There's a Paladin I wish NOT to make fall...

[Conradine]

...he's a Paladin of Tyranny.

Here's the code of conduct:


A paladin of tyranny must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of tyranny's code requires that he respect authority figures as long as they have the strength to rule over the weak, act with discipline (not engaging in random slaughter, keeping firm control over those beneath his station, and so forth), help only those who help him maintain or improve his status, and punish those who challenge authority (unless, of course, such challengers prove more worthy to hold that authority).


So, some questions:


1- can he build hospitals, schools, aqueducts, parks ecc. inside his domain if that is done only to strenghten his consensus ( Villain With Good Publicity ) ?

2- can he be generous and respectful with his elite troops in order to mantain morale and reduce risks of discontent or betrayal?

3- can he use clemency if that is the most useful / pragmatical / safe thing to do?

4- can he afford some minor liberties in order to reduce tension as long as that do not endanger his power?

5- can he be genuinely loving, caring and selfless with his pet dog?

[Eldan]

That's really the kind of thing that DM and player should discuss. Other people can give opinions, but they will just be opinions, not rules. Paladin vows have always been very open, and the evil ones are kind of even more so.

I mean, I'd allow it. Other DMs might not.

[denthor]

1. Yes, Dr. Doom did this for peaceful society. This allows diversion from the inhumane conditions. It also allows for allocation of human resources. The hospitals are run by clerics of his deity otherwise no.

2. Different thought here. His elites have desires. He can allow them to indulge I can be very specific but evil elites who like to kill can do so with his blessing so long as they are in conjunction with the priests(sacrifice) of innocent subjects.

3. Yes so long as he received something corruption at its finest

4 see 1 and 2

5 so long as the dog is obedient. Not a cat

[Cygnia]

What is your obsession with screwing over (good) Paladins?

[Telonius]

1. Sure! Especially if they're limited-access things. Suck up to the boss, and you get your hospitals, water, and recreation. Don't, and you don't.
2. Sounds like "establishing firm control over those beneath his station." I'd say it's allowed. Do note that the underlings should be frightened of disobeying as they are happy at obeying, so just generosity isn't going to cut it.
3. He should use "clemency," not clemency. Why kill someone, when keeping them alive and suffering is so much more effective at keeping the peons in line?
4. That's getting into a bit of a gray area. You're not a modron - you do want your underlings to be able to tie their own shoes without being ordered to. I guess it depends on what the liberties are.
5. I'd say that keeping a dog as a pet would be something he could absolutely do. A perfectly obedient, loyal companion, who knows its place, will never rebel, follows commands to the best of its ability, and will happily steal the sausage off somebody's table if they're inattentive. It's the ideal model for how he wants the rest of society to act.

But actually loving the thing? That, probably not.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"...help only those who help him maintain or improve his status..."

1- can he build hospitals, schools, aqueducts, parks ecc. inside his domain if that is done only to strenghten his consensus ( Villain With Good Publicity ) ?
Yes, this should be fine. By providing for his people, he's gaining supporters who will help him maintain his status. He only wouldn't be able to do this for neighborhoods that clearly don't support him or are currently trying to rebel against him.

2- can he be generous and respectful with his elite troops in order to mantain morale and reduce risks of discontent or betrayal?
This is fine, those troops help him maintain or improve his status.

3- can he use clemency if that is the most useful / pragmatical / safe thing to do?
This is fine as long as he believes those he's merciful to will help him maintain his status.

4- can he afford some minor liberties in order to reduce tension as long as that do not endanger his power?
As long as it gains him more supporters it should be fine.

5- can he be genuinely loving, caring and selfless with his pet dog?
The dog helps him maintain an appearance that helps him maintain his status, thus anything he does to that end should be fine.

[Conradine]

What is your obsession with screwing over (good) Paladins?

Actually, I can tolerate Paladins of Freedom too.



The dog helps him maintain an appearance that helps him maintain his status, thus anything he does to that end should be fine


5. I'd say that keeping a dog as a pet would be something he could absolutely do. A perfectly obedient, loyal companion, who knows its place, will never rebel, follows commands to the best of its ability, and will happily steal the sausage off somebody's table if they're inattentive. It's the ideal model for how he wants the rest of society to act.


Err...

no, I was thinking about a "Who's a good dog? Who's a good dog? You are! " kind of relationship that would be embarassing if not kept private. Like, sleeping with the puppy, cuddling, slippers stealing ecc.

