Hey everyone,
Im just looking for some opionion on how this reads to you.
Im playing in a game starting later tonight and im playing a prestige paladin of tyranny. (DM approved using the prestige paladin with the paladin variant)
The discussion im having relates to an "evil act".
The paladin of tyranny reads like this:
"The paladin of tyranny must be lawful evil and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act"
Thats pretty straight forward.
Now, the DM is using the following guidelines in the game for determining evil.
"An Evil person is generally one who completely ignores the ethical standard entirely. They have no real motivation to do good unless it personally profits them. Evil people are unlikely to do evil for its own sake, but certainly won't shy away from it if they think it'll benefit them or make them feel good, and generally find that it does. They'll rape if they can, donate to the orphanage if it benefits them, kill if they want to, and generally behave themselves in public. They'll usually have some sort of reason for doing good or evil, but will usually find it much easier to discover reasons to do evil. "
The point i make is that while a paladin of tyranny might commit a good act, the reason for doing that good act could be to benefit himself for an evil end.
To me that says the act overall is still an evil act so shouldnt go against the paladins restrictions of doing a good act loses all class abilities.
What would your opinions on this be?