, having to watch the feast on an empty stomach and enduring the tickles of playful children (including those abandoned by the fleeing orcs) from the imperial orphanage. The next day, of course, the disloyal citizens were given double breakfast rations to make sure that they weren't malnourished, but it was a particularly bland breakfast. Unfortunately, his reign came to an end one day when an adventurer reached level 17. Primus was only level 16, and so he promptly abdicated to join an adventuring party and get more XP.

Your conquest Paladin is cooler than mine :(

[Syll]

In a roundabout way, Treachery has sworn an Oath.

To themselves. They swear to put their interests above all else.

I would argue that the line "there are no tenets of this oath, for it lacks substance" counters this. The line about their concern for themselves above all else is from a 2nd hand perspective... or rather this what i would argue if I wanted to play a good aligned one

My first thought for a backstory was Is "traumatically discover everything you believed was a lie" and go from there

[jaappleton]

I would argue that the line "there are no tenets of this oath, for it lacks substance" counters this. The line about their concern for themselves above all else is from a 2nd hand perspective.

My first thought for a backstory was Is "traumatically discover everything you believed was a lie" and go from there

The Oath of **** This ****, I'm Out?

[Syll]

The Oath of **** This ****, I'm Out?

I could have fun with that, yeah

[jaappleton]

I could have fun with that, yeah

Blackguard's Escape at lv15 is essentially the embodiment of that.

[Millstone85]

Not even when someone stronger overpowers you, just when someone stronger arises.I thought that "Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin." implied something else. And I would change it to "Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or bend the knee.", more LE in my opinion.

[Tanarii]

I mean come on. I know this is a Paladin thread and all, but we seem to be in agreement here that this oath is pretty 'LE' flavored (LN at a slight stretch).Of course, we're close to the same page on Conquest, overall. But I couldn't resist the urge to tweak your nose in an alignment-related discussion. :smallwink:

[MinotaurWarrior]

I thought that "Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin." implied something else.

Well, it implies that you can't just abdicate into retirement, but rather must try to become more powerful or die trying. Aka adventuring.

Another way you could be a LG Conquest paladin is if you're an exiled prince who was usurped by, say, a level 20 CE moon druid. Yeah, maybe if you become more powerful, then you'll face some ethical dilemmas with tennant two, but in the meantime your primary focus is finding XP and magical items so that you can defeat her later. In the meantime, you're just overly optimistic about how easy it will be to achieve a 100% approval rating.

[DireSickFish]

Oath of Conquest would make a terrific Blackguard of Bane. It has all the right themes and I'm surprised they didn't bring it up when they were going over fluff. Perhaps they are trying to shy away from FR lore? Ruling through fear and conquering others is his bag after all.

I would say that the Paladin of Conquest doesn't necessarily need to be the one who wants to be king of the hill. He could be fighting for his side to rule, and be a dutiful servant to it. The "you" they use in the language could be interpreted as the royal you instead of literally meaning the PC.

The Hell knights listed to have demon lords of their own that they serve. Or I could see one bending the knee to an overwhelming force of a tyrant and flocking to his banner.

[FunSize]

I think it could be interesting if a Conquest Paladin was played as a well intentioned extremist, perhaps someone like Beatrix from Final Fantasy 9, or Kuvira from Legend of Korra, or even more recent interpretations of Sinestro.

[jaappleton]

I think it could be interesting if a Conquest Paladin was played as a well intentioned extremist, perhaps someone like Beatrix from Final Fantasy 9, or Kuvira from Legend of Korra, or even more recent interpretations of Sinestro.

Beatrix was totally Oath of the Crown.

[Âmesang]

Call her a Blackguard! A class name isn't a job name.

I've seen Bards played as Magicians and Clerics played as Blacksmiths. Do your thing.
True, but at the same time I don't want to make things confusing for anyone. :smallsmile: Plus "Blackguard 7" doesn't explain a whole lot when I should be referring to her as an "Antipaladin 4/Assassin 3."

(Especially since the Paladin of Treachery literally has an ability named after Blackguards, while the DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide refers to oathbreakers as "Antipaladins.")

[Davemeddlehed]

Which is moronic...They developed the game...multi-classing is part of the game. A three year old can see how broken the ability is with the standard rule set.

Multiclassing is a variant rule. Why not start safeguarding UA from homebrew as well?

[Davemeddlehed]

Fair enough...I stand corrected. But in games were multi-classing is allowed 6 Paladin / 3 Assassin will pretty much overshadow any other class when it comes to damage output.

I'm pretty sure I could build a better damaging martial character.

[Davemeddlehed]

This is a dumb question but can a raging Barbarian smite something? It uses a spell slot as a resource but is it a spell or just a really mighty attack?

Correct. Smite is a class feature, not a spell.

[Petrocorus]

Wouldn't Conquest work well as a Paladin of Tempus?
I think that too. That's the first thing that came to my mind when i saw it.

[Ravinsild]

I'm pretty sure I could build a better damaging martial character.

Are Barbarians one of the strongest Martial Damage Dealers and do they multiclass with Paladin well? I feel like a Paladin of Conquest + Barbarian is neat thematically but I don't know if a) it works mechanically and b) does any actual damage.

Something like a Barbarian with the Path of the Zealot or something + Paladin with the Oath of Conquest was my idea but just in general any Oath/any Path combined. Or whatever else Barbarian is good with.

[MeeposFire]

Are Barbarians one of the strongest Martial Damage Dealers and do they multiclass with Paladin well? I feel like a Paladin of Conquest + Barbarian is neat thematically but I don't know if a) it works mechanically and b) does any actual damage.

Barbarians are quite strong in damage though a lot of it comes from using rage, reckless attack (higher accuracy and crit rate), and nasty criticals. It really takes a jump using heavy weapons with the great weapon fighting feat since reckless attack really helps it hit.

The nice part about barbarian is that you can get most of it best benefits early. Going Paladin with it gets you extra attack and while you cannot cast spells while raging you can smite. I would take 5 levels in one class to get extra attack on time and then start multiclassing. If you really want damage use a heavy weapon with the great weapon feat and your potetial will be quite nice especially using reckless attack.


However remember that the basic rage benefits only work when not using heavy armor so use medium if you can. If that makes you too MAD (too many ability scores needed to work well) then take totem barbarian at barbarian 3 and take bear and so then you get to keep your damage resistance at least while raging in heavy armor (bear is not retricted by armor like normal rage is). You won't get the bonus damage but that may not be as important.

[Davemeddlehed]

The way I read it is it's active for up to one minute and one the next attack that hits within that minute it goes off.

It make for the best alpha strike when you mix in Assasin, since you have adv and the poison dice are max, assuming Pal 6 / Ass 3 ....26 poison dam + 26 poison dam + 2d8 weapon dam + 4d6 sneak dam + 6d8 smite dam + stat + 2nd attack 2d8 wp + 6d8 smite + stat = BBEG dead.

146(I was liberal and gave a +4 stat mod) average damage isn't even close to the hardest hitting build out there around that level, especially when you factor in the likelihood of poison resistance cutting that down to just 120 average damage.

Devotion Paladin 5, Fighter 2, Frenzy Barbarian 3 with a greatsword, great weapon master feat, and a +3 to strength:

Sacred Weapon on greatsword
Frenzy as a Bonus action

Those can be done pre-combat if you know combat is about to begin.

2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
Action Surge
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+3d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=37.5 average damage, 53 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+3d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=37.5 average damage, 45 max

174 average damage, 233 maximum damage in a round, and you don't even need to surprise the BBEG for him to be dead.

[Davemeddlehed]

Are Barbarians one of the strongest Martial Damage Dealers and do they multiclass with Paladin well? I feel like a Paladin of Conquest + Barbarian is neat thematically but I don't know if a) it works mechanically and b) does any actual damage.

Something like a Barbarian with the Path of the Zealot or something + Paladin with the Oath of Conquest was my idea but just in general any Oath/any Path combined. Or whatever else Barbarian is good with.

Devotion Paladin 5, Fighter 2, Frenzy Barbarian 3 with a greatsword, great weapon master feat, and a +3 to strength:

Sacred Weapon on greatsword
Frenzy as a Bonus action

Those can be done pre-combat if you know combat is about to begin.

2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
Action Surge
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+3d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=37.5 average damage, 53 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max
2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+3d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=37.5 average damage, 45 max

174 average damage, 233 maximum damage in a round.

[Vogonjeltz]

Fair enough...I stand corrected. But in games were multi-classing is allowed 6 Paladin / 3 Assassin will pretty much overshadow any other class when it comes to damage output.

Why is that? If it has advantage then it's flat damage at 26 (for 6 paladin levels). Which means that a critical hit deals exactly no additional damage with the ability. The only way to get additional damage dice on a crit for that ability would be to not have advantage on the attack.

26 damage seems like alot of burst for a bonus action...of course the equivalent ability for Devotion nets +charisma to attack for 1 minute, or for Vengeance: advantage on all attacks against a single target for 1 minute (which would seem to carry much greater damage potential).


" The poison damage equals 2d10 + your paladin level, or 20 +your
paladin level if you had advantage on the attack roll"

Implies to me dice are rolled..they are just always maxed if you if you have adv. I will agree to disagree, but yes either way the boss is still dead.

As written it provides two equations.
No Advantage: 2d10 + paladin level damage
Advantage: 20 + paladin level damage


Well I took it from the PHB "If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging." that you could not enter a Rage and then could not subsequently cast a spell even a Cantrip like Firebolt, so I was not sure if Divine Smite was "casting a spell" or if it was just a special...effect of the "Make an Attack Action" Attack.