[NontheistCleric]

In general, he should be able to do all of those things because they're towards people he cares about, assuming he does genuinely care about his dog, soldiers and people who live under his rule. Doing nice things for the people you care about is always Neutral.

It's how you treat the people you aren't especially invested in that makes you Good or Evil.

[dancrilis]

... can he ...

Yes - subject to the DM.

However if the DM has him verge into LN or NE territory by taking to many actions which place stability over evil or pragmatism over consequence then he will lose his powers even if no specific action would force a change.

[InvisibleBison]

A paladin of tyranny falls if he violates his code of conduct OR commits a good act. People seem to be forgetting that second clause.

1) So long as he avoids doing it in a good way, this is fine. I'd recommend charging a fee for access to these facilities, as that would make it neutral.

2) Generosity is tricky, as giving people things they don't deserve is usually good-ish. Being polite and respectful, and giving rewards proportionate to their accomplishments, is perfectly fine, as it's acting with discipline and rewarding those who help maintain or improve his station.

3) Clemency is inherently good. This is not acceptable.

4) So long as granting these liberties isn't a good act, and he does it in a disciplined fashion, this is ok.

5) Probably not. It's selflessness that's the problem - being willing to sacrifice your own well-being for another is good. He can certainly love and care for the dog, but he can't let its needs take priority of his own.

[Kish]

Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter are based on incorrectly assuming that good and evil can reasonably be treated as mirror images of each other, such that if you do a find-and-replace of the word "evil" for "good" and "good" for "evil" you wind up with something just as valid as you started with. Neither class is actually functional.

If you want to use them, particularly if you want to use them for PCs*, I suggest house ruling the restriction to "must remain evil, loses powers if ever actually reforms, can do anything within that limit."

*They can sort of work for NPC villains as long as the character in question is never supposed to have sustainability--a goon quickly defeated or an evil overlord who cannot actually build or accomplish anything, only destroy, wrecking their own works as well as everyone else's.

[Malabolg]

You are under no obligation to enforce, strictly or otherwise, the code of conduct in any way that doesn't serve you and your table. Personally, I'd hash out with the player what their expectations are regarding required behaviour, and what spheres of social activity are 'on the clock' or not. I have no idea how that conversation would go, because I don't know anything about your table and whatever precedents in prior play would shape the discussion.

'Personally' personally, I would side with the post about being able to love your family and want the best for your friends and still more than qualify for having Evil in your alignment, and have that be the default attitude for Evil gods selecting champions/paladins. With the caveat that some gods might specifically require or NEED more. Requiring your paladins to actively, consciously seek to make the world a worse place with every action is the code of the sort of god you might not want to burden one of your PCs with, but can make for a useful element in some settings.

[denthor]

What is your obsession with screwing over (good) Paladins?


I absolutely hate the class. I think it should be a NPC class. I also think that requirements are so restrictive that playing one as written in past editions is asking to become fallen.

Not to mention I have heard people go for the own good I rob these people of their stuff I am still lawful good right.
Oh yeah and so they don't talk I bind them to say they serve my god and then kill them so they do not backslide. I am still lawful good right.

[dancrilis]

I absolutely hate the class. I think it should be a NPC class. I also think that requirements are so restrictive that playing one as written in past editions is asking to become fallen.

Not to mention I have heard people go for the own good I rob these people of their stuff I am still lawful good right.
Oh yeah and so they don't talk I bind them to say they serve my god and then kill them so they do not backslide. I am still lawful good right.

This might be a problem with the DM rather then the class - a good DM will make the downsides of the class a feature rather then a bug (same with wizards, barbarians, monks and druids etc).

[Conradine]

Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter are based on incorrectly assuming that good and evil can reasonably be treated as mirror images of each other, such that if you do a find-and-replace of the word "evil" for "good" and "good" for "evil" you wind up with something just as valid as you started with. Neither class is actually functional.


Paladins of Slaughter are quintessential murderhoboes. Funny, even cool, but almost implayable.

Paladins of Tyranny are not unreasonable, they're actually way more pragmatical than your average orc chieftain or drow matron.

[TheStranger]

Paladins of Slaughter are quintessential murderhoboes. Funny, even cool, but almost implayable.

