PDA

View Full Version : A Chaotic Good Villain



GenericGuy
2012-03-23, 01:06 AM
It’s no longer all that original to have a Lawful Good villain, well for me at least, so I’ve decided for my next campaign the BBEG will be Chaotic Good.

Like how the lawful good villain tends to wear the trappings of a classic traditional hero, but is just a tyranical despot underneath it all. I decided that this one should be a parody of modern/Dark age of comics hero, but is really just a whiny child looking to validate his own sense of individulistic self superiority.

So far I’ve decided he is an Elf and a rogue, and he has a very self-centered view of the world. Believing everyone else besides himself, and maybe few others, are “ sheeple” and “they just don’t ‘get’ how the world really works.” He is extremely vain, claims that his attire is based on his own individual style, but in truth it’s all about making sure others, ironically, view him as an individualist.

My problem is I’m having trouble giving him a cause. Like I said he is extremely self-centered so the only way I can think of getting him to care at all about the PCs is if they do something that adversely affects him (making his motivation against the party nothing more than petty vengeance). All this makes him sound too much like a flunky of a much more organized and intelligent villain, rather than The BBEG.

So, anyone got any suggestions on how to use this guy, without going against what I’ve already outlined about his personality?

Kuma Kode
2012-03-23, 01:16 AM
What's the party's make-up? How is your party set up, morally? How do you want him to interact with the party? Is he going to have some grand scheme to rule the world or is he going to be a more low-scale villain?

It would help to know more about your metagame expectations for him. "Whiny guy based on dark age of comics who wants to be seen as an individualist" is a good tagline, but to come up with a really good cause (one that is villainous while still being "good") is going to take some more information.

Grinner
2012-03-23, 01:20 AM
On the Sliding Scale of Morality, this guy definitely scores a Neutral, making him Chaotic Neutral. Maybe if you made him a little more idealistic? A Well-Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist)?

Also, the Lawful Good villains tend to be dupes, not tyrants. Tyranny tends to fall under the purview of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil.

Tuhljin
2012-03-23, 01:29 AM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thinking that you're doing the right thing is not the same thing as doing the right thing. Say the BBEG somehow had metagame knowledge and thus knew about the alignment system. He might think he's Chaotic Good, but if he's truly the BBEG - emphasis on "E", for "Evil" - then he's Evil, not Good, no matter how he tries to rationalize it ("ends justify the means" or whatever). That doesn't mean you can't create conflicts between Good characters, just that it's a stretch to make them the BBEG, in my opinion.

GenericGuy
2012-03-23, 01:32 AM
Party make up: One fighter, Two mages, Two Rogues

Party morality: Two chaotic Neutrals, the rest chaotic Good (In truth my PCs are kinda the reason I'm making the BBEG chaotic Good. They all nearly always play chaotic characters, and nealy always assume a NPC paladin or other lawful good character is going to be the true big bad:smallsigh:)

His interaction with the party: He sees them as fascist, because everyone who disagrees with him is either an agent of "the man" or a dumb patsy of "the man." Maybe if they do everything he tells them to, they will become "free thinkers" and worth a little respect(they still needed him to show them the way, not true self starters like him:smallwink:).

Big time or little time?: that's the problem I'm having, he seems like a small time guy to me, but I'm worried without a "grand scheme" the PCs will lose interest in the sessions. This is what I'm asking for help with, can you guys think of a "grand scheme" a guy like this could cook up?

hamishspence
2012-03-23, 01:35 AM
Exemplars of Evil (despite the name) does discuss the issue of "nonevil villains" - it is plausible.

And Miko from OoTS is described as being the result of the writing asking the question "can a LG person be the villain of a story arc"?

Kuma Kode
2012-03-23, 01:52 AM
Okay, so this guy is pretty much a hipster hippie freedom fighter in my head right now. You're going to run into some serious issues making him the villain if he's the same alignment as the other characters.

I had success with something like this only when the villain had some kind of power over the party. She was a big business owner who hired the group as transport, but the transport was highjacked by a terrorist organization and used for their ends, so both she and the players were duped. Instead of just joining with them, she decided to manipulate them by protecting them from the media, and then threatening to take away that protection and let these small time transporters get chewed up by journalists and essentially ruined.

The party would have gone after her enemies if she had just asked nicely, but she didn't; she manipulated, insulted, and strung the group along with threats because that's how she knew to get people to do things. She had identical goals as the party but the group hated her because of how she went about doing things.

