Is This Good?

In my campaign, an antipaladin PC has taken over a local abandoned keep, and declared himself Baron of Agony.

(Seriously)

He initially worked the local farmers and hunters mercilessly to feed his appetites for fine foods and wine, while taking out his pleasures on their wives and daughters and terrorizing their children.

Then he expanded his territories, and found a new farm, which (until his arrival) were producing even more good food and wine. When he conquered them, their productivity went down. When he demanded to know why, the foreman showed him books proving that being worked to exhaustion, beaten, hunted, and ravaged was bad for morale and work hours.

So the anti-paladin stopped abusing his people, and took time to defend them from other local threats, so they can make him more food and wine. And while killing baby orcs may be evil, it does solve the problem of orc raiders growing up in his lands. If he wants to kill, torture or abuse people, he raids outlaying baronies other than his own. He's even set up a people's council to handle most criminal matters.

The antipaladins' player claims he's doing this because he's greedy,. gluttonous, lazy, and doesn't want to sully his hands with "law" and "justice." That's certainly evil. And he randomly raids nearby baronies, which is certainly chaotic.

But his own lands are becoming a model of well-run, secure, hands-off peasantry. Isn't that a good and lawful act, which should cost him his antipaladin status? Even if he has the worst of intentions, is the end result enough to make him a CE fighter without bonus feats?

Nope, he is an evil bastiche and playing pretend at home just proves he is even more chaotic.

I'd say he's at least veering toward Lawful Evil.

Placating the peasants to forestall a revolt is not an intrinsically good act.

Evil is not stupid. Being evil does not mean doing stupid things because they are evil.

If anything, the evil that entrenches itself in the hearts of many fosters more opportunity for corruption. An otherwise virtuous citizen can be convinced to do terrible things in the name of the nation that provides for his friends and family.

Also, congratulations on your nuanced evil game. Sounds like one of the few I would enjoy playing in!

EDIT: OH, Chaotic... no I'd say he's heading for Lawful evil by way of neutral, yeah. CE would just push the peasants harder through fear and force, and compensate for the issues with more evil.

Lawful evil, as I outlined above, is more the type to make people enjoy their lot.

I tried to be good, but I got bored.

Huh. That's a conundrum. On the one hand, moral dilemma. On the other hand, a request that these "is [blah] evil" threads pass quietly into the archives sooner rather than later.