Paladins of Tyranny are not unreasonable, they're actually way more pragmatical than your average orc chieftain or drow matron.
That’s very much a DM’s judgment call. One could argue that pragmatism violates the PoT code. Your calling is to rule with an iron fist, not to rule in whatever way works. If you’re not force choking minions left and right, you’re not a Paladin of Tyranny, you’re just a LE despot. The PoT needs to take those LE ideals and turn them up to 11.

To use one of your examples, imagine the following conversation:
Patron deity of tyranny: “So good work subjugating the Pelorites, but why are you giving them bread and building hospitals in their cities?”
Paladin of Tyranny: “Well, Dark Lord, we’ve found that it makes the people content and they actually build statues of you faster if they’re not sick and starving.”
Deity: “What are you, some kind of hippie? Just crucify a few of them in the marketplace and they’ll get their act together.”
PoT: “Yes, Lord.”

Yes, that’s kind of a dumb way to rule, and if you want to relax it at your table that’s your call. But a big element of the Paladin and its variants is to uphold an ideal even when it’s not the most pragmatic approach. In this case, the ideal is that of tyranny. Ruling with an iron fist isn’t a means to an end, it’s the whole point.

Which isn’t to say that there can’t be rewards for loyalty and good service. That’s very much part of the LE ethos. But in general, your solution to every problem should be uncompromising force, not pragmatism.

[Conradine]

To use one of your examples, imagine the following conversation:
Patron deity of tyranny: “So good work subjugating the Pelorites, but why are you giving them bread and building hospitals in their cities?”
Paladin of Tyranny: “Well, Dark Lord, we’ve found that it makes the people content and they actually build statues of you faster if they’re not sick and starving.”
Deity: “What are you, some kind of hippie? Just crucify a few of them in the marketplace and they’ll get their act together.”
PoT: “Yes, Lord.”

Yes, that’s kind of a dumb way to rule, and if you want to relax it at your table that’s your call. But a big element of the Paladin and its variants is to uphold an ideal even when it’s not the most pragmatic approach. In this case, the ideal is that of tyranny. Ruling with an iron fist isn’t a means to an end, it’s the whole point.

Which isn’t to say that there can’t be rewards for loyalty and good service. That’s very much part of the LE ethos. But in general, your solution to every problem should be uncompromising force, not pragmatism.


This is how drow matriarches rule. And they are Chaotic Evil.

[TheStranger]

This is how drow matriarches rule. And they are Chaotic Evil.

The distinction between CE and LE here is subtle, because both can lean heavily on absolute authority. The difference is that when LE does it, it’s about a strictly enforced orders during keeping people in line. You put your boot on their neck because they need to respect your authority. CE does these things arbitrarily and puts its boot on their neck because it can. From the perspective of the one with a boot on their neck, there may not be much difference. But I’d say that the subjects of a PoT should fear the laws of their ruler, where the subjects of a Drow Matriarch should fear the whims of their ruler.

My main point, though, is that a Paladin of Tyranny shouldn’t be fair and kind just because it’s more expedient any more than a LG Paladin should be cruel if it’s more expedient.

[tyckspoon]

This is how drow matriarches rule. And they are Chaotic Evil.

Referring to Drow for alignment behavior examples is a bit of an edge case, because their entire society is warped by Lolth's edicts. And for whatever reason Lolth finds it pleasing to ask her inherently Chaotic-leaning primary followers to structure their society in Lawful ways. Probably thinks its funny.

[ngilop]

I might be a little slow here, so I need some clarification.

I guess exactly how a paladin of tyranny continues to be a paladin of tyranny when one is being the opposite of tyrannical?

I just fail to comprehend that.

If a being manages to get their power from being so devoted to a singular concept, that concept should be a driving force in just about everything they do. Actively 'bucking' that force to me would only logically then sever that connection.

[Conradine]

I guess exactly how a paladin of tyranny continues to be a paladin of tyranny when one is being the opposite of tyrannical?

I was thinking about an oligarchy than exploit ruthlessly slave labor, exterminate the natives in order to get terrain, but it's generous with his pretorians and first-class citiziens.

[TheStranger]

I was thinking about an oligarchy than exploit ruthlessly slave labor, exterminate the natives in order to get terrain, but it's generous with his pretorians and first-class citiziens.

I’d make a distinction between personal generosity and allowing people to enjoy the benefits of their position. I don’t think a PoT can be generous. He should be trying to command their fear and obedience, not win their respect and loyalty. However, those serving under him can reap many benefits by oppressing those beneath them, as is right and proper. And those who serve him best will obviously be rewarded with the highest stations.

