>The Lawful Evil usurper raises his heir to be Lawful Good
>He abdicates the throne to his heir and kills himself after taking over
>Now his descendants are better off by being the royalty of society while also being immune to getting smited by Paladins
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>"Ha! I am immune to being smited!"
>but the swords worked anyway
Killing a Lawful Good person would of course make a Paladin fall.
only if the Paladin doesn't have just cause to do so
If a Lawful Good person is the ruler of a regime of tyranny and evil, then the Paladin is fully justified in killing them. Hell, Paladins are justified just to kill adherents of gods that they don't worship.
The Lawful Good person in this case would not be the ruler of a regime of tyranny and evil
The LG person after being installed as a ruler of the regime of tyranny and evil would immediately start working on solving the issues of the tyranny and evil. If anything, in the actual game scenario, he would be the quest giver sending off the Paladin and the party to help him fix the mess he inherited, one cursed dungeon at time.
>be me
>be Oath of Ancients paladin
>kill lawful good king because he's not as pretty as his sister, the next in line
>consider the kingdom prettier now
>my oath has been upheld
Sorry, only ad&d Paladins are Paladins. Onions 5e paladins are not paladins, they're just shitty clerics. The defining feature of Paladins is being a chivalrous LG human
>The defining feature of Paladins is being a chivalrous LG human
Depends on the setting
Hi, Trinity. Still running your shitty blog?
>The Lawf*yawn*ul E*zzzZZZZzzzzz*
Oh sorry I feel asleep just reading that generic fantasy crap.
>The third in the line of succession is Lawful Neutral / Indifferent
>Another Lawful Evil dude usurps him
>Repeat ad infinitum
>Welcome to Europe
>The Lawful Evil emperor raises his heir to be Neutral Evil so there's a rebellion against him
>He abdicates the throne to his heir and goes into seclusion
>He is also secretly the Evil Lawful usurper who leads the rebellion so his heir is never overthrown as he controls the opposition
>Is also being immune to getting smited by Paladins in his zone of invulnerability and illusions
>be evil
>convoluted plan ultimately creates good kingdom
Even for a allignment spam this is pretty moronic. Glad im not autistic enough to actually put any effort into a reply
It's simple.
>Be peasant farmer
>Want your family to have the best life possible
>The best life possible is being wealthy royals
>But you can't overthrow the royal family and be good because the royal family is Lawful Good
>So you have to become evil in order to become king so that your family can have a better life
Ganker pathologically denies that putting your family over the greater good is Evil.
Ganker might, but D&D does not.
Oh I agree but good luck making Anon understand it.
The greater good is so subjective and vague it can be abused by anyone for virtually any purpose. You're not obligated to sacrifice yourself for the sake of strangers who won't do the same for you.
So a Paladin can freely murder, lie, enslave, torture, betray, and plunge his nation into chaos so long as its for the sake of his own family.
Moral deconstruction for amoral purpose.
Open assertion of amorality.
Also D&D settings have a universal moral compass. Which, by convention, is often referred to as "objective morality". I know, it's a contradiction in terms and it's based on the morality of the DM, but for all in-game purposes it's still true, the universe will label you as evil whether you like it or not.
Counterpoint: If my family is the only one that can truly uphold goodness and it dies out, then good itself dies therefore our survival IS the greater good.
Disgust.
Nothing is more important than survival, no virtue, ideology, moral system, religion, or cultural tradition is as important let alone more important, than ensuring the survival of yourself or your own group. If they do not survive, all those other things become wholly irrelevant. It does not matter how virtuous your culture was, how many great poets or artists your people produced, if you are all fricking dead. Anything and everything that can and has to be done in order to ensure survival, must be done even if it blackens your peoples' name and reputation forever. Nobody will applaud the moral greatness of a dead people.
If the man was lawful to this extent, it's not an unreasonable assumption that in spite of being evil, he legitimately wanted to make things better because otherwise he would've done something else. Not necessarily, but it's possible. Paladins would already judge him as a complex case beforehand.
It's entirely possible he just wanted to put his family in a higher status in society and then bug out before paladins could overthrow him and thus ruin his plans to set up a new dynasty
>Be lawful evil usurper
>Turn your lands into hellhole full of suffering and despair
>One day declare that you abdicate and give the throne to a paladin order
>Laugh at the paladins as they fall, one after another trying to fix the mess you made, while you chill in tropical paradise with cute brown elf girls
Let's see if the goody goodies can do something else than smite evil. Let's see how popular and good they will be once they are accountable for their actions.
Aren't all proper paladins accountable? That's kinda the whole point. They're to act noble in all things.
>He abdicates the throne to his heir and kills himself after taking over
As long as he's on the throne, Paladins will have be able to come, dethrone and smite him, and give the throne to someone else.
That's moronic. You're moronic.
Why not employ a royal guard of lawful neutral fighters.
It's not like any Paladin can just walk up to the throne.
Okay but why would he kill himself after abdicating
It’s the only way to atone for what he’s done to get his family on the throne in the first place
He didn't do anything, his father did all that, and then for some reason his kids are going to inherit all his power and not kill themselves. The suicide does nothing. This is a very dumb thread.
Oh wait, I now appreciate that the Lawful Evil guy is the guy who abdicates and kills himself, not the Lawful Good son. Killing himself still doesn't do anything though, and the heirs being Good doesn't mean they're going to be fit to rule, much less that they're going to forge a good society out of an evil regime.
Well the monarchical system was designed to benefit the people in charge anyways, the heirs being potentially unfit to rule doesn’t really matter since the evil guy only wanted his family to have a better life anyways, and since they’re still Lawful Goid regardless of competency they can’t be smited
Im sorry, this is my paladin. Why should he not smite this guys?
Glad they did away with dogshit alignment in PF2e.
>Lawful Evil usurper over throws the tyrannical lords of old and takes over the kingdom himself
>Actually runs the kingdom fairly because the 'evil' aspect of his lawful evil alignment is he's just a rude dick to everyone
Now imagine how historians would be forced to whitewash the evil ruler as being good to fit the narrative that the good ruler didnt come from an butthole.
>viking coming to raid and burn home town
>demon offers you power to stop them in exchange for your soul, and 10 innocent lives
>you agree and repel the invasion, saving 100s
>you frick off to the mountains afterward
Alignment systems are kind of gay. They should be loose guidelines for rp imo, not concrete forces in the world unless we are talking actaul demons and angels. Aside from that you can have magic items that reject someone with too much sin on their hands and shit.
Kill them all and let god sort it out.