I've read somewhere here that the PHB will have 3 separate archetypes for Paladins based on their Oath. (Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Vengence)
Are these categories based on Alignment?
Devotion = lawful good Paladin
Ancients = lawful neutral Knight
Vengence = lawful evil Anti-Paladin (Blackguard) ?
If so, would the Devoted Paladin be best equiped to deal with undead and fiends? Any info on these alternate paladin archetypes would be much appreciated.
Angel7 wrote:
No, the archetypes are not at all based on Alignment.
They are based on particular oaths which are independent of alignment, despite each having a leaning towards particularly alignment (there are no hard restrictions).
The Oath of Devotion is more like that classic paladin (courageous defender of justice and all that is good and holy) than the others.
The Oath of the Ancients has been hinted at being similar to the Warden class from 4e (somewhat like a Druid-Knight cross-breed)
The Oath of Vengeance is similar to the 4e Avenger class in some ways (divinely powered foe-slayer)
It really depends on what you mean by "equipped to deal with undead and fiends" as to which has the edge over the other two, but in the playtest the Devotion paladins tended towards more protective powers while the Vengeance paladins tended towards more offensive powers.
Beyond that, more solid info will be available in 5 days.
In the leak they are loosely based on alignment, but include specific tenets that they swear their oath to uphold.
Devotion would be typically lawful good, Ancients would be typically neutral good, Vengeance would be typically either neutral or lawful neutral.
Tenets of Devotion:
- Honesty
- Courage
- Compassion
- Honor
- Duty
Tenets of the Ancients:
- Kindle the Light
- Shelter the Light
- Preserve Your Own Light
- Be the Light
Tenets of Vengeance:
- Fight the Greater Evil
- No Mercy for the Wicked
- By Any Means Necessary
- Restitution
Devotion was the best against fiends and undead, yes, with Turn the Unholy.
Note that all of this may change slightly, but one of them is pretty much guaranteed to be a classic paladin and to be able to turn undead.
Ashrym wrote:
Thank you all for the information. 
I'm very eager to see whether Devotion or Vengeance best fits my character concept as a hunter of fiends and undead, but I'm guessing/hoping it will be the classic paladin as far as the most beneficial abilities in that respect.
I love the concept of having oaths that attract certain alignments. This has been an absolute gift to me. Since 1st ed, my biggest frustration with Paladins is that, no matter how hard I tried, I could not reconcile the idea that a Paladin could be anything but lawful good.
ie: A moral and courageous hero who believes in honesty, defending the weak and fighting against evil = GOOD and follows a strict and orderly code of conduct = LAWFUL
With this ingrained in my subconcious, I've had a very strict and narrow minded view of what a paladin's alignment had to be. It had to be either lawful good or play a fighter. Even my anti-paladins had to be Lawful Evil due to my insistence that a Code of Conduct = LAWFUL even though lawful good and chaotic evil are diametrically opposed.
The beauty of having oaths that lean towards an alignment but don't straight-jacket you, is it opens up the grey area and adds variety in a way that makes sense and doesn't "feel" wrong or forced. I can accept that an Oath of Vengeance fits well with a Chaotic Good alignment with the idea that this paladin is good but follows an "end justifies the means" or a "doing whatever you have to for the greater good" mentality and that an Oath of Ancients (Nature being neutral as both beautiful and cruel) would lean a paladin more towards a Neutral Good philosophy. After four editions, I'm finally free of the lawful good shackles and can play a much broader range of paladins and not feel like I'm lying to myself. I realize that sounds corny, but like I mentioned before I can now reconcile the idea of more alignment choices for paladins in a way I couldn't before. Very much enjoying a lot of new philosophies with this edition.
In the playtest Devotion Paladins were the only ones (Ancients weren't included) that had the Turn Undead ability. At level 8, it made it so it also worked on fiends. So long as this holds true, it'd probably be the way you want to go. As it stands for alignment, I would lean more toward whatever alignment the god/power their oath holds to. A Devoted Paladin of Kelemvor would most likely be LN. One to Bane would be LE. If it's just an ideal their bound to, then what does that ideal embody? Any oath can go with any alignment so long as it fits with the idea of who your Paladin is.
I'm pleased to see how the classic Paladin is represented in the new edition, as well as the distinctions between the Oaths listed, but am curious about the choices made for Turning.
Paladins with Oath of Devotion can turn Fiends and Undead.
Paladins with Oath of the Ancients can turn Fiends and Fey.
Paladins with Oath of Vengeance can turn any creature? huh?
First off, why do the nature paladins/green paladins have a special ability vs. Fey ? The DMG addition to the Basic Rules describes Fey as magical creatures closely tied to the forces of nature, including dryads, pixies, and satyrs. Do Fey not revere nature like an Oath of the Ancients paladin? Or are they refering to Fey of evil alignment?
Secondly, do paladins with Oath of Vengeance really have the same turning ability as the other 2 Oaths, but can use it on Any creature of choice? Does this mean they can use it on ANY adversary whether they be fiends, undead, humanoids, fey, oozes, constructs, celestials, beasts, etc, etc.. ?
If so, does this not make them the most powerful of the paladin archetypes?
Angel7 wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I wonder if the blackguard is going to be parallel to one of the oaths or move out in a separate direction. It seems like you could make a pretty good evil paladin out of the Oath of Vengeance, maybe swaping out necrotic for radiant and making the angel form a winged devil or demon form.
ppaladin123 wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
ppaladin123 wrote: