I suppose a lot of it was motivated by wanting to provide options in each class. Or they liked this Punisher-style character and didn't want to create a new class for it.

I have more trouble with the environmentally friendly paladin, that just seems like a strange fit. Plus, all that business in its oath about "The Light" reminds me of T'raltixx in Farscape's "Crackers Don't Matter". (So naturally now, if ever I play a paladin, I'll pick that one and spend battles shouting "I MUST HAVE MORE LIGHT!")

I believe the other two Oaths are meant to be versions of 4th Ed classes. The Oath of Vengeance is similar to the 4E Avenger class although I believe that one was a little more rogue/assassin-ish (Pathfinder has their own version of the concept called the Inquisitor) and the Nature Knight Guy has echoes of the 4E Warden (who was a nature-themed tank class).

Not sure Paladin is really the place to put them. I'd have loved to see a callback to some of the old 2nd Ed kits like the Wyrmslayer and Ghosthunter instead. (Or even something like Pathfinder's Warrior of the Holy Light, where you give up spellcasting in favor of various auras and light-based powers.)

Oh, right, the Warden. I'd picked up on the similarity to the Avenger's raison d'être, but missed the other one's antecedent.

The only real commonality - and it's not what I'd deem central to the other two - is the whole oath business. And finally I've come up with a paladin concept I'm interested in, as I now intend to create a gold dragonborn paladin/sorcerer specializing in air magic, called "Oath Windenfyre".

::golf claps::

Alas, it will take more effort to convert to 5e my dual bastard sword-wielding wood elf, Julien Fryze.

Actually, the latter shouldn't be too tough other than having to wait until 4th level when you get your first feat (which is my one knock on the game. I like that all the feats are significant, but it's annoying that some concepts have to wait until 4th level, unless they're human.) and taking Dual Wielder. Longswords are bastard swords now (which is more historically accurate, as the terms were basically interchangeable). The weapon D&D previously called a longsword had a bunch of different names, but was commonly just referred to as a sword.

Actually, the latter shouldn't be too tough other than having to wait until 4th level when you get your first feat (which is my one knock on the game.

It's all quite doable, but the primary issues are:

1. Wood elves are no longer ridiculous cheese weasels. Have to choose a different race.

2. As you noted, no more bastard swords (he would have to stat them as longswords, of course). That is key to the character (he calls the right one "Magnificent" and the left one "Sexy").

I think of a bastard sword as being a longer sword than the longsword, one that you have to take a feat in order to wield one-handed.

I thought it was a sword whose steel composition was unknown.

t /snerk

BT- Well, he can still call them bastard swords. As I said, the names were basically interchangeable historically. What was so cheesy about wood elves before?

Laga- That's what the term meant in D&D (well, at least from 3rd Ed on. In 1st and 2nd, they didn't require any special training and did longsword damage (1d8/1d12 vs large creatures) in one hand and 2d4/2d8 vs large in two hands.) Historically both longsword and bastard sword were terms used in reference to swords that were around 3.5' to 4' long with hilts sized for two hands, but could be used with one when necessary. Modern parlance tends to use the latter term for the ones on the larger end of the spectrum, but they were considered to be the same weapon in regards to how they were fought with.