Casting a spell uses the "Cast a Spell" action, Smiting does not use an action at all (please note, smiting is not the same as using one of the smite spells as a spell)


I find it extremely disappointing to see them abandoning the idea of oaths as philosophies and instead reverting back to merely checking alignment stereotype boxes. An oath with no tenets was especially cringey.

It's entirely in line with the Oathbreaker in the DMG (page 97):

"Paladin: Oathbreaker
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains."

So the Oath of Treachery is just an alternative form of Oathbreaker, one who renounces their sacred oath. In general I'd probably apply the UA version to a Mordred-type, who stabs their brothers in the back for some reason, possibly the opportunity to gain power.

i.e. A big bad.

For the Oath of Conquest, I could see it working for a character who just seeks the thrill of battle and victory.

So your basic murderhobo party would be totally compatible. Given that it's routine to see a thread where a paladin is at odds with one or more evil party members, this seems like a very useful Oath for quelling those issues. (Side question: Why would a DM allow evil characters in a party where the entire party isn't also flat out evil?)


lol if they were any more vague and open-ended than the PHB ones you might as well not have them at all, they'd be so pointless.'

Interestingly, per SCAG, ALL FR paladins have a huge list of more traditional & strict 'paladin' tenets. Conquest would violate them completely, as do many coommon interpretations of Vengeance. In fact, they make it very hard for FR Paladins of any Alignment other than LG to avoid flirting with violating those new tenets.

Anyone know if AL, which is set in Forgotten Realms, is supposed to enforce the SGAC Paladin Tenets?

I don't know...on reviewing the tenets of Devotion, I could see a Lawful Evil Devotion paladin as being actually workable.

Honesty - Ok, no problem that goes with Lawful.
Courage - Non-alignment oriented.
Compassion - This one seems most difficult, but then we look at the particulars: "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." So, maybe the Lawful Evil paladin does the aid others/protect the weak, show mercy parts because hey, those are the rules and they follow the rules...but they do the punishing and maybe not showing mercy because it doesn't make sense here, parts because they like to do that.
Honor - Goes in hand with Lawful as it reinforces a rules-based approach for all the peasants.
Duty - Ditto, the obeying of authority part appeals to Lawful Evil ethos pretty directly.

Yeah, that could totally work for a Lawful Evil character (methodically taking what they want within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order).

Sample background using the Knight variant:

Personality Trait: No one could doubt by looking at my regal bearing that I am a cut above the unwashed masses.
Ideal: It is my duty to respect the authority of those above me, just as those below me must respect mine. (Lawful)
Bond: The common folk must see me as a hero of the people.
Flaw: I secretly believe that everyone is beneath me.


I guess kind of like "The Punisher" of Paladins or even "Batman" except he kills the villains because Gnolls and stuff can't be anything except evil unlike the Joker who is a human and just might one day change.

Punisher, as a Paladin, would be Vengeance, Batman really doesn't fit that mold because of the unwillingness to kill his villains being a core belief.


They still get a choice. Unlike Orcs in Middle Earth that... well dont.

To be fair, Orcs in middle earth are more like the Angels and Demons of D&D; Being as in Middle Earth an Orc is literally a corruption of Elves that represent good, so if they stopped being corrupt, they could no longer be an Orc. Same way a non-evil Demon literally stops being a demon. (PHB 122).

As you say, in D&D Orcs have a tendency for evil, but that's not immutable, and many Orcs choose to be good which arguably could be viewed as more virtuous than being good simply because it is their essence, the way an Angel is good.


I dont want to get all 'Walking Dead' on you, but who is truly evil? The walkers (who cant help themselves from killing people) or the people around them who can? Its a theme they heavily use on that show.

Carol for one has changed alignment from Neutral Good to Lawful/ Neutral Evil (and now rather jarringly to Neutral). Rick bounces between LN and LE (depending on the season). Morgan is sticking to his NG guns (well... his stick anyway). Neegan is LE through and through. Glenn was LG, as was Tyreese. Daryl kind of straddles the CN spectrum. Jesus seems pretty CG. Etc.

I don't recall any instance of someone actually calling the Walkers evil, they're more like a natural disaster than anything else, totally amoral. If they were animated by dark magic the way D&D zombies are, that'd be another thing.

I'd also disagree with some of the listed alignments for the characters, Carol's listed motivation, for example, has always been protecting the group and her rationalization for the first exile was that the sick were (effectively) already dead, that doesn't make her right, but it also doesn't go so far as to make her actions evil in context. And Daryl is more NG or CG than anything else, he's repeatedly put his own life on the line or gone well out of his way for total strangers.

[Petrocorus]

2d6+3(STR)+2(CHA)+2d8(DS)+10(GWM)+2(Rage)=33 average damage, 45 max

I don't get how you add CHA to damages?

[Davemeddlehed]

I don't get how you add CHA to damages?


Sacred Weapon: As an action, you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy, using your Channel Divinity. For 1 minute, you add your Charisma modifier to Attack rolls made with that weapon (with a minimum bonus of +1). The weapon also emits bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light 20 feet beyond that. If the weapon is not already magical, it becomes magical for the Duration.

You can end this effect on Your Turn as part of any other action. If you are no longer holding or carrying this weapon, or if you fall Unconscious, this effect ends

One of the devotion Paladin's channel divinity abilities

[jaappleton]

One of the devotion Paladin's channel divinity abilities

Read the ability. Attack rolls. Not damage.

[Davemeddlehed]

Read the ability. Attack rolls. Not damage.

You're right, I misread the ability. So knock 10 damage off both totals, it's still better damage. Thanks for being so kind as to point it out the way you did.

[furby076]

HOLY CRAP THE BLACKGUARD

I mean, Treachery...

The spell list. The abilities. WOW. That poisonous strike deals 20 + Paladin level poison damage if you have Advantage? WOW!

After looking at those classes, they need to update the core... 20+paladin lvl absolutely smokes ancients ability

[furby076]

I don't see how anyone is supposed to be able to play the conquest paladin with that Oath. It's incredibly restrictive and requires your party to just completely fall in line with you. I think this might be the most anti-party class I've ever seen. I mean the first part of the oath doesn't just let the paladin kill a couple of orcs and be on their merry way. The orcs have to submit to the paladin, so whatever organized group you're sending at them the paladin has to go hunt them down and defeat them utterly and thoroughly. Unless you take an extremely liberal view of it. The second part means the party has to fully submit to you. Your word is law. You could argue it only applies when you've conquered a place, though that's not how I read it. I read conquered in a more general sense. So the conqueror paladin has to be the group leader. And the group has to do what they say. Or the conqueror will have to crush their spirits until they do. And even the third part means the paladin always has to be the strongest in the party. So if someone is perceived as a threat the paladin is going to have to do something. I don't see how this would ever work in a party.

The treachery one I suppose is fine. They finally decided to give people what they want and remove the RP requirements. Now all you need to be is evil, which isn't that hard even in a good group, and then you get all the paladin goodies. And it doesn't look like a terrible oath either, so there you go I suppose.

I dont see it as having to spend your last breath hunting down the orcs. Those cowards ran away and are not befitting your time. Now, if you took nobility background, then your minions will be sent to hunt, murder the orcs, and put their heads on a pike.

As for party. ... 1. There has always been a sense of disbelief for parties. Back from 2e, when the paladin was playing with a lawful evil wizard, etc. You did it because the player happiness > game rules. But if you wanted to spin it... just cause u are a conquest paladin does not mean you are the boss. Sometimes you have to be subordinate (to more powerful beings) or work with equals to accomplish your goals

[Belac93]

What would you say is the different mentality that would make someone become an Oath of Treachery rather than a Blackguard? Is there a difference in how you break your oath?

[Sigreid]

I dont see it as having to spend your last breath hunting down the orcs. Those cowards ran away and are not befitting your time. Now, if you took nobility background, then your minions will be sent to hunt, murder the orcs, and put their heads on a pike.

As for party. ... 1. There has always been a sense of disbelief for parties. Back from 2e, when the paladin was playing with a lawful evil wizard, etc. You did it because the player happiness > game rules. But if you wanted to spin it... just cause u are a conquest paladin does not mean you are the boss. Sometimes you have to be subordinate (to more powerful beings) or work with equals to accomplish your goals

Maybe, but I don't think it lends itself well to the adventurer concept as it seems to be more keep what you kill and build on it than kill>loot>move on. It's not that it can't be a PC, it's just that I think it would need to be a campaign that was built to work with the oath.

[Davemeddlehed]

After looking at those classes, they need to update the core... 20+paladin lvl absolutely smokes ancients ability

Yes and no. Poison is pretty commonly resisted.

[Sigreid]

Yes and no. Poison is pretty commonly resisted.

In the long view it's kind of hard to top "You will never grow old, weaken and die. You'll only die if killed." Though that doesn't come up much in games. I still think Ancients is the best paladin, with their aura giving them that as far as I'm concerned.

[furby076]

Conquest requires subjugating your enemies with violence, and then ruling them through fear and tyranny. That certainly wouldnt have been called 'good' in past editions of the game, certainly isnt viewed as 'good' today, and certainly isnt fluffed as 'good' in the text on the oath itself.

I think you misread it. It says your word is law. This paladins could be LN, and even LG. LN = Your are in a society and set up strict rules. No forgiveness to the rules. Justice is blind. You do the crime, you do the time. No exceptions. LG = similar to above, but you conquered a evil (tendency ) village. They need a strict and firm hand. The laws are set.

Either way, 5e puts more emphasis on the tenents then the alignment

[Ravinsild]

I think you misread it. It says your word is law. This paladins could be LN, and even LG. LN = Your are in a society and set up strict rules. No forgiveness to the rules. Justice is blind. You do the crime, you do the time. No exceptions. LG = similar to above, but you conquered a evil (tendency ) village. They need a strict and firm hand. The laws are set.