So maybe something like that? Have him be someone who does the same things that the party does, who has resources they need (maybe he's the leader of some kind of rebel group?) but who treats them like dirt because he views them as unenlightened? This makes him less of a BBEG and more of a personal villain, but if you can work his goals up far enough, he might be able to lose the PCs on it.

Villain: "Down with the man!"
PCs: "Yeah!"
Villain: "We don't need your control!"
PCs: "Yeah!"
Villain: "If you push us, we'll push back!"
PCs: "Yeah!"
Villain: "We'll push back HARDER!"
PCs: "Yeah!!"
Villain: "We'll destroy you!"
PCs: "YEAH!!"
Villain: "We'll tear down this pitiful civilization and live naked in caves as nature intended!"
PCs: "Yea... wait, what?"

Averis Vol
2012-03-23, 02:09 AM
you could give him some rasputin-like henchmen, maybe from the lower plains, that egg on his behavior and take his ego through the roof. while they do that he sends them to do stuff like convert the "fascists" to his way of thinking, what he doesn't know is they instead MC or slaughter them and claim that they just couldn't stand his grand schemes and instantly rebeled against his agents of good, so they were forced to defend themselves (and brutally murder them)
so he thinks he's doing good while all the while his minions (who are weaker then himself but still stronger then a town full of commoners) get to wreak havoc. it basically works off of the fact that he's far to vain and probably to stupid to think some underworld cretins would lie to him.

Mastikator
2012-03-23, 02:23 AM
How about a very radical goal? Like wanting to de-throne all the royalties and nobilities, free all the slaves, equalize the power between landlords and serfs, etc. And he's not against to killing to accomplish this goal.

Having him be a d-bag and individualist doesn't make him a "chaotic good BBEG", just "chaotic neutral annoying person". I'd advice against good villains being d-bags, let them be actually good rather than technically good.

Acanous
2012-03-23, 02:27 AM
I have a prior character that would make a decent villain.

Meet Arthur, he's a C/G Bard/Marshal/Legendary Leader/Heir of Syberis.
Arthur inherited a mercenary company when it's prior leader died on the field.
He did not feel ready for the responcibility, but he's doing the best job he's able.
During one of the contracts, Arthur ended up becomming privvy to a draconic prophecy about the end of the world. Turns out, it's going to come about due to a human magocricy.
Arthur has a vested intrest in delaying the end of the world, but magic as a whole just can't be covered up or made inaccessable. He can't bring himself to tear dow civilization- after all, that's no gueruntee it won't just rear it's ugly head again elsewhere. No, he's got to be sneaky. Has to play the game close to the chest. Stage guerilla assaults, pay assassins and gather information on high-level spellcasters who may abuse their power.
Arthur is very much aware that any arcane caster who learns about him will make an easy day's work out of ending him. He's paranoid, canny, and although it's regrettable, he'll shoot first to ensure he can't be shot later.

Being a Legendary Leader who really does care for his men, Arthur has spent a good deal of his WBL ensuring those who work for him are well-equipped. His favored tactics are ones where the enemy doesn't realise they are in any danger until it's too late to do anything about it. He employs Rangers with Arrows of Slaying, Rogues with high ranks in Sleight of Hand and Bluff, Mounted Chargers, and engages in very ruthless and dirty tactics against any arcane caster above 10th level.
He's perfectly willing to offer quests to adventuring parties in which he'll send a member of his band to be escorted through hostile territory, taking the measure of the party's casters as well as actually scouting the area, doing the job and saving the world at the same time.

Arthur loves being efficient. He demands the best from his men, but treats them with respect and honor. He is well known for taking prisoners in large scale battles, and ransoming them off later. They are well treated. He has a good reputation within the nobility, and is known for being a particularly trustworthy mercenary.

Arthur employs a good deal of low-level magic to help keep his real motives secret from high-level casters. His men are well disciplined and work well in independant cells, which he uses to great effect. Small cells are installed in most large cities, definately any with a mage guild. They pay well for magic items, and usually work with the thieve's guild when applicable to keep tabs on adventurers and politics both.

Common tactics against casters are to identify the familiar if he has one, the spellbook(s) if any and where they are kept, learn if they still require sleep, food, or drink. After a threatening caster is identified by a cell, if that cell feels the caster is too high level to take down (Sense Motive opposed by bluff to determine character level) they will contact Arthur with a detailed report of the above, and ask for reinforcements.

