Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-1969141-20160509151208/@comment-1969141-20160516134254

To change the subject, another threat was added to the "Dark Lord" discussion page to oppose the merging, and I do stand my ground about keeping "Dark Lord" and "Tyrant" apart.

A Tyrant could be anyone, with or without magic power, who already rules a country/planet/whatever and oppresses the populations of "good", who usually rebel against them.

The defining characteristic of a Dark Lord is not the oppression but the nature. They are beings of pure evil who controls the powers of darkness, more demonic than human, or twisted by evil at the very least. They must have magic powers, designs screaming "evil" and armies of monsters, which tyrants lack. They rule over evil beings only, and plan to become tyrants, but are not. And if they were to take over, the consequences would usually be far worse than oppressed populations.

The two can indeed overlap, as with Queen Bavmorda, Emperor Palpatine, or Lord Voldemort in the last book, but are more often than not distinct. Heck, Maleficent, Mirage, Zanbar Bone and Zordrak care little to nothing for conquest and are more interested in spreading curses. Morgoth, the Demon Princes of Titan, Legion, Ultimecia, Hellmaster Phibrizzo, the Crimson King, Anathos and Vearn want to cause the apocalypse, not ruling people. And Sauron, Dracula, Ganondorf and Dark Lich want to build and rule a dark world: basically a mix of conquest and apocalypse...