Either way, 5e puts more emphasis on the tenents then the alignment

I don't even think you have be Lawful. I think they meant "Your word is law" metaphorically meaning "My way or the Highway" after your enemies surrender from being scared of what a badass you are. In other words "Do what I say or don't waste time trying to become a prisoner of war, you have no leverage here to negotiate terms"

[furby076]

Not genocidal
No torture
Fear isnt evil, people fear getting arrested for breaking the law, doesnt mean cops are evil.
Tolerate no desent, like say go to war with a bunch of people wanting to split from an existing nation because they wanted to keep enslaving people?

The nail in the coffin for me is that the Gods are the Ultimate Authority on morality, not narrow human ideals. If Yolanda says to my halfling "Go into the badlands & tame them, but be careful the seeds you sow, you must be hard & you must be fierce for what lies in the badlands is touched by Nerull & will not cleave easily to your plow" then my little halfling is gonna manifest that destiny. If Pelor or Heronious want you to conquer & you do not anger them in your fulfillmemt of your duties than you cannot be evil.

Im not saying the Oath isnt a big ol' thumbs up to playing Darth Vader
Im just saying that you can twist it to be a good guy.

Depends on the crime and the laws i set up. Ranging from jail time, to capital punishment. Funny, we do that in RL society. What makes Conquest and LG possible is setting up laws and following them. Strict laws, that will keep your city safe, and prosperous.

[Sigreid]

LG one could be handled something like this.

1. I do not attack my neighbors and choose to live in peace with them. That said, my primary responsibility is to MY people. I cannot allow a threat to them to continue. If my neighbor rises against me, his lands will become my lands and I will add his people to my own. It would be poor service to my people to withdraw and allow a threat to rise again.

2. It is unfortunate that non combatants must suffer during war, however; suffering is only prolonged by enabling the aggressor to continue to fight longer than necessary so the destruction of the means to conduct war shall be removed from our enemies. Farms will be burned, livestock slaughtered and smithys destroyed until the day they accept their new kinship with my people.

3. The law is meant to allow people to thrive in their lives and not enrich petty bureaucrats. The law must be short, simple and clear enough for all to know, understand and follow it. It must deal with all people equally and not interfere in their lives more than necessary. Foreigners, even leaders and diplomat must abide the law while in my lands. Justice shall be swift and unavoidable, but there must be proof of guilt. Punishment is a swift and merciful death with a last chance at true redemption given. It is unjust to demand that my people support the imprisonment of those who harm society, and cruel to imprison people for long periods (yeah, my personal bias on this last bit).

4. There must be a means for the people to petition their lord. It is vital to the health, happiness and prosperity of my people that problems, concerns and opportunities are identified.

5. Alliances must be honored, but may only be formed with leaders that understand that ruling is not a right but a responsibility to their people. Those who break faith with me shall find their lands added to my lands and their people added to my people. For their people should not continue to suffer under their corruption.

[MeeposFire]

It is amazing what you can do if you just soften the language but without changing the actual premise. A good version would certainly have different standards to ensure his dominance than a neutral one. That will be how each alignment will be different when trying to fullfill the tenants. I think domination is one of those that can be done by many alignments though some may be easier than others.

[Ravinsild]

It is amazing what you can do if you just soften the language but without changing the actual premise. A good version would certainly have different standards to ensure his dominance than a neutral one. That will be how each alignment will be different when trying to fullfill the tenants. I think domination is one of those that can be done by many alignments though some may be easier than others.

That's what I've been saying this whole thread. People raging at me like I'm insane because I said a good paladin could choose Conquest for the right reasons...

[Kane0]

Guys. Guys. Guys.

Are we seriously nitpicking the tenets and alignnment wording like this with so little focus on the mechanic feedback?

Does anyone else think that the Treachery Oath is just a little too powerful with the reverse pack tactics and damage boosts on top of having one of the best nova-damage chassis available?

[Regitnui]

The Oath of Treachery does kinda work with an Oath; it's just that there's no agreement on what that Oath is. Fitting for a Chaotic Oath, hey? I see them as paladins of the Mockery. "War is not glorious, battle is not for righteousness. All that matters is to win, and the method does not matter."

[Auramis]

Guys. Guys. Guys.

Are we seriously nitpicking the tenets and alignnment wording like this with so little focus on the mechanic feedback?

Does anyone else think that the Treachery Oath is just a little too powerful with the reverse pack tactics and damage boosts on top of having one of the best nova-damage chassis available?

I think Aura of Treachery is a tad bit strong. It was perfectly fine with its advantage on pack tactics alone, but the added benefit of turning enemy attacks into friendly fire just feels silly. That said, the 20+paladin level damage on its Poison Strike sounds INSANE. I'd remove the advantage benefit of that strike, because it's WAY too strong. Paladins are already capable nukes and damage dealers. Overloading the kit with damage like that just feels insane.

[Kane0]

Indeedn. Aura of Treachery + Poison channel divinity + Smite + Advantage + Aasimar damage boost. I can see it getting out if hand fast.

[Millstone85]

Side question: Why would a DM allow evil characters in a party where the entire party isn't also flat out evil?Much the same way a DM would allow good characters when the rest of the party isn't also flat out good.

I know that "neutral" is often used as "deeply flawed but still decent when it counts" or "good but in a realistic manner". To me though, it means you are declaring your character as "not a good person" or even "just your basic murderhobo TRPG protagonist".

When I made a selfish and occasionally cruel warlock to replace my previous character and their knightly ideals, I thought that might actually be a better fit for the party and I said as much to the DM. Interestingly, it pushed a player or two to reconsider the actions of their characters so as not to be like my warlock.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Guys. Guys. Guys.

Are we seriously nitpicking the tenets and alignnment wording like this with so little focus on the mechanic feedback?

Does anyone else think that the Treachery Oath is just a little too powerful with the reverse pack tactics and damage boosts on top of having one of the best nova-damage chassis available?

Level 3 Scourge Aasimar Trickster Paladin nova:

2dGWF+2d8+23+3+2 = 45.3, with a +4 to hit

Level 3 Bugbear Assassin nova:

Dual shortswords 12d6+3 = 45, with a +5 to hit, and 8 of those d6 only requiring one of the two attacks to hit

So, a whopping 0.3 damage more, with a penalty to hit.

Against a defensive deadly encounter for a 4-man level 3 party, such as a gorgon (AC 19), the bugbear is hitting 58% of the time with advantage, the paladin is hitting 51% of the time with advantage. That gives angel-boy with ~21 average damage from his attacks (~23 including the aura damage), and the assassin with ~32 average damage.

On top of that, the bugbear did his damage without spending any limited resources, and the bugbear, with his 10ft reach shortswords is able to use his movement speed to run away without provoking attacks of opportunity, while angel-boy is stuck in place to eat that petrifying breath.

Against lower AC monsters, or monsters with better perception, things look better for the angel-boy, but the bugbear is still likely coming ahead. And at higher levels that poisoned strike becomes less and less of a big deal (though smites become more and more of a big deal).

I think the mechanics are fine. Personally, I'd nerf the trickster and boost the conqueror a bit, but both are within the acceptable range of balance. These honestly look like the most polished UA subclasses they've ever put out, which is very reassuring after the "we didn't mean what we said" Kensei.

[Crusher]

Much the same way a DM would allow good characters when the rest of the party isn't also flat out good.

I know that "neutral" is often used as "deeply flawed but still decent when it counts" or "good but in a realistic manner". To me though, it means you are declaring your character as "not a good person" or even "just your basic murderhobo TRPG protagonist".

When I made a selfish and occasionally cruel warlock to replace my previous character and their knightly ideals, I thought that might actually be a better fit for the party and I said as much to the DM. Interestingly, it pushed a player or two to reconsider the actions of their characters so as not to be like my warlock.

Hah. Its not until the mirror is held up that people actually consider their actions in the larger sense, failing to recognize that a pattern is slowly getting built when you short-term optimize decision after decision without thinking of the larger context.

And its that context that can difficult to nail down. Thinking through the implications of a character's personality isn't something people often do, instead playing to some vaguely defined alignment archetype. Actually putting in the time to do it can be really rewarding, though.

In one campaign, I have a character who's a Vengeance Paladin of Waukeen. I spent a lot of time thinking about his personality and how he'd play. He believes that commerce is sacred, bringing enormous benefit to all, and must be defended. Sure, if there are bandits or an undead incursion he'll help out because that's what adventurers do.

But his real goal is bringing divine retribution upon people who make and then break contracts or oaths. Instead of detecting undead and infernals, he detects oath and deal breakers. He's not really pro-laws, as Waukeen is also god smugglers, but he's pro-keeping your word. So on the one hand, you probably shouldn't pick people's pockets, but he doesn't really care. But one time, he spent half an adventure session hunting down a guy who had apparently stolen the cutlery from an inn while eating there. Because the guy had a deal with the innkeeper and STEALING THE SILVERWARE WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL. The NPC only escaped smiting because giants attacked the town at a key moment (turned out one of the other PCs planted the silverware on him, so its probably just as well).

I think taking the time to really think out your character adds a lot to a campaign. In this case, being well-drawn and internally consistent makes him fun for the other characters, because he has a really clear moral compass in an environment that can otherwise be a bit foggy. He's not "good", because he's totally fine with the Zhentarim taking over a town as long as they don't restrain trade. But he's certain about what's right (if the NPCs don't pay the PCs for a job they do, he's totally going to smite them, not because he's greedy but because collecting payment for a job is a religious imperative for him), and it gives the other characters something solid to react to, whether they're agreeing with him or opposed to his actions.