If the caster sleeps, expect dead-of-night assassination.
If the caster eats or drinks, poison.
If the caster has an established base of operations, Arthur will arange for an event that would catch the caster's intrests, based on observations of that caster, trying to lure him away from home before springing a trap.

Knowing that most high-level casters will be subject to ressurrection, Arthur takes measures against this. He covers up their deaths if possible, usually with careful bribes and plausable stories. Wizards are away performing research. Clerics are on a mission of aid/justice/vengeance, which they needed to leave for immediately, etc.
He tries very hard to ensure they aren't actually killed, so ressurrection fails. Flesh to Stone is one of his favorites.

-----
This guy is a Chaotic Good villain. People like him. He has a good reputation. He is very skilled in what he does and highly adaptable. He is out to get half of your adventuring party.
Enjoy.

B!shop
2012-03-23, 04:46 AM
I think it depends on what kind of campaign you are planning to run, and what PCs would do in it.Think of the goal you want the players should aim to, and reverse it (ie.Your players wants to defend the realm from an invading army? Your villain shoudl see the realm as an evil force in the world and will do anything to down it, even evil acts.).

ScubaGoomba
2012-03-23, 07:39 AM
Alright, I went to the TV Tropes article (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticGood) on Chaotic Good to see which examples they'd put out there to create a basis and stumbled upon this definition (spoiler'd for length):

Most Chaotic Good characters don't constantly break the law, but they cannot see much value in laws (or, for weaker-CCGs, do not see the value in laws that do not function solely to punish evil). They believe that their own consciences are their best guides, and that tying themselves to any given code of conduct would be limiting their own ability to do good. They do not get along with anyone who tries to instill any kind of order over the Chaotic Good character or others, believing these people to be restricting their freedom and the freedom of others; however, most Chaotic Good characters will respect the right of others to impose strong codes of conduct on themselves. Chaotic Good characters often focus very strongly on individual rights and freedoms, and will strongly resist any form of oppression of themselves or anyone else.

There are certainly a lot of ways you could go, this definition in mind, to create a CG character and villain. You could probably create a character with a very similar function as Miko; someone with a strict code of conduct that has determined the PCs are a threat to that code and attempts to eliminate the threat. The difference, of course, would be that this villain operates on his or her own terms, not any kind of Paladin/legal code, but by a moral code set up to appease his or her own ethics.

I keep picturing a character like Spider-Man, The Punisher, or Namor, either of which could work well (although Namor would have to be made more Chaotic). The players could easily wind up in a new city and step on a few of the wrong toes/go against custom in a few easily fallen into but terribly bad ways to draw attention to some local vigilante.

What could be really great, too, is that the PCs are stuck there needing to take out a local BBEG. They can't just walk away from the city and avoid their little Spider-Man because they're on contract/morally obliged/have a personal vendetta against the local crimelord/duke/crazy old wizard. It's also entirely possible that the players at the BBCGG (Big Bad Chaotic Good Guy) are both in the same endgame (getting rid of the BBEG), but the BBCGG is too stuck on his own moral high horse to see this.

This opens up the field to allow him into good graces with the players or to play him up as ridiculous, paranoid, and a little bloodthirsty. It's important, though, to make sure you play him as Good. Don't let him kill until later into the arc; a hero wouldn't kill just because someone's bad. A hero would incapacitate and bring to the authorities for them to handle. It'd be nice to almost make him a paragon of CG, maybe making the players think a bit about their own roleplaying. BBCGG only gets lethal once the players present too persistent a threat to let live.

----------

Another thing on the article that struck me was the mention of The Incredible Hulk as being Chaotic Good. I hadn't thought of this but, of course, it fits perfectly. Why not go this kind of route? Maybe the Elf Rogue is a perfectly decent person that the players interact with but, under light of night, he transforms into some beast. The monster isn't evil at all; on the contrary. The monster has the ability to seek the justice that the Elf wishes he could see come through. The Elf, meek and ultimately powerless, has no way to really see his wishes through. The Monster (our little Tyler Durden) is a function of pure id and power, fueled by the Elf's desires.