Note that a ruler who is LE but not a Paladin of Tyranny might take a different approach. Not everyone can hold themselves to the same standards as a Paladin.

[Quertus]

I don't see anything in the definition of D&D "good" that makes "granting clemency when it gives you an advantage" a good act. However, being selfless with the dog is good, and so is out of the question.

[tyckspoon]

I was thinking about an oligarchy than exploit ruthlessly slave labor, exterminate the natives in order to get terrain, but it's generous with his pretorians and first-class citiziens.

This is perfectly fine LE governing. But it is not necessarily the exemplar of crushing people beneath the iron gauntlet, bracers, greaves, and boots of rulership that a Paladin of Tyranny should seek to be. Paladins make for either cruddy rulers or cruddy paladins, because the demands of obeying their Codes are very often in conflict with the demands of governing well, even when that governance is Evil.

[NontheistCleric]

I don't see anything in the definition of D&D "good" that makes "granting clemency when it gives you an advantage" a good act. However, being selfless with the dog is good, and so is out of the question.

Not really, because this dog is also the paladin of tyranny's beloved pet. There's nothing good about being nice to the people (whether or not a dog is a person is a question for another time) one cares about, because one always gets something out of that, even if it's only emotional gratification.

[Quertus]

Not really, because this dog is also the paladin of tyranny's beloved pet. There's nothing good about being nice to the people (whether or not a dog is a person is a question for another time) one cares about, because one always gets something out of that, even if it's only emotional gratification.

Being "good" for benefit is fine; it's explicitly the "being selfless" that I was calling out as irredeemably good.

Despite how much you, personally, need it, you give your dog your Cloak of Charisma +6 when it's mating season? Despite how much it hurts you politically, you let your dog eat the choice bits from prisoners? Despite the obviously superior value of the political marriage, you refused to get rid of Polymorph the dog when your perspective partner turned out to be allergic? That's what behaving selflessly looks like. And that's fall-worthy.

[togapika]

1- can he build hospitals, schools, aqueducts, parks ecc. inside his domain if that is done only to strenghten his consensus ( Villain With Good Publicity ) ?


Not even publicity. Take this from the Fast and Furious franchise from a drug lord who runs Brazil.

"I go into the favelas and give them something to lose. Electricity, running water, school rooms for their kids. And for that taste of a better life, I own them."

[rel]

I'd allow it

[Particle_Man]

...he's a Paladin of Tyranny.

Here's the code of conduct:




So, some questions:


1- can he build hospitals, schools, aqueducts, parks ecc. inside his domain if that is done only to strenghten his consensus ( Villain With Good Publicity ) ?

2- can he be generous and respectful with his elite troops in order to mantain morale and reduce risks of discontent or betrayal?

3- can he use clemency if that is the most useful / pragmatical / safe thing to do?

4- can he afford some minor liberties in order to reduce tension as long as that do not endanger his power?

5- can he be genuinely loving, caring and selfless with his pet dog?

I would say part of this would be that all of these should be hypothetical. If there is a better way to achieve his objectives then he would do that.

So with 1. What does he need Good Publicity for? Is there another way to get either that Good Publicity or else the benefits that the Good Publicity are supposed to bring? Would the PoT burn the hospital to the ground immediately if it served his ends to do so?

2. Again, are there other ways to maintain morale and reduce the risks of discontent or betrayal, or else to at least get the benefits of maintaining morale? Is there a danger that the PoT will be seen as a "softie" and so easier to supplant or trick (I assume that most followers of an PoT are also LE)? Why not use intimidation, charm magics, etc., to maintain morale?

3. Again, what is the clemency for? Why is it the most safe/useful/pragmatic thing to do? Why do being safe, useful or pragmatic matter to a paladin of tyranny who is hoping for a useful afterlife in Hell, and so is less concerned with such temporal matters?

4. Again, minor liberties? Sounds chaotic. Why wouldn't greater discipline and enforcement serve the purpose, with a release of tension through other means (gladiator combats to watch, villages of one's enemies to plunder, etc.)?

5. What happens when the dog gets old or sick or inconveniently pregnant? Because dogs are cheap. If you are a PoT you can get a new, young, healthier dog whenever you want. I suppose training times can factor into this, but you can spend the money for a well-trained dog too. If you were making a useful alliance with a hobgoblin chief and they wanted to seal the deal by eating your dog, would you even hesitate to sacrifice the mutt for the sake of the deal?