In the PfH we saw the cut scene with Lae'zel having been captured by the Tiefling hunters, and I noticed that they have put in a new Deception (Paladin) check to get the Tieflings to leave so you can free Lae'zel. That's a lie. You're still lying to them. But somehow this doesn't break your oath, but normal non-Paladin lies will? I don't like that. You wouldn't have to put in that allowance if you didn't universally punish Paladins for lying in the first place.
Is it really a lie? Paraphrasing, it's like 'Let me take care of her because she's too dangerous for you.' Nowhere do you say 'I will kill her because like you I think all Githyanki are evil,' but that meaning could easily be inferred.
Should that line even be tagged [Deception]??
If you aren't a paladin, you can say the exact same line, which is tagged deception, and as far as I've seen, that counts as lying for the purpose of breaking your oath. I personally think that particular line should have two options for deception or persuasion, because both could be applicable in that specific case.
My issue with that whole sequence is regarding the draconian method of determining whether or not a paladin breaks their oath. Gently misleading someone to try and defuse a situation that is quickly turning violent should not count, but it does, but instead of changing the method to be less strict and allow for such situations, they put in a special allowance for paladins that is no different from the regular deception option. The fact that that's even in there means that someone realised that their strict judgement on oaths would cause problems in some places, and I really hope it gets changed before release.