Hell, the Elf doesn't even realize he turns into this monster come nightfall. The players run afoul of the creature a few times ("How dare you step in on my vigilanteism!") and eventually realize who he is. They can't kill the monster, lest the kill their ally, so they wind up with a creature building its own case against them. The monster starts to develop its own personality around this and attempts to overrun the Elf until, at the culmination of the arc, he could actually physically split from the Elf, allowing the players to finally end him "once and for all."

prufock
2012-03-23, 08:12 AM
I think of Chaotic Good as a vigilante type who is working against (perceived?) abuses of power and injustice on the part of "the Man" (which can be a large-scale business owner, a crime syndicate, the government, a guild, a mage's circle, etc).

If you want a "grand scheme," think along the lines of the gunpowder plot. Look at V for Vendetta for some inspiration. He could be planning to hit a government sitting, a mafia meeting, or a business deal to take out a large group of what he sees as the problem with society.

Putting the party in his way should be easy enough. Depending on their leanings, have them hired by a business, crime syndicate, or government on some task. This task is something that conflicts with the vigilante's goals. Perhaps he has stolen something, or is planning to interfere with an "injust" trial/hanging, or he is causing property damage. Something where the hiring party would want to protect their own property or hunt down the perp.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-23, 08:19 AM
Like how the lawful good villain tends to wear the trappings of a classic traditional hero, but is just a tyranical despot underneath it all. I decided that this one should be a parody of modern/Dark age of comics hero, but is really just a whiny child looking to validate his own sense of individulistic self superiority.

So far I’ve decided he is an Elf and a rogue, and he has a very self-centered view of the world. Believing everyone else besides himself, and maybe few others, are “ sheeple” and “they just don’t ‘get’ how the world really works.” He is extremely vain, claims that his attire is based on his own individual style, but in truth it’s all about making sure others, ironically, view him as an individualist.
Make him wreck something the PCs care about. Maybe a lot of things.

The BBEG doesn't need to hate the PCs initially to be effective, but the PCs need to hate him. Chaotic villains are great for messing up things and a CG Villain is no different.

Have a local noble give the PCs a job and, when they're back from the adventure, they discover his manor looted and defaced by the BBEG. Have the PCs get chummy with a Lawful Church that gives them nice things (e.g. healing, advice) and then it gets raided by the BBEG for metaphorically giving people fish instead of teaching them to do it.

* * *

Part of the problem is there is no reason for this character to be a BBEG. He's whiny, self-obsessed but not a caster -- unless he has a lot of money or men backing him (for some reason?) he's just not going to be a threat to a campaign. Additionally, by being Good he's got to have respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings which puts a damper on the actually villainy he can get up to.

IMHO the best CG villains are the Freedom Fighters -- they seek to overturn lawful authority because it is crushing the liberty out of some underclass. Throw a couple CNs into the mix and they can really cause some damage. The favorite CG villain I ran was a Hero of the Revolution who waltzed into a besieged feudal town and offered to save it if the local aristocracy forfeited their wealth for redistribution to the peasants:smallbiggrin:

willpell
2012-03-23, 08:20 AM
The character you're describing does not strike me as "good". If you want chaotic good to play the villain, the best bet is to make him irresponsible, someone who thinks he's doing the right thing but simply doesn't understand the consequences of his actions - and doesn't want to because it bums him out. Level-headed, pragmatic behavior strikes him as too close to Evil; he's a hopeless idealist who expects a miracle every time he screws up, and thus sees no need to burden himself with more of a responsibility than "trying to do the right thing". Think of a character with the personality of Elan and the responsibilities of Lord Shojo, incapable of putting aside his childish whimsies in order to rise to the occasion, getting more insane and withdrawn into his naive fantasies every time he screws up and causes a civic disaster by trying to do a "right thing" that just plain couldn't work (at least not without a miracle that he didn't get).

kieza
2012-03-23, 01:00 PM
I've always used the following example to explain alignment to new players. (Bear with me, there's a point to this.)

After overthrowing an evil tyrant, characters of different alignment can be expected to behave in different ways:
-LG will find the best ruler possible to take over the tyrant's empire.
-CG will break up the tyrant's empire and let each new province rule themselves.
-Neutral/Unaligned will make sure they get something out of it and then leave.
-LE will take over and rule with an iron fist.
-CE will kill the tyrant's heirs and anyone else in position to take over, then leave.