From that standpoint, I like both of these new Paladin types, because they're pretty well thought through, can I can see how the Treachery Paladin is different from an Oathbreaker. However, I absolutely agree that the Treachery Paladin's aura is too powerful. Perhaps have Treacherous Strike only get 1 use per short/long rest and Cull the Herd only work if the enemy has 3 or more friends within 5'? So, you can't exactly use a pair of enemies against each other, but if they're a packed in crowd you can use that against them?

[Princess]

Personally I look forward to seeing an "Oath of Treachery" Paladin played as a CN "Oath of Looking Out for #1" selfish punk. It'd be a highly amusing experience if the rest of the party was expecting a traditional knight in shining armor.

[Temperjoke]

I realize it's more for mechanical and clarity purpose, but I wish that each of the oaths also had a corresponding class name, like Treachery has with Blackguard, because the word "paladin" has so many connotations attached to it, I imagine that's a part of why people argue so much about alignment with them.

[Ravinsild]

To be fair the argument in this thread was basically: A good Paladin of Conquest could be fun.

And another person going: No it wouldn't. Conquest can't be good.

That was it. Even though none of the Oaths ever say you have to be a certain alignment. Not Oath of Devotion, not Oath of the Ancients, not Oath of Vengeance, not even Oath of Treachery. Oath of Conquest doesn't say "Must be lawful evil."

Any Paladin can be any Oath of any Alignment. That's my case as RAW.

[Vogonjeltz]

Much the same way a DM would allow good characters when the rest of the party isn't also flat out good.

I know that "neutral" is often used as "deeply flawed but still decent when it counts" or "good but in a realistic manner". To me though, it means you are declaring your character as "not a good person" or even "just your basic murderhobo TRPG protagonist".

When I made a selfish and occasionally cruel warlock to replace my previous character and their knightly ideals, I thought that might actually be a better fit for the party and I said as much to the DM. Interestingly, it pushed a player or two to reconsider the actions of their characters so as not to be like my warlock.

Neutral and Good are arguably easily compatible; Evil all too often is incompatible, as you demonstrated with the Warlock. The rest of the party naturally gravitates away from evil.

[Millstone85]

I wish that each of the oaths also had a corresponding class name, like Treachery has with BlackguardI don't know how many have been classes before but they have names.

Oath of Devotion: "Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good".

Oath of the Ancients: "Sometimes called fey knights, green knights, or horned knights, paladins who swear this oath cast their lot with the side of the light in the cosmic struggle against darkness because they love the beautiful and life-giving things of the world".

Oath of Vengeance: "To these paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark knights—their own purity is not as important as delivering justice".

Oath of the Crown: "These paladins are the watchful guardians on the walls, standing against the chaotic tides of barbarism that threaten to tear down all that civilization has built, and are commonly known as guardians, exemplars, or sentinels".

Oath of Conquest: "Sometimes called knight tyrants or iron mongers, those who swear this oath gather into grim orders that serve gods or philosophies of war and well-ordered might. Some of these paladins go so far as to consort with the powers of the Nine Hells.
The archdevil Bel, warlord of Avernus, counts many of these paladins—called hell knights—as his most ardent supporters".


because the word "paladin" has so many connotations attached to it, I imagine that's a part of why people argue so much about alignment with them.In my opinion, a paladin works well as either a paragon of virtue or an exemplar of sin, even more so if the latter used to be the former. It is a classic and the story of the Devil himself. Now, a swordsman with morally neutral powers, that should probably be one of the martial/arcane combos rather than a paladin.

[Tanarii]

Neutral and Good are arguably easily compatible; Evil all too often is incompatible, as you demonstrated with the Warlock. The rest of the party naturally gravitates away from evil.
Interesting. I thought he was saying he made a Neutral Warlock. Not an Evil one.

[Sigreid]

Neutral and Good are arguably easily compatible; Evil all too often is incompatible, as you demonstrated with the Warlock. The rest of the party naturally gravitates away from evil.

An evil character can easily work with good provided he's not a complete psychopath with no impulse control. You just need to be judicious about when and where you take things to the extreme.

[Temperjoke]

I don't know how many have been classes before but they have names.

Oath of Devotion: "Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good".

Oath of the Ancients: "Sometimes called fey knights, green knights, or horned knights, paladins who swear this oath cast their lot with the side of the light in the cosmic struggle against darkness because they love the beautiful and life-giving things of the world".

Oath of Vengeance: "To these paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark knights—their own purity is not as important as delivering justice".

Oath of the Crown: "These paladins are the watchful guardians on the walls, standing against the chaotic tides of barbarism that threaten to tear down all that civilization has built, and are commonly known as guardians, exemplars, or sentinels".

Oath of Conquest: "Sometimes called knight tyrants or iron mongers, those who swear this oath gather into grim orders that serve gods or philosophies of war and well-ordered might. Some of these paladins go so far as to consort with the powers of the Nine Hells.
The archdevil Bel, warlord of Avernus, counts many of these paladins—called hell knights—as his most ardent supporters".

In my opinion, a paladin works well as either a paragon of virtue or an exemplar of sin, even more so if the latter used to be the former. It is a classic and the story of the Devil himself. Now, a swordsman with morally neutral powers, that should probably be one of the martial/arcane combos rather than a paladin.

Yeah, but those names aren't as commonly used as "___ paladin" which makes for a knee-jerk reaction, especially what I've observed in places other than here for long-time players who were used to the original alignment requirements for paladins.

[pwykersotz]

Ugh...I was afraid of this. I didn't want more dark paladin options. I expected them, but I didn't want them.

Oh well. I suppose there are probably enough people clamoring for them. :smallsigh:

[Millstone85]

Interesting. I thought he was saying he made a Neutral Warlock. Not an Evil one.My warlock is indeed evil.


Neutral and Good are arguably easily compatible; Evil all too often is incompatible, as you demonstrated with the Warlock. The rest of the party naturally gravitates away from evil.I hope they liked working with my good character but I didn't like working with their neutral ones.

Not until I switched to an evil character. Then I found their neutral characters very easy to work with.

We have now moved to a new campaign. Same DM and players, new characters, except for my warlock and the cleric (who, incidentally, the DM now regards as evil too).


Yeah, but those names aren't as commonly used as "___ paladin" which makes for a knee-jerk reaction, especially what I've observed in places other than here for long-time players who were used to the original alignment requirements for paladins.That's too bad, because I think "avenger" (which I remember from 4e) and "horned knight" are cool names.

[Princess]

Ugh...I was afraid of this. I didn't want more dark paladin options. I expected them, but I didn't want them.

Oh well. I suppose there are probably enough people clamoring for them. :smallsigh:

I was actually surprised that it was *only* these because I figured something more amiable to traditional heroism would show up. But Mearls is C/E so I shouldn't have been surprised in the slightest.

[Millstone85]

I hope they liked working with my good character but I didn't like working with their neutral ones.

Not until I switched to an evil character. Then I found their neutral characters very easy to work with.In case you are wondering why exactly I said that, here is a quote from the movie Guardians of the Galaxy.
What should we do next? Something good? Something bad? Bit of both?This is not to start an argument on the alignment of this crew. I just think it is a fitting quote for an adventurer party with a mostly "neutral" mindset.

And you see, my evil warlock hasn't found the Book of Vile Darkness, nor is their otherworldly patron a fiend (it is a GOO), nor do they have any other cause for problem when one of their companions suddenly feels in the mood to help the local orphanage or do some other act of kindness. Heck, I wish they did something so noble. It might do for some comical "The warlock eye-rolls hard" roleplay.

But my previous character? They were no paladin (because the DM strongly advised against the class, on principle) and I did try to avoid playing that "lawful stupid" thing I read about on the Internet. But even then... Guys, I know that most of us just lost all their stuff to that weird cult, but are we really going to accept a job from bandits? Are we really going to hijack a weapon convoy of the local baron? Guys, we know nothing about this region. Eventually, I went along with the plan, because I didn't want my character to be left behind. Later on, the bandits turned out to be freedom fighters and we even helped them find a peaceable agreement with the baron when the weird cult turned out to be behind all the troubles in the region. How convenient... But I still think it was a failure for the goodness of my character.

So, that's about it.

Now, here is something I posted on Youtube under a video of a guy who is really annoyed with this UA's evil paladins.
I started D&D with 4e. As you said, this edition described paladins as champions of the gods. The only restriction on alignment was to meet that of the specific god being championed. A similar thing happened to angels: They were stewards of the Astral Sea and innately obedient to the gods, regardless of a god's alignment. In fact, the same angel could serve a good god , an unaligned (neutral) god, an evil god and later a good god again, by being exchanged between them as a form of currency. And well, just because this was my first contact with D&D doesn't mean I am a fan of that fluff. I agree that the paladin class should have more of a moral weight to it, as should the angelic race.

However, I disagree with you on the specific matter of evil paladins. This, in my opinion, is distinct from the idea that a paladin could be any alignment. It has more to do with the theme of the essence of evil as a corruption of goodness. Let's talk about angels again. Who is the most famous of them? Freaking Lucifer, that's who. Oh sure, he is a fallen angel who has become a fiendish thing. Still, the angelic background is a defining trait of this character. Similarly, there is probably a strong demand from D&D players and DMs regarding a paladin who has not only fallen from grace but embraced villainy and dark powers. Again, this is not like looking at an alignment chart and wondering what a CG or LN paladin would be like. And while the character is indeed no longer a true paladin, but rather an "antipaladin" or some spooky name of your choice, mechanically at least it makes sense to use a subclass of paladin.

[Ravinsild]

In case you are wondering why exactly I said that, here is a quote from the movie Guardians of the Galaxy.This is not to start an argument on the alignment of this crew. I just think it is a fitting quote for an adventurer party with a mostly "neutral" mindset.

And you see, my evil warlock hasn't found the Book of Vile Darkness, nor is their otherworldly patron a fiend (it is a GOO), nor do they have any other cause for problem when one of their companions suddenly feels in the mood to help the local orphanage or do some other act of kindness. Heck, I wish they did something so noble. It might do for some comical "The warlock eye-rolls hard" roleplay.

But my previous character? They were no paladin (because the DM strongly advised against the class, on principle) and I did try to avoid playing that "lawful stupid" thing I read about on the Internet. But even then... Guys, I know that most of us just lost all their stuff to that weird cult, but are we really going to accept a job from bandits? Are we really going to hijack a weapon convoy of the local baron? Guys, we know nothing about this region. Eventually, I went along with the plan, because I didn't want my character to be left behind. Later on, the bandits turned out to be freedom fighters and we even helped them find a peaceable agreement with the baron when the weird cult turned out to be behind all the troubles in the region. How convenient... But I still think it was a failure for the goodness of my character.

So, that's about it.

Now, here is something I posted on Youtube under a video of a guy who is really annoyed with this UA's evil paladins.

Put more bluntly yet: You don't think evil gods have fanatical worshippers who are infused with their divine power equally able to smite as the good gods? For sure there's got to be Paladins of Gruumsh and of the goblins 3 gods (probably most especially hob-goblins) and all sorts of other evil races with evil gods. I bet there's a lot of Yuan-Ti evil snake god paladins that go around smiting people sacrificing them to their dark gods so they can become true snake people.

[Millstone85]

Put more bluntly yet: You don't think evil gods have fanatical worshippers who are infused with their divine power equally able to smite as the good gods? For sure there's got to be Paladins of Gruumsh and of the goblins 3 gods (probably most especially hob-goblins) and all sorts of other evil races with evil gods. I bet there's a lot of Yuan-Ti evil snake god paladins that go around smiting people sacrificing them to their dark gods so they can become true snake people.The guy in the Youtube video (Why Paladins MUST Be Lawful Good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pfbL_2uOz0)) was arguing that such things have jack to do with the paladin class. Play some form of warrior cleric or refluff the paladin mechanics to suit your concept, but for the sake of your fellow players you should never ever call your character a paladin.

My position is different. I am no fan of the any-alignment paladins either but I think they work well as either paragons of virtue or exemplars of sin. And yeah, they could directly train in a twisted version of the class, even if I think fallen paladins are a bit more interesting.

[Oramac]

Guys guys guys!!!!

We've spent the last several pages talking about alignment. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to say about the freakin MECHANICS?!?!

[jaappleton]

Guys guys guys!!!!

We've spent the last several pages talking about alignment. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to say about the freakin MECHANICS?!?!

Yup.

While Treachery's CD lets it perform a nice nova, it's slightly overrated. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see the numbers crunched and see what can be done. But while it's impressive, especially at low levels, is it THAT good?

Vengeance nets you Advantage for a minute against a target. GWM to your hearts content.
Devotion gets you between +3 and +5 to attack rolls for a minute, nearly offsetting the penalty for GWM.
Ancients roots some enemies into the ground.

I'd rather have Devotion or Vengeance's CD, honestly. Yes, +20 to damage is excellent. But it's one attack. One. Yes, especially at low levels, that's enough to take something out. But then you have the rest of the battle to contend with. And it's damn near useless against anything resistant or immune to Poison. Dwarves, Stout Halflings, Yuan-Ti, any Green Dragon, as far as I know nearly all Constructs and most Undead, etc.

Don't let the numbers fool you. It seems very flashy at first, but it's deceptive. Appropriate, given its Treachery.

[jaappleton]

I really, really do absolutely adore the spell lists on both, though. Absolutely excellent. Conquest getting Armor of Agathys? AoA on a Paladin is damn great. Fear is another good one for them, and really keys off their abilities.

A Fiendlock, Death Cleric, Long Death Monk and Conquest Paladin makes for a very thematic, and well done party. Wouldn't mind doing that for an evil one-shot.

[Ravinsild]

The guy in the Youtube video (Why Paladins MUST Be Lawful Good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pfbL_2uOz0)) was arguing that such things have jack to do with the paladin class. Play some form of warrior cleric or refluff the paladin mechanics to suit your concept, but for the sake of your fellow players you should never ever call your character a paladin.

My position is different. I am no fan of the any-alignment paladins either but I think they work well as either paragons of virtue or exemplars of sin. And yeah, they could directly train in a twisted version of the class, even if I think fallen paladins are a bit more interesting.

I tend to view Paladins more from a Warcraft lore perspective in that they are Fighter + Priest. They have the healing magic and holy nature of a Priest and the martial training of a fighter. Therefore any creature who is blessed by their god can be a Priest of their god and have decent martial training thus = Paladin.

Basically it's just a champion of x god in my eyes. So it doesn't have to be anything other than a good fighter with some divine power from whatever god they so choose to worship. I guess I'm pretty loose with Paladins but I've always rejected the AD&D definition of a Paladin MUST be a Human and nothing else MUST be Lawful Good and nothing else MUST be this and MUST be that.

I don't like the game telling me how to play my character, I'd rather make my character and play it how I want him to be.

[Ravinsild]

Guys guys guys!!!!

We've spent the last several pages talking about alignment. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to say about the freakin MECHANICS?!?!

Everyone sort of sussed out the mechanics already. My position comes down to "Hey I like how this mechanic works, I like how this kit fits together, I'm gonna try something different than the fluff though."

It's been pretty well stated that people think they're mechanically sound and strong. What more is there to discuss on their mechanics?

[Oramac]

I tend to view Paladins more from a Warcraft lore perspective in that they are Fighter + Priest. They have the healing magic and holy nature of a Priest and the martial training of a fighter. Therefore any creature who is blessed by their god can be a Priest of their god and have decent martial training thus = Paladin.

Basically it's just a champion of x god in my eyes. So it doesn't have to be anything other than a good fighter with some divine power from whatever god they so choose to worship. I guess I'm pretty loose with Paladins but I've always rejected the AD&D definition of a Paladin MUST be a Human and nothing else MUST be Lawful Good and nothing else MUST be this and MUST be that.

I don't like the game telling me how to play my character, I'd rather make my character and play it how I want him to be.

Being that I main a Retribution Paladin in WoW, I agree wholeheartedly. Well said.


Everyone sort of sussed out the mechanics already. My position comes down to "Hey I like how this mechanic works, I like how this kit fits together, I'm gonna try something different than the fluff though."

It's been pretty well stated that people think they're mechanically sound and strong. What more is there to discuss on their mechanics?

Eh. It just seems like out of 8+ pages, there ought to be more than a few dozen-ish posts talking about mechanics. Most of the other class UA's have 8 pages almost completely dedicated to mechanics.

[Ravinsild]

Being that I main a Retribution Paladin in WoW, I agree wholeheartedly. Well said.



Eh. It just seems like out of 8+ pages, there ought to be more than a few dozen-ish posts talking about mechanics. Most of the other class UA's have 8 pages almost completely dedicated to mechanics.

The consensus seems to be Treachery > Conquest but both are good and have nice features and aren't deadweight, clunky, confusing or otherwise needing rules clarification. They're just strong good archetypes that most people seem to be like "yeah that's good I'd use that" so then it became an argument of "but only if I were evil" versus "might be fun to twist those and use them for 'good' characters."

8 pages of arguing "how to use them" because in the 1st page people decided they were good, strong and what most people expected.

[Oramac]

8 pages of arguing "how to use them"

So 8 pages that basically boil down to "do what you/your DM/your table likes/allows".

I mean, it's an interesting discussion, but not particularly useful in the big picture.

Oh well. Enjoy!

[Regulas]

Is armour of Agathys really worth it on a Paladin? The spell feels like it needs its scaling to be a great spell, which Warlocks get automatically. But you're stuck with only 5 HP till 5th level then 10hp/dmg till 9th (where a warlock would be 25hp/dmg). And you have to be using higher level slots (in contrast to warlock that only has the one level).




Entertaining thing with treacherous strike is that the current rules technically you could use to let an ally re-roll their attack if there is another enemy. Probably the ability should have had an "enemy" limitation as this does feel wrong lore-wise.

[Oramac]

Is armour of Agathys really worth it on a Paladin? The spell feels like it needs its scaling to be a great spell, which Warlocks get automatically. But you're stuck with only 5 HP till 5th level then 10hp/dmg till 9th (where a warlock would be 25hp/dmg). And you have to be using higher level slots (in contrast to warlock that only has the one level).

That was my thought too. AoA is a great spell for 'locks with their automatic upcasting. Not so great for Paladins though.

It certainly is thematically appropriate, however.

[Vogonjeltz]

Interesting. I thought he was saying he made a Neutral Warlock. Not an Evil one.

Ah, I keyed in on Selfish and Cruel as meaning Evil. It wasn't stated in the quotation though.


An evil character can easily work with good provided he's not a complete psychopath with no impulse control. You just need to be judicious about when and where you take things to the extreme.

I agree in full, but I find that most of the time the problem comes from players employing almost a caricature of Evil.


I hope they liked working with my good character but I didn't like working with their neutral ones.

Not until I switched to an evil character. Then I found their neutral characters very easy to work with.

We have now moved to a new campaign. Same DM and players, new characters, except for my warlock and the cleric (who, incidentally, the DM now regards as evil too).

Glad you were able to find a fun equilibrium!


