Evil paladin's falling (rising?)

[Xey42]

A player in my campaign wants to play a paladin of tyranny, the character concept is acceptable and the player is a good guy so i don't worry about there being any big issues on that spectrum. However, as with any paladin, i'm worried about the codes to which they abide.

There are tons of threads talking about what it would take to make the traditional lawful good paladin fall, but what about evil paladins?

I'm looking for opinions on how far 'must never willingly commit a good act' would go for most people. (never being an awfully strong word and willingly being so vague on intent)

Would protecting a town under order from his superior (baron, higher paladin, etc) be considered a good act (thus, saving innocents as a side effect)?

would doing it for money, power, or for the chance to prove just how mighty he is undo his code if it had positive side effects, even if he doesn't give a **** about whether the town actually survives or not?

Or would he have to decide he was doing it because he wanted some tangable 'good' consequence to mess up his code?

I know it all comes down to my ruling as DM, and i'm a bit on the lenient side, but i was wondering where most people would fall on their judgment.

-As a side note, would evil paladins fall or rise if they messed up their alignment since theyd have to do something good?

[Kylarra]

Would protecting a town under order from his superior (baron, higher paladin, etc) be considered a good act (thus, saving innocents as a side effect)? No. Orders are orders. Assuming that they've proven their authority via strength and discipline.


would doing it for money, power, or for the chance to prove just how mighty he is undo his code if it had positive side effects, even if he doesn't give a **** about whether the town actually survives or not?
Nope.


Or would he have to decide he was doing it because he wanted some tangable 'good' consequence to mess up his code?In this case yep.

In the aforementioned scenarios as long as he has a legitimate and/or selfish reason to protect the town he will. Maybe they're his vassals and he wants to keep his income.

On the other hand, if he protects random village B for no reason other than because they're in trouble, well, that's a good act.

It's a lot easier to avoid being "good" than "evil" since very few things [that adventurers are likely to do] are unquestionably good.

[GoatToucher]

A Paladin of tyranny is devoted to lawful rulership based on power. His "moral" imperatives would be to obey his superiors (when it does not directly harm his interests) and to not allow individuals too weak (not ruthless enough) to have dominion over him. As such, he would be obedient to rightful rulers, but always looking to find a way to supplant them.

The only good acts that might make him fall would be those done in opposition to his orders, or those showing mercy to potential enemies.

[Kylarra]

The only good acts that might make him fall would be those done in opposition to his orders, or those showing mercy to potential enemies.Both of those can be justified by trying to gain allies to supplant his current superior, so even those aren't really absolutes.
:smallbiggrin:

[mistformsquirrl]

Even more so than Evil deeds - intent makes a huge difference as to whether something is Good or not.

Protecting a settlement isn't inherently good; doing so "Because it's the right thing to do" - with little hope of personal gain - that's good.

Protecting said settlement "Because it's *MINE*" - on the other hand is definitely neutral with a lean toward evil.

Likewise, giving handouts to the poor doesn't even have to be a Good act; not if it's done with the express intent of making the Lawful Evil character more well liked and thus further entrenching their power.

There was actually a section about this in one of the books; I just forget which; where an Evil character commonly did things we'd associate with good characters... but not out of any care for their citizens or anything; but rather because it made the populace much easier to control. After all - it's far easier to be a tyrant when the people you're actually tyrannical toward are a foreign group; and your homeland generally thinks of you as a great hero. They'll probably even be willing to give up freedoms and other things if you make it sound reasonable once you've gotten to that point in their mind.

--

Some examples I can think of:

Heroically rescuing a baby (especially with no chance of recompense; and certainly with no request for it) - Good

Rescuing a baby... and then using it to extort money out of it's parents - Evil.

Defending a settlement from marauding orcs because That's the Right Thing to Do - Good

Defending a settlement from marauding orcs while letting the village militia suffer the bulk of the casualties so you can take over afterward - Evil.

Giving food to the poor - Good

Giving food to the poor while preaching hatred of a given group and blaming all their problems on that group so as to incite unrest - Evil.

---

Really any good deed with sufficient ulterior motivation can become straight evil; or at the very least Neutral.

The key is pretty much: Never be altruistic; always seek to find a way to come out ahead of everyone, including the people you're helping.

[Kylarra]

I just forget which; where an Evil character commonly did things we'd associate with good characters... but not out of any care for their citizens or anything; but rather because it made the populace much easier to control. After all - it's far easier to be a tyrant when the people you're actually tyrannical toward are a foreign group; and your homeland generally thinks of you as a great hero. They'll probably even be willing to give up freedoms and other things if you make it sound reasonable once you've gotten to that point in their mind.
Hi, Dr. Doom. :smallwink:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Likewise, giving handouts to the poor doesn't even have to be a Good act; not if it's done with the express intent of making the Lawful Evil character more well liked and thus further entrenching their power.