Now, suppose that there's a country that's important in the bigger scheme of things. Maybe they mine a valuable resource, maybe they're the bulwark against the orc horde, maybe they're a beacon of prosperity and enlightenment. But, this CG BBEG hates this country because it's a monarchy/authoritarian/too "big" for his arbitrary tastes. He wants to take over and break it up for the good of the people, even though that would cut off the world's supply of a resource, or let the orcs run rampant, or destroy a center of culture and learning.

Basically, your BBEG is trying to do something good, without looking too closely at the long-term consequences, or he's too much of an optimist to think there will be any.

zorba1994
2012-03-23, 03:58 PM
If you want chaotic good to play the villain, the best bet is to make him irresponsible, someone who thinks he's doing the right thing but simply doesn't understand the consequences of his actions - and doesn't want to because it bums him out. Level-headed, pragmatic behavior strikes him as too close to Evil; he's a hopeless idealist who expects a miracle every time he screws up, and thus sees no need to burden himself with more of a responsibility than "trying to do the right thing".

This, so much this.

One thing I suggest you analyze is the whole Kony 2012 movement or the Occupy Wall Street movements, and then analyze all of the criticism about them. There is no doubt that these guys have good intentions, but their actions have a high chance of just making things worse in the long-run.

(Apologies if this borders too close to political for the forum).

Weirdlet
2012-03-23, 04:13 PM
If you've ever seen Avatar: the Last Airbender- the character Jet, and his Freedom Fighters. Bunch of orphans in the woods led by a charismatic teen who's reeeally good at manipulating people and is all for defeating the Fire Nation who started the war and left them all homeless. He's also to the point of drowning out an occupied Earth-kingdom village to get rid of the Fire soldiers there. He's got a point, but he's stopped defending the innocent and moved on to not caring who gets caught up in his guerrilla war.

Arcanus81
2012-03-23, 04:21 PM
The character you're describing does not strike me as "good". If you want chaotic good to play the villain, the best bet is to make him irresponsible, someone who thinks he's doing the right thing but simply doesn't understand the consequences of his actions - and doesn't want to because it bums him out. Level-headed, pragmatic behavior strikes him as too close to Evil; he's a hopeless idealist who expects a miracle every time he screws up, and thus sees no need to burden himself with more of a responsibility than "trying to do the right thing". Think of a character with the personality of Elan and the responsibilities of Lord Shojo, incapable of putting aside his childish whimsies in order to rise to the occasion, getting more insane and withdrawn into his naive fantasies every time he screws up and causes a civic disaster by trying to do a "right thing" that just plain couldn't work (at least not without a miracle that he didn't get).

In the same vein, consider V (of V for Vendetta - moreso the comics version than the movie version) or Anarky from DC comics. Or even Girard from the current OotS story arc (who might be more Chaotic Neutral, but that is beside the point). In other words, one option is to have someone who views a Lawful society (especially one with a strong central government) with inherent distrust to the point they have become convinced that it is inherently oppressive and evil. It's not too hard to imagine a big bad who acts as a terrorist leader while genuinely believing themselves to be a true freedom fighter. (Note - that last statement is not intended to be any real-world commentary).

hamishspence
2012-03-23, 04:29 PM
The tricky part is keeping them "good"- since Good people generally don't commit Evil deeds routinely.

As to what's an Evil deed "harming the innocent" seems to be one of the simplest versions (as long as the DM and players have some agreement on what counts as harm).

"Harming the non-innocent excessively" also tends to count (again, it helps if the DM and players are on the same page when it comes to "excessive"). A BoVD example would be Destroying Souls- something that according to BoVD, no-one nonevil is willing to do.

Berenger
2012-03-23, 04:52 PM
This kind of guy? (http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/Reyes)

CGforever!
2012-03-23, 06:30 PM
For him to be a chaotic good villain, make him everything the PHB section on CG says that a CG character is. It looks to me like you've taken all the things about CG characters that you don't like, that you perceive to be bad, and put them into one guy, which of course makes him not-CG at all.

He has to actually be good. He has to care about all these "sheeple" because he's tired of seeing them hurt, abused, manipulated, etc, because of their ignorance and inability to detect the evil. It wounds his heart to see it, and it wounds his ego that they call him crazy for trying to point it out (he might be a little crazy, but for the sake of him being CG, let's say that he's actually right -or mostly right- about this).

This has pushed him into trying being different from them (for his own sake), thus the individuality crap.

Do you want him to be actually good the entire time? As in, good even when the players kill him? If so, then this can only be a tragedy.