Put more bluntly yet: You don't think evil gods have fanatical worshippers who are infused with their divine power equally able to smite as the good gods? For sure there's got to be Paladins of Gruumsh and of the goblins 3 gods (probably most especially hob-goblins) and all sorts of other evil races with evil gods. I bet there's a lot of Yuan-Ti evil snake god paladins that go around smiting people sacrificing them to their dark gods so they can become true snake people.

Those evil gods very well might have their champions, but Paladins don't need deities at all, they aren't Clerics.


Guys guys guys!!!!

We've spent the last several pages talking about alignment. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to say about the freakin MECHANICS?!?!

Mechanics stem directly from the thematics of the archetype, otherwise it's just a hodgepodge of nonsense.

That being said, I think they're both interesting thematically and in the right context I'd definitely try them out, or put them on NPCs.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Myself, I like that we have three flavors of evil paladin with an optional fourth flavor in Vengeance.

Basically, you have your imperialistic evil (Conquest), your vanilla evil (Oathbreaker), and your untrustworthy rat evil (Treachery).

Frankly, Oathbreaker should be refluffed to be a dark champion rather than just a breaker of oaths, though. Breaking oaths is Treachery's entire thing. Treachery fits that archetype of villains who are technically powerful warriors but are cringing cowards and lying sneaks. They work perfectly for people who started out sworn to uphold something and then betrayed it for selfish reasons and have since embraced that selfishness.

That said, three flavors of evil paladin are enough. If we see any more I'm hoping for good or Lawful Neutral.

[Malifice]

I think you misread it. It says your word is law. This paladins could be LN, and even LG. LN = Your are in a society and set up strict rules. No forgiveness to the rules. Justice is blind. You do the crime, you do the time. No exceptions. LG = similar to above, but you conquered a evil (tendency ) village. They need a strict and firm hand. The laws are set.

Either way, 5e puts more emphasis on the tenents then the alignment

This view of alignments differs a LN, LE or LG person by their choice of victims, and not their actions.

Its a view of alignments I reject wholly.

A LG person cant be a fear mongering fascist tyrant to [evil people] and remain LG, just as he cant do it to [good people].

In my games anyway. Alignment is more than just two teams with identical methods, just wearing different colored uniforms.

[Malifice]

Hah. Its not until the mirror is held up that people actually consider their actions in the larger sense, failing to recognize that a pattern is slowly getting built when you short-term optimize decision after decision without thinking of the larger context.

And its that context that can difficult to nail down. Thinking through the implications of a character's personality isn't something people often do, instead playing to some vaguely defined alignment archetype. Actually putting in the time to do it can be really rewarding, though.

In one campaign, I have a character who's a Vengeance Paladin of Waukeen. I spent a lot of time thinking about his personality and how he'd play. He believes that commerce is sacred, bringing enormous benefit to all, and must be defended. Sure, if there are bandits or an undead incursion he'll help out because that's what adventurers do.

But his real goal is bringing divine retribution upon people who make and then break contracts or oaths. Instead of detecting undead and infernals, he detects oath and deal breakers. He's not really pro-laws, as Waukeen is also god smugglers, but he's pro-keeping your word. So on the one hand, you probably shouldn't pick people's pockets, but he doesn't really care. But one time, he spent half an adventure session hunting down a guy who had apparently stolen the cutlery from an inn while eating there. Because the guy had a deal with the innkeeper and STEALING THE SILVERWARE WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL. The NPC only escaped smiting because giants attacked the town at a key moment (turned out one of the other PCs planted the silverware on him, so its probably just as well).

I think taking the time to really think out your character adds a lot to a campaign. In this case, being well-drawn and internally consistent makes him fun for the other characters, because he has a really clear moral compass in an environment that can otherwise be a bit foggy. He's not "good", because he's totally fine with the Zhentarim taking over a town as long as they don't restrain trade. But he's certain about what's right (if the NPCs don't pay the PCs for a job they do, he's totally going to smite them, not because he's greedy but because collecting payment for a job is a religious imperative for him), and it gives the other characters something solid to react to, whether they're agreeing with him or opposed to his actions.

From that standpoint, I like both of these new Paladin types, because they're pretty well thought through, can I can see how the Treachery Paladin is different from an Oathbreaker. However, I absolutely agree that the Treachery Paladin's aura is too powerful. Perhaps have Treacherous Strike only get 1 use per short/long rest and Cull the Herd only work if the enemy has 3 or more friends within 5'? So, you can't exactly use a pair of enemies against each other, but if they're a packed in crowd you can use that against them?

I love this concept man.

The image of an armored guy kicking in your door and demanding you to 'hand over the spork or die!' is hillarious too.

The baddie is like 'Man; they take cutlery theft seriously in these parts'

[Regulas]

As far as alignment goes in general: I Strongly feel that the best classes are the ones that are flexible enough for any table/player/campaign without needing homebrew, so allowing diverse alignments and types of Paladin is a huge plus, contrasted by the only downside being that it flaunts "tradition".


Myself, I like that we have three flavors of evil paladin with an optional fourth flavor in Vengeance.

Basically, you have your imperialistic evil (Conquest), your vanilla evil (Oathbreaker), and your untrustworthy rat evil (Treachery).

Frankly, Oathbreaker should be refluffed to be a dark champion rather than just a breaker of oaths, though. Breaking oaths is Treachery's entire thing. Treachery fits that archetype of villains who are technically powerful warriors but are cringing cowards and lying sneaks. They work perfectly for people who started out sworn to uphold something and then betrayed it for selfish reasons and have since embraced that selfishness.

That said, three flavors of evil paladin are enough. If we see any more I'm hoping for good or Lawful Neutral.


Treachery is meant to be the "Selfish evil" who always looks out for himself and sees others as tools.

Oathbreaker is meant specifically as in breaking the core oath of being a paladin for the sake of evil, but is not necessarily deceitful or treacherous beyond that.

[Syll]

Treachery is meant to be the "Selfish evil" who always looks out for himself and sees others as tools.


So what would you call it if an evil pld forsakes his allegiance, and is redeemed?

I maintain a non-evil Treachery pld is easy to accomplish

[DKing9114]

The other. Either from the strength of their betrayal, or the strength of how hard they were betrayed. A crown paladin gets used as a patsy for a royal assassination and goes on the run until he can clear his name, rather than submit to the lawful authorities for what would no doubt be a sham trial, if any trial at all. A devotion paladin abandons their duty to the order to try and save their family and loved ones. Their order betrays them, so they learn how to survive and fight back. They fail despite their convictions and they turn to a teacher that offers a better way.

Maybe they even exchange one conviction for another. An anti-kobold gnomish vengeance paladin learns that gnomish tricks as are bad as kobold traps and decides to either unite the two species or wipe them both out. Hijinks ensue either way.

Also, they have no common tenets, but that doesn't mean that they all have no tenets. They still want something, usually something selfish, but something.

Doesn't really feel like those circumstances would cause a paladin to fall to Oath of Treachery. If the crown paladin is trying to clear his name, then his loyalty to his king and responsibility to unmask the true killers supersede the requirement that he submit to the law-and since the law has been perverted by evil, he might even consider it his duty to restore the law to its proper state. If the devotion paladin's order turns against them for trying to save their family, they wouldn't fail despite their convictions-that just doesn't make sense.

I read the Oath of Treachery as a rejection of all Paladin ideals from the generally good Oaths. "Screw duty, screw honor, screw responsibility, and screw my companions-I'm not sticking my neck out for anyone, will take gleeful advantage of anyone who does, and will always find a way to end up on top. Follow me, and you'll either end up wealthy and powerful or dead, and I'm okay with either." Definitely tending towards Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, and the darker end of the Chaotic Neutral spectrum.

[Syll]

Doesn't really feel like those circumstances would cause a paladin to fall to Oath of Treachery. If the crown paladin is trying to clear his name, then his loyalty to his king and responsibility to unmask the true killers supersede the requirement that he submit to the law-and since the law has been perverted by evil, he might even consider it his duty to restore the law to its proper state.

And if the King who he's so loyal to is the one who set him up? What then? That is easily reason enough from my perspective.

You can absolute faith in, or devotion to, someone/something and find out later that it was misplaced.

[Regulas]

So what would you call it if an evil pld forsakes his allegiance, and is redeemed?

I maintain a non-evil Treachery pld is easy to accomplish

Either not a Paladin anymore, unless he swears a new oath in which case he becomes whatever type he swears to.



While conquest can be neutral/pseudo good(maybe) I think Treachery pretty much has to be evil. The thing with Treachery is that Paladins are ultimately those who's convictions are so strong as to result in manifesting/being granted powers because of it. Thus a Treachery Paladin is not just a "somewhat self-centred person", but someone dedicated to such idea's of power and self servitude. And I just find it hard to imagine you could ever possibly remain non-evil with that kind of extreme attitude, because sooner or later you'll have a situation where evil acts benefit you without stupid-evil downsides. You might hold off on evil acts when its logical to do so (you wouldn't rob and kill someone in the middle of a crowd) but if you're alone in a cave with someone covered in gold jewellery, you'd practically be obliged to steal it and probably kill them too.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Either not a Paladin anymore, unless he swears a new oath in which case he becomes whatever type he swears to.



While conquest can be neutral/pseudo good(maybe) I think Treachery pretty much has to be evil. The thing with Treachery is that Paladins are ultimately those who's convictions are so strong as to result in manifesting/being granted powers because of it. Thus a Treachery Paladin is not just a "somewhat self-centred person", but someone dedicated to such idea's of power and self servitude. And I just find it hard to imagine you could ever possibly remain non-evil with that kind of extreme attitude, because sooner or later you'll have a situation where evil acts benefit you without stupid-evil downsides. You might hold off on evil acts when its logical to do so (you wouldn't rob and kill someone in the middle of a crowd) but if you're alone in a cave with someone covered in gold jewellery, you'd practically be obliged to steal it and probably kill them too.

I think you're extrapolating too far from what you read between the lines. The write up says: "The Oath of Treachery is the path followed by paladins who have forsworn other oaths or who care only for their own power and survival."

Key word: OR.

A NG Vengeance Paladin sworn to Kelemvor encounters a lone Necromancer who has animated the corpses of her dead children and husband. She's obviously in deep mourning, but even in this madness, she's not harmed a single living being - in fact, she refuses to fight back and throws herself in the way of blows meant for her zombies. The Paladin cannot bring himself to harm her, and so he's forced to abandon the tenants of his Oath. He foreswears them, and becomes a Treachery Paladin.

There, I made a Treachery Paladin who's not only Neutral Good, but was actually driven to treachery by his goodness.

Further, let's say his "overwhelming concern is power and safety, especially if both can be obtained at the expense of others." He achieves this by working as a grief counselor for elderly widows and widowers, living in the accommodations of the departed, and nudging himself into their wills. He's slowly amassing wealth and titles by being nice to people, at the expense of emotionally & genetically distant kin.

[Regulas]

I think you're extrapolating too far from what you read between the lines. The write up says: "The Oath of Treachery is the path followed by paladins who have forsworn other oaths or who care only for their own power and survival."

Key word: OR.

A NG Vengeance Paladin sworn to Kelemvor encounters a lone Necromancer who has animated the corpses of her dead children and husband. She's obviously in deep mourning, but even in this madness, she's not harmed a single living being - in fact, she refuses to fight back and throws herself in the way of blows meant for her zombies. The Paladin cannot bring himself to harm her, and so he's forced to abandon the tenants of his Oath. He foreswears them, and becomes a Treachery Paladin.

There, I made a Treachery Paladin who's not only Neutral Good, but was actually driven to treachery by his goodness.

Further, let's say his "overwhelming concern is power and safety, especially if both can be obtained at the expense of others." He achieves this by working as a grief counselor for elderly widows and widowers, living in the accommodations of the departed, and nudging himself into their wills. He's slowly amassing wealth and titles by being nice to people, at the expense of emotionally & genetically distant kin.

That first character is not a Treachery Paladin, just a fallen paladin without an oath. It's not the fact that you've merly stopped following your oath that makes you into a Oathbreaker/Treachery paladin (especially if they have a moral justification), rather it's specific dedication to flaunting or betraying it. E.g. your specific character would have to decide to support undead in general, not just avoiding killing one specific subset because of a special exception.

Your second example is blatantly evil so i'm not sure what the point of that example is... (Unless you only consider Stupid evil to be evil for some reason)...


Also the UA fluff is an addon to the base fluff and nature of a Paladin not a standalone vacuum.

[MinotaurWarrior]

That first character is not a Treachery Paladin, just a fallen paladin without an oath. It's not the fact that you've merly stopped following your oath that makes you into a Oathbreaker/Treachery paladin (especially if they have a moral justification), rather it's specific dedication to flaunting or betraying it. E.g. your specific character would have to decide to support undead in general, not just avoiding killing one specific subset because of a special exception.

You're making that up. Again, the description says, "The Oath of Treachery is the path followed by paladins who have forsworn other oaths."


Your second example is blatantly evil so i'm not sure what the point of that example is... (Unless you only consider Stupid evil to be evil for some reason)...

I really disagree that a kindly grief counselor is evil. He specifically seeks out those with no close living family who would otherwise live out their last days alone in the sort of maddening isolation he saw drive a woman to necromancy. He seeks to disinherit only 3rd cousins and those with other such weak but legal claims to the inheritance, living and amassing wealth at the expense of those who couldn't even be bothered to offer comfort and personal attention to the distant relation whose upcoming death they seek to profit from.

But, if for some reason you think that's evil, let's use another example: an advocate who brings cases of peasant mistreatment before the king or supreme overlord of a region, seeking redress for the victims, and hoping that cruel evil lords will have their titles stripped and granted to him. Such a character seeks power and safety for himself, at the expense of cruel despotic lords. That fits the Treachery description, and is pretty unquestionably good.



Also the UA fluff is an addon to the base fluff and nature of a Paladin not a standalone vacuum.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. Especially since the core Paladin fluff is still all "Yay good! Boo evil!"

[Syll]

Either not a Paladin anymore, unless he swears a new oath in which case he becomes whatever type he swears to.




"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." No Oath is required. You don't even have to begin with a previous oath. But if you were going to...

"Those who are unfortunate enough to have close contact with blackguards have observed that..."
This is a 3rd hand statement. If I were so inclined I could easily concoct a back story that this is a quote from a fellow paladin of his former Order intent on defamation.

[Ravinsild]

You're making that up. Again, the description says, "The Oath of Treachery is the path followed by paladins who have forsworn other oaths."



I really disagree that a kindly grief counselor is evil. He specifically seeks out those with no close living family who would otherwise live out their last days alone in the sort of maddening isolation he saw drive a woman to necromancy. He seeks to disinherit only 3rd cousins and those with other such weak but legal claims to the inheritance, living and amassing wealth at the expense of those who couldn't even be bothered to offer comfort and personal attention to the distant relation whose upcoming death they seek to profit from.

But, if for some reason you think that's evil, let's use another example: an advocate who brings cases of peasant mistreatment before the king or supreme overlord of a region, seeking redress for the victims, and hoping that cruel evil lords will have their titles stripped and granted to him. Such a character seeks power and safety for himself, at the expense of cruel despotic lords. That fits the Treachery description, and is pretty unquestionably good.




I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. Especially since the core Paladin fluff is still all "Yay good! Boo evil!"

I agree with you. I think anyone, any Paladin of any alignment can become a "Treachery Paladin" simply by saying the following words: "I don't believe that anymore." Devotion Paladin? "I don't believe in that anymore" and you can choose to be Treachery. Not necessarily evil though. Just following a different route.

I don't understand why people read so much into these oaths as strictly and absolutely and only ever evil. Why are people so anti-choice? What if your devotion paladin was having an existential crisis and thought "I just don't know if what I've believed my entire life is really the right thing. I just don't know I really believe in it anymore...I really want to do the right thing, I want to save people, I want to do right by people but I'm not sure this is the right path to that. Maybe there's another way..." and they get the mechanical benefits of Treachery and all the spells but they use them to help people and be a hero.

Why is this impossible in some people's minds?

[Ravinsild]

But, if for some reason you think that's evil, let's use another example: an advocate who brings cases of peasant mistreatment before the king or supreme overlord of a region, seeking redress for the victims, and hoping that cruel evil lords will have their titles stripped and granted to him. Such a character seeks power and safety for himself, at the expense of cruel despotic lords. That fits the Treachery description, and is pretty unquestionably good.

Especially if he, as Lord, then goes on to lighten taxes on the peasants, treat them fairly and be such a benevolent and kind ruler in his little area of influence the grateful people actually pay homage to him and otherwise revere him as an awesome and wonderful person like idk Charlemagne or someone like that. King Arthur. All the legends and tells of a heroic lord and knight who was a really nice person, but this "Treachery Paladin" didn't really have any oaths or strong personal beliefs. He just sort of aimlessly did his best to help in whatever way he could but without a strict code of ethics or otherwise hard-line set of beliefs.

[Syll]

I agree with you. I think anyone, any Paladin of any alignment can become a "Treachery Paladin" simply by saying the following words: "I don't believe that anymore." Devotion Paladin? "I don't believe in that anymore" and you can choose to be Treachery. Not necessarily evil though. Just following a different route.

I don't understand why people read so much into these oaths as strictly and absolutely and only ever evil. Why are people so anti-choice? What if your devotion paladin was having an existential crisis and thought "I just don't know if what I've believed my entire life is really the right thing. I just don't know I really believe in it anymore...I really want to do the right thing, I want to save people, I want to do right by people but I'm not sure this is the right path to that. Maybe there's another way..." and they get the mechanical benefits of Treachery and all the spells but they use them to help people and be a hero.

Why is this impossible in some people's minds?

I completely agree. This happens all the time IRL. Nuns leave the convent, Monks the brotherhood. People convert, or lose their faith. People get divorced. None of which necessitates growing a mustache to twirl.

[MeeposFire]

People should just ignore alignment and just choose what your character is like and if you have an oath do your best to follow that oath in relation to who your character is.

We often here worry more about whether some action fits the alignment rather than whether an action fits the character.


As an example people are arguing whether you can be lawful good and be a conquest paladin. That is the wrong way to look at it. What you really should do is have a conquest paladin who is generally a lawful and generally would be seen as a good person by himself and most people and see if he can fulfill his oath while keeping that part of his personality.

Sounds like a good set of drama for himself to me. The fact it is potentially difficult makes it interesting potentially.

[Regulas]

You're making that up. Again, the description says, "The Oath of Treachery is the path followed by paladins who have forsworn other oaths."



I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. Especially since the core Paladin fluff is still all "Yay good! Boo evil!"

I'm not making that up, go read the PHB, DMG, Sword coast pretty much any material on Paladins, there's a whole segment about how breaking your oath causes you to loose your powers, or how Oathbreakers gain powers. When a paladin stops following there oath they don't just instantly bampf get new super powers like you seem to think, rather they just loose there powers, thats just basic PHB/basic paladin mechanics in 5e and every other edition, to the extent that I don't get how you can think otherwise.... The Treacheary and Oathbreakers are explicitly for those who go beyond just not being regular Paladins and dedicate themselves to that betrayal in the same way as any Paladin follows any oath. Keep in mind these are still "oaths" which unto itself shows that they are dedicating themselves to something.