There was actually a section about this in one of the books; I just forget which; where an Evil character commonly did things we'd associate with good characters... but not out of any care for their citizens or anything; but rather because it made the populace much easier to control. After all - it's far easier to be a tyrant when the people you're actually tyrannical toward are a foreign group; and your homeland generally thinks of you as a great hero. They'll probably even be willing to give up freedoms and other things if you make it sound reasonable once you've gotten to that point in their mind.
Just read Animal Farm... there's a great example of 'freeing the populous... only to further your own goals of ultimate rule'

Failing that, just ask yourself: What Would Big Brother Do? (WWBBD)
Or, for a more extreme example: What Would Friend Computer Do? (WWFCD)

[The White Knight]

See: Final Fantasy 4.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

See: Final Fantasy 4.

No, that would only be if you *want* an evil paladin to fall... this is a thread on what might make him fall, and why...

[Fishy]

Why is it that every time a DM sees a paladin, they automatically start plotting their fall?

"That baby was destined to become the most vile archlich in history, before you murdered him in front of his parents. You FALL! Or, uh, rise."

[jmbrown]

I hate falling prey to Godwin's Law, but Nazi Germany is a good example of a lawful evil society. Hitler brought an entire country out of poverty while subsequently exerting control and blaming an entire ethnic group for their problems. The people were happy because their economy was stronger than it ever was allowing atrocities to happen under everyone's nose.

A lawful evil character is ultimately selfish and that's the biggest dividing line between a good person and an evil person. No self-respecting tyrant wants to rule over a nation in poverty. If strengthening his own borders means keeping people alive and loyal, so be it. If it means he can convert them to fanatical loyalists, even better.

[The White Knight]

No, that would only be if you *want* an evil paladin to fall... this is a thread on what might make him fall, and why...

Aha, yes, right you are. Carry on.

EDIT: although I guess I'm not that far off. A dark knight disobeying his lord on grounds of morality, or seeking to perform good deeds at all would certainly be setting himself up for a fall. As a player of an Evil paladin not looking to fall, it's a much easier line to walk, really.

[Kylarra]

Why is it that every time a DM sees a paladin, they automatically start plotting their fall?
It's probably mostly because paladins are one of the few whose fluff has actual crunchy consequences. So since a line must be drawn, it's helpful for both DM and player to know where it is.

[mistformsquirrl]

Oddball question to add to the thread:

If an Evil paladin is redeemed ("rises" just sounds so odd lol >.>) - should there be a re-fluffed Good version of Blackguard that lets them trade Paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter levels in for it?

My gut reaction is simply let them swap to regular Paladin (or Paladin of Freedom if you're Chaotic); but that can be problematic if you don't allow the opposite switch. It also just feels a bit wrong somehow.

Maybe there is such a thing and I simply don't know of it?

*edit*

RE: Dr. Doom - Hehe <,< I was actually thinking Hitler or Genghis Khan >.> though Dr. Doom most definitely fits as well <,<

[Kylarra]

Oddball question to add to the thread:

If an Evil paladin is redeemed ("rises" just sounds so odd lol >.>) - should there be a re-fluffed Good version of Blackguard that lets them trade Paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter levels in for it?

My gut reaction is simply let them swap to regular Paladin (or Paladin of Freedom if you're Chaotic); but that can be problematic if you don't allow the opposite switch. It also just feels a bit wrong somehow.

Maybe there is such a thing and I simply don't know of it?

*edit*

RE: Dr. Doom - Hehe <,< I was actually thinking Hitler or Genghis Khan >.> though Dr. Doom most definitely fits as well <,<Greyguard probably would fit best imo.

[GoatToucher]

Evil is about enticing you to fall, hence, paladin levels translating into blackguard levels.

The road to redemption, however, is meant to be arduous. Turning to the path of goodness is it's own reward.

No levels for you.

[Riffington]

Paladins of good can fall. It is easy to turn to evil.

Paladins of evil don't just trip upwards. They have to make a conscious effort to Ascend.

Now that said, an anti-Paladin should not simply be a Wrathful, Lustful, Gluttonous, Envious, Greedy, Slothful sinkhole of Pride. Rather, he serves a specific demon or dark Intelligence, and that power must have a real code to have Paladins. That code should have specifics beyond "Lawful Evil" &c. If you serve Asmodeus, he may demand that you always keep the letter of your word - and rescind your powers or kill you if you do not. If you serve Hextor, he may well permit you to lie to your inferiors, but may strip you of power for loafing or for being humiliated.

[Frosty]

Evil is about enticing you to fall, hence, paladin levels translating into blackguard levels.

The road to redemption, however, is meant to be arduous. Turning to the path of goodness is it's own reward.

No levels for you.

Well it's long and difficult, but you can always Retrain under the PHB2 rules. No instant trade in, but perhaps over time.