The first scenario that comes to my mind is this: A powerful evil npc has taken over an already pretty-corrupt land (it was ripe for his taking), and worked things out so that if he were to die, disappear, or otherwise quit what he is doing, thousands of people would die - maybe starve, maybe fall to invaders or internal warfare that he is methodically holding in place, or something along these lines. However, at the same time, he's clearly evil. Maybe he is stealing the wealth of the people of the land and using it only for himself, maybe he has agents kidnap children and/or women so he can do ...things... to them for his amusement, maybe he just wants to corrupt and wound as many people as possible over the long term. Bottom line, he's evil - clearly, objectively evil, but if the our CG villain in question were to dispose of him, thousands would die. Both paths - killing him, and not killing him, are evil.

In order to keep his good alignment, this character has to do something about it. The best way to handle it would be to slowly and peacefully oust the evil guy in charge, but that's the work of years (possibly decades - where people would be suffering the entire time), and the evil guy in charge (EGIC) is exceedingly clever, and such a plan might not work at all.

What's a CG elf rogue to do?

So, enter the pcs. They have the EGIC to take care of, but then if they let the CG elf rogue oust him, all those people will die. If he were to do nothing, he might be neutral. A good character has to do something, has to at least try. So, the evil here is that the elf has decided against the slow, likely-to-fail course because he doesn't want the EGIC to win - pride?

Basically, such a scenario comes down to what the players decide to do. Help the elf, or protect the EGIC? The elf's plan will bring good eventually, like how a forest fire will bring health back to a forest, but there will be a bunch of short term suffering.

Don't just lampoon the so-called elf/rogue/CG wannabes like me.

willpell
2012-03-23, 07:45 PM
In the same vein, consider V (of V for Vendetta - moreso the comics version than the movie version) or Anarky from DC comics.

V is not likely to pass the muster of "good" given how easily he resorts to murder and mass destruction; I regard him as a textbook Chaotic Neutral, his morality being entirely self-created and justified as much by his desire for revenge as for any standard of objective right. Just because he happens to be fighting Evil doesn't make him good. Anarky I know very little about beyond that he's essentially a somewhat sanitized expy of V.


Or even Girard from the current OotS story arc (who might be more Chaotic Neutral, but that is beside the point).

There is basically no question that Girard was CN, and Stupidly so the way that Miko was stupidly LG. He doesn't pretend that what he's doing answers to some moral standard; he's just doing what HE thinks is right, not trusting anyone else to be capable of knowing.


It's not too hard to imagine a big bad who acts as a terrorist leader while genuinely believing themselves to be a true freedom fighter. (Note - that last statement is not intended to be any real-world commentary).

D&D is a world where good is objective. If someone casts Detect Good on this guy they should get a "no signal"; give him a Book of Exalted Deeds to touch and let him figure it out. Someone thinking they're good doesn't mean they are. In order to actually be Good, despite playing the villain role, he has to be legitimately trying to do the right thing, and screwing it up and not being able to learn from his mistakes. He can't be doing something that is objectively wrong and just passing it off as okay.

Rorrik
2012-03-24, 12:55 PM
How about a very radical goal? Like wanting to de-throne all the royalties and nobilities, free all the slaves, equalize the power between landlords and serfs, etc. And he's not against to killing to accomplish this goal.

Having him be a d-bag and individualist doesn't make him a "chaotic good BBEG", just "chaotic neutral annoying person". I'd advice against good villains being d-bags, let them be actually good rather than technically good.

I double this sentiment, maybe there is a less than noble organization he is railing against, but he doesn't realize that taking it down will cause wide spread chaos, war, and general havoc as a side effect that the PCs feel they cannot allow.

Alternately, he could be like the guy from that movie coming out, the one who smashes up cars when their alarms go off, but for things like throwing out bath water or something.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-24, 12:58 PM
An antagonist can be Chaotic Good. A villain by definition is evil.

Yora
2012-03-24, 01:11 PM
I double this sentiment, maybe there is a less than noble organization he is railing against, but he doesn't realize that taking it down will cause wide spread chaos, war, and general havoc as a side effect that the PCs feel they cannot allow.
Or he thinks it's acceptable. Dragon Age 2 has a great case of such a character:
Anders is pretty much a paragon of chaotic good, but when the local chief priestess keeps calming everyone down when the Templars have killed another mage, he thinks it's better to get the mages to fight back instead of agreeing to another attempt of diplomacy, as so many times before. So he blows up the temple with everyone inside or near it.