Paladins are not just warriors who coincidentally know some magic and their oaths aren't just random technicality warlock pacts ...

Also it's not even needed to say but still: UA is quite explicitly made in a rough cut format without including the added "exceptions text". As noted by it's creators it's intended that you follow the spirit of the original content, they've already stated they intend for normal limitations to be there but didn't include it for UA because it's a rough-cut test format ("beta content"). You on the other hand seem intent to use pedantic wording to break the obvious intention.



Also yes your guy in either case is still evil, or is not a Treachery Paladin. If he was a Treachery Paladin then he would only be doing it for his own gain, in which case the moral argument is just a smokescreen justification which he doesn't actually care about (morally). If he is doing it for moral reasons, well then he's wasting his effort helping other people and is not being selfish as a Treachery paladin would so he wouldn't be a Treachery paladin.

[MeeposFire]

One thing about the Sword Coast book and some other things it has a lens based on the Forgotten Realms and some things occur due to that. Sometimes they are clear that something only really applies to FR for sure but in other settings it may not (such as bladesinger being elf only in other settings it says it could be open to others) and in others you can discuss whether it is true in all settings or is it just FR.

[Anderlith]

All this discussion of the alignment of the Treachery Pally makes me want to roll a paladin who worships Ayn Rand & preaches from the Fountainhead...

Or maybe a horrible parody of Richard Rahl (who is horrible enough)

[Syll]

I'm not making that up, go read the PHB, DMG, Sword coast pretty much any material on Paladins, there's a whole segment about how breaking your oath causes you to loose your powers, or how Oathbreakers gain powers. When a paladin stops following there oath they don't just instantly bampf get new super powers like you seem to think, rather they just loose there powers, thats just basic PHB/basic paladin mechanics in 5e and every other edition, to the extent that I don't get how you can think otherwise.... The Treacheary and Oathbreakers are explicitly for those who go beyond just not being regular Paladins and dedicate themselves to that betrayal in the same way as any Paladin follows any oath. Keep in mind these are still "oaths" which unto itself shows that they are dedicating themselves to something.



PHB p.82 : Every paladin lives on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil.

SCAG p.131: All paladins are expected to hold true to a common set of virtues: Liberty, Good Faith, Courtesy, Lawfulness, Bravery, Pride in one's actions, Humility in One's Deeds, Unselfishness, Good-temperedness, Wisdom, Piety, Kindness, Honor

DMG p.97 : A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker.

Well there we go. ALL Oathbreakers are Evil Paragons of goodness, living life on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil.

The takeaway here, is that it's all just fluff. Contradictory fluff at that. I think I ought to make a Paladin on a holy quest to snuff out all the insufferable Lawful Stupid paladins of the realm so as to make the world a better place.


\The Treacheary and Oathbreakers are explicitly for those who go beyond just not being regular Paladins and dedicate themselves to that betrayal in the same way as any Paladin follows any oath. Keep in mind these are still "oaths" which unto itself shows that they are dedicating themselves to something.



So provide a quote and prove it.

[pwykersotz]

I completely agree. This happens all the time IRL. Nuns leave the convent, Monks the brotherhood. People convert, or lose their faith. People get divorced. None of which necessitates growing a mustache to twirl.

And yet, they are all improved by it. Especially the nuns. The twirl a mean mustache.

[Syll]

And yet, they are all improved by it. Especially the nuns. The twirl a mean mustache.

I laughed really hard at that :p
Thanks.

[Princess]

The takeaway here, is that it's all just fluff. Contradictory fluff at that. I think I ought to make a Paladin on a holy quest to snuff out all the insufferable Lawful Stupid paladins of the realm so as to make the world a better place.


This would be the best Vengeance Paladin ever. "Paladins killed my parents because of some stupid rule that made no damn sense. And they shall be punished."

[MinotaurWarrior]

I'm not making that up, go read the PHB, DMG, Sword coast pretty much any material on Paladins, there's a whole segment about how breaking your oath causes you to loose your powers, or how Oathbreakers gain powers. When a paladin stops following there oath they don't just instantly bampf get new super powers like you seem to think, rather they just loose there powers, thats just basic PHB/basic paladin mechanics in 5e and every other edition, to the extent that I don't get how you can think otherwise....

Oh, OK, now I get what you're saying. Sure, you're right about the prior content. The way it worked, prior to this UA, was that if I was a normal paladin and I broke my oath, I either lose my class features and wait to get Atonement, or if I meet the prerequisites listed on page 97 of the DMG (Evil, broke my Oath specifically to pursue a dark ambition or to serve an evil power) I can swap the features for Oathbreaker features. We're on the same page here.


The Treacheary and Oathbreakers are explicitly for those who go beyond just not being regular Paladins and dedicate themselves to that betrayal in the same way as any Paladin follows any oath. Keep in mind these are still "oaths" which unto itself shows that they are dedicating themselves to something.

Here's where you're wrong. You're lumping Oathbreaker and Treachery together, and lumping them in with the other oaths too much. In particular, your last sentence directly contradicts the write-up, which says, "There are no tenets of this oath, for it lacks any substance."

Again, re-read the oath. You'll see that there's no actual requirement to 'dedicate yourself to that betrayal'. You can become a treachery paladin by just foreswearing other oaths. This idea is expressed by the first sentence of the main write up, and by the first sentence of the greyed out sidebar.


Paladins are not just warriors who coincidentally know some magic and their oaths aren't just random technicality warlock pacts ...

Also it's not even needed to say but still: UA is quite explicitly made in a rough cut format without including the added "exceptions text". As noted by it's creators it's intended that you follow the spirit of the original content, they've already stated they intend for normal limitations to be there but didn't include it for UA because it's a rough-cut test format ("beta content"). You on the other hand seem intent to use pedantic wording to break the obvious intention.

Two things:

1) One of the explicit design goals of this edition was to decouple mechanics from alignment. I can play a CN Monk, a LN Barbarian, or a paladin of any alignment. I genuinely don't think this was a mistake.
2) UA is a rough draft. The point of a rough draft is to be critiqued. When someone gives me a rough draft of a paper, I don't let the grammatical errors slide, I highlight and underline them. If you think these should be "evil only" and don't like how I've pointed out that they aren't RAW, that's great survey feedback.



Also yes your guy in either case is still evil, or is not a Treachery Paladin. If he was a Treachery Paladin then he would only be doing it for his own gain, in which case the moral argument is just a smokescreen justification which he doesn't actually care about (morally). If he is doing it for moral reasons, well then he's wasting his effort helping other people and is not being selfish as a Treachery paladin would so he wouldn't be a Treachery paladin.

Emphasis mine.

This is not supported by the text. It says that they've been observed to be concerned with safety and power at other's expense. It doesn't say that they can't genuinely want to do good in the process. No more than "Wild and enigmatic, varied in form and function, the power of magic draws students who seek to master its mysteries... Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary," means that Wizards are all immoral power hungry monsters who, at best, pretend to be motivated by a desire to do good when really their primary purpose will always be learning more spells and mastering the mysteries of magic.

There's absolutely nothing in the treachery write up that says they can't be motivated by a desire to help others, which they express through socially beneficial means that afford them power and security at the expense of either neutral or evil parties.

Now, are most Treachery paladins like that? No. "Many" of them are full blown servants of the demons. Those are the guys on the "who care only for their own power and survival" side of the OR clause. These are clearly meant to be an archetype that tends CE, like Conquest is meant to lean LE, monks are meant to lean LN, and Barbarians CN. But the room is open for you to make a character that walks that thin line, or fights that inner struggle.

[Regulas]

snip

You seem like that guy who in real life commits a crime because you've thought of some technical theoretical interpretation of the law that you think "makes it legal" and is flabbergasted when you finally get convicted of it anyway.

Pretty much every single sentence of the UA write up at minimum directly implies "evil" (profane warriors, treacherous warriors, decietful, either can be used for evil, unfortunate enough to have close contact etc.), but nope there isn't a specific word for word rule stating "must be evil", so seem determined to ignore it all.

In particular though I want to point out this line as it's been bugging me at how you are treating this as a Paladin without an Oath: " A paladin who embraces the Oath of Treachery". See how you're specifically embracing a concept. It lacks substance because you are too treacherous but you are still following a dedication to a path (to be treacherous)... which is the basics of what a Paladin is anyway. You're not a wizard who just likes magic a lot, you are someone dedicated to something

"Blackguard's escape", "Icon of Deceit"...

I mean like if there was a sub-class that was "dedicated to brutally torturing and killing everybody he sees" I'm guessing you'd still try and make a "good" version by taking "sees" with insane pedantic literalness; so he closes his eyes whenever someone evil isn't there...

And my comments on UA purpose was not an interpretation on the "point of UA"... I'll look for the actual quote but that's what the UA designer physically said.

p.s. I always feel when re-reading things that I come across way more aggressively then I intend.... :p



PHB p.82 : Every paladin lives on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil.

SCAG p.131: All paladins are expected to hold true to a common set of virtues: Liberty, Good Faith, Courtesy, Lawfulness, Bravery, Pride in one's actions, Humility in One's Deeds, Unselfishness, Good-temperedness, Wisdom, Piety, Kindness, Honor

DMG p.97 : A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker.

Well there we go. ALL Oathbreakers are Evil Paragons of goodness, living life on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil.


Because you were a Paladin but something shifted and made you Evil, that's progressive steps (Paladin, then turns evil, then becomes blackguard) not contradiction.