Breaking your oath isn't just 'I did this thing one time that went against it, oops' - it's a major thing, and it's a deliberate and intentional rejection of the principles you swore to. Similarly, redemption is a major, major thing, and a pivotal, important turning point in a character's story and development.
The flippant and cavalier treatment of this is worse, by far, than not having it show up as a concept at all.
What we should have is a clear delineation of the tenets we take on when we choose a particular oath - when we take that oath. The oath and its tenets are different things. when you swear to an Oath, that is not the same as binding yourself to always uphold and pursue all of its tenets all the time or else - it is an honest and heart-felt dedication to do your best to uphold those tenets to the best of your ability, and it allows that there may be times where you slip, or stray, or have to choose one tenet over another, and that the world is messy and it can't be perfect all the time. Your Oath is that you will be a stalwart for these tenets to the best of your mortal capability, and that you believe in them with your true and honest heart.
We make mistakes; we're mortal. Scratch that - divinities make mistakes as well. Everyone does. When we stray, the source of our divine power can and should remind us of our oath, and coax us to do better, and even potentially, divest us of or weaken our access to the powers our Oath grants for a time, or until we correct our behaviour, or express in earnest communication our understanding of where we went wrong, and our continuing belief in the tenets we swore to uphold. The game Is Capable of doing this; it absolutely is!
Breaking your Oath is a much bigger, more dramatic thing, and it's a deliberate choice that an entity makes - it's not just 'failing to follow'; it's active renunciation. This should be something that we as players can do in game, as major, pivotal points in the story where it can come up - set pieces, if you will, where a choice point may lead a character to renounce their oaths and side with a situation that serves them personally better. This is where the dramatic flaming hellknights might show up; after the player has made an active, deliberate, and impactful renunciation of their oath in favour of selfish means.... not because we shoved a peasant off a bridge when he tried to stop us crossing. The same goes for redemption; it's major action, and a character changing moment -it's what can happen at the crux of a crisis at the moments in our story that really define us and set our path.... not because we said sorry to some armoured sod that hangs out at our camp.
+1 !!!! Thank you! Of all the paladin subclasses, I think that the Oath of the Ancients has the most misconceptions surrounding it.
Upholding Laws don't make you Lawful Good, and a Drow Oath of the Ancients Paladin, is very different from a Wood Elf Oath of the Ancients paladin. If I double-cross Minthara, I'm assuming Oathbreaker comes beams down and gives me his spiel same as if I had double crossed Zevlor.
Double-crossing Minthara shouldn't count as breaking the Ancients oath, in my opinion. Maybe the Devotion oath? But not the Ancient oath ("This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos", PHB).
Deception isn't inherently evil. You are choosing to defend a side (the Tieflings, the mostly unarmed one who don't want a war, just want to survive) and use the tactic that you believe would work best to save the Tieflings . For instance, your character might think that trying to kill the three leaders on your own is suicide (the Tieflings will be left defenseless again), but the Grove has some tactical advantages.
But then again, as pointed out by Niara, breaking the oath should be more deliberate than that (at least, I share that opinion). People/Characters can make honest mistakes, even paladins.