With no priests left to calm them down, and the huge provocation of a mage commiting open terrorism, the mages and templars instantly start fighting with the aim of annihilating the other side. Mages in other cities think it's a good time to rebel against their templars, and in others templars think it's time to kill all mages. The templars refuse to take any more orders from the church and stop the fighting, excommunicate themselves, and the entire world ends with a giant cluster**** that is the setup for a whole new game.
All because one chaotic good man thought his people should start to fight back against injustice done to them.

MonkeyBusiness
2012-03-24, 01:54 PM
If I were running a scenario with a BBCGG as the villian, I'd start with a character much like Boromir in The Lord of the Rings.

Boromir was a good man: he was kind as a person and cared about people in general (he wanted to protect the world from Sauron), his people in particular (he wished to shield Minas Tirith from destruction), and individual people had his devotion (he genuinely adored his brother and father, revered Aragorn, and was big-brother fond of the hobbits).

But his goodness contrasted with his character flaws: ambition and jealousy. He was also deeply fearful of the danger Sauron presented to his city so that he was less attentive to the needs of others (like Rohan) or to long-term benefits (he'd rather try to use the ring than destroy it. Also, he is a bit arrogant (well, maybe more than a bit) so he has little insight to his own motives.

That particular combination of goodness and human flaws are exactly what made him behave in a villianous way: trying to take the ring from Frodo, for example.
It was not the ring's evil that caused Boromir's fall: it was his willingness to let it persuade him that his desires were right. One would not need an evil ring to create a Boromir type character, just the arrogance and ambition in an otherwise good heart, with fear for survival.

So if you had a group on a quest, advised by a Gandalf-type figure, but if the "Boromir" figure (in this case a dashing and chivalrous elf from a distant imperilled city) persuades them to turn aside from or reinterpret the original quest to go to the city and help there. Because they will be helping more people, and saving a city makes good strategic sense as well.


I would not give the BBCGG a ring or other magic "precious": that's been done and also cops out of the original vision of the guy as CG: a precious warps a person over time. But his desire to fill a Role as Hero of The City might be enough.

It might be useful to read *The Screwtape Letters* by CS Lewis as an example of how good people convince themselves it is okay to do hurtful things. The book is about Christian values, but even if you do not share these values it is an interesting study of psychology. It might not provide a grand plot device, but it will be good roleplaying fodder for when the charming elf "tempts" the PCs to cooperate.

Danerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones and the doctor in Lathe of Heaven are two other CG characters who are focussed on their own agendas, and cause great destruction.
.


.

Mike_G
2012-03-24, 02:14 PM
It depends on the world.

It's easy to have people of similar alignment on opposite sides of a political struggle. Rommel and Patton may have been great friends had they met in peacetime. A Chaotic Good NPC could be trying to overthrow the nation where the PCs live. He thinks it's too oppressive, they think that the suffering that will be caused when the government gets toppled will be worse that the current situation.

It's harder to have a Superhero type villain, with his maniacal plan to CONQUER THE WORLD!!!! cast as a good character.

I'd play up the Chaotic angle. He wants to break an arguably restrictive government or ruling council or whatever, but doesn't realize how destructive the period of anarchy will be. The flip side of the deluded LG character who will break a few eggs to save the current order, thinking it helps protect the most innocents.

"Needs of the Many versus Needs of the One" conflicts can make Good characters do bad things, depending where they stand on the Law/Chaos axis.

Mikeavelli
2012-03-24, 03:22 PM
Consider taking inspiration from Team America, World Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPljGWGNt4), who intend to spread freedom worldwide, but end up wrecking everything with collateral damage because they're stupid.

willpell
2012-03-25, 12:42 AM
Boromir was a good man....but his goodness contrasted with his character flaws: ambition and jealousy.

Which are Evil traits (contrasting with the Good traits of humility and charity-in-the-original-sense-of-joy-in-another's-joy). When they became dominant enough for Boromir to gank Frodo, I would rule that Boromir was at least committing an evil act, if not actually falling to Evil.

NOTE: I'm aware that not everyone agrees with the Ambition is Evil trope, and in reality they may have a point that being motivated to rise to a higher station can be a virtuous trait which spurs change for the better. But this is the D&D world, with objective forces for good. They can tell you flat-out exactly why you are at your current station and should not seek to exceed the role that Destiny and the gods have chosen for you. Ambition is the trait that would make you not care, and continue trying to advance your rank just because you want to. In D&D's context it very much is an Evil trait.


He was also deeply fearful of the danger Sauron presented to his city so that he was less attentive to the needs of others (like Rohan) or to long-term benefits (he'd rather try to use the ring than destroy it. Also, he is a bit arrogant (well, maybe more than a bit) so he has little insight to his own motives.

This part still works while keeping the character Good; fear is one of evil's best tools for suborning good people, which is exactly why paladins have to be immune to it, or else their enemies would use their fear to turn them to darkness Skywalker-style. It's interesting to note however that arrogance is not generally regarded as an Evil trait. IMO it maybe should be, except that it's very hard to arbitrate when someone is being smug by congratulating themselves on how good they are, or congratulating themselves on being so good that they aren't even being smug when they do it.

kieza
2012-03-25, 02:29 AM
I thought up another angle that you could take: a rebel without a cause.

Suppose that there was a successful revolution against a tyrannical regime a few years ago. There were a lot of factions of revolutionaries: paladin orders, anarchists, champions of the people, liberators, mafiosos, and so on. This BBCGG was a "people's champion" type, or maybe even an anarchist of the "non-hierarchical society" type. But, in the end, his faction wound up out of power after the revolution for whatever reason. (Maybe it was another government supporting someone else, maybe his faction used brutal tactics and got disowned, whatever.)

The factions that came out on top put together a functioning, more or less Good society after the rebellion, but this ex-revolutionary doesn't like it, because it's not exactlywhat he was fighting for. Maybe his personal ethnic group didn't get the option to secede (or they did, and didn't take it, and he doesn't agree with everyone else), or he doesn't like the Lawful types in charge, or it has too many rules and regulations for his anarchic soul. All of the other revolutionaries settled down to enjoy freedom, but this guy figures he can just keep being a revolutionary until society conforms to his vision.

Alternately, he could have PTSD (entirely separate from his CG-ness), and legitimately can't distinguish between the actual, Lawful Evil society he overthrew, and the Lawful Good society that's sprung up in its place.

Connington
2012-03-25, 02:57 AM
I'd emphasize the law of unintended consequences every step of the way. The antagonist would have genuine good intentions, because he's Chaotic GOOD by nature, not DM Fiat. But he's still a fanatic. Pit him against a lawful neutral or evil empire or a church or a military order or whatever, and have him explain (accurately) the flaws of the institution.

The empire is built on the back of goblin slaves, the church stifles self-expression and makes life hell for sorcerers, and the military order's excursions often result in unintended civilian deaths.

So he destroys one of them. And the empire becomes a crazy quilt of warlords, the church's followers die of plague that could have been clerically cured, or a horde of demons descends on the land, no longer held back by the military order.

The antagonist is trying to help people, but he values freedom from outside control so highly that he can't acknowledge that institutions he's tearing down provide people with the freedom to live a normal life.

Since the OP's players lean chaotic, try to coax them into working with the relevant authorities, and seeing things from their perspective. Let them work within the system to make things better (of course this is DnD, so replace bureaucratic infighting with actual fighting). And then have the antagonist just. not. get. it. Play up his unwillingness to compromise or work with anyone he sees as corrupted by the system. In the end, he becomes a mirror of Miko, unable to see that their are places on the alignment spectrum beyond Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.

Coidzor
2012-03-25, 03:45 AM
Like how the lawful good villain tends to wear the trappings of a classic traditional hero, but is just a tyranical despot underneath it all.

You mean a villain which pretends to be lawful good, right? As soon as you're doing things that would necessitate the moniker tyrannical despot, one really can't retain a lawful good alignment by keeping with any kind of spirit of the alignment system, much less the letter. :smallconfused:

Lysander
2012-03-25, 03:59 AM
You know, good villains don't have to be misguided. They can just have diverging goals from the also-good protagonist.

For example, let's say there's a famine. One person wants to take the town's grain and use it to feed the children, because they are innocent and deserve a chance to live. Another person wants to use it to feed the farmhands, because he knows that the town needs as many capable able hands as possible to minimize the harm from the famine.

Neither is evil. Neither is wrong. They both know the pros and cons of both options, and just have different opinions on how to act.

So maybe the good villain is actually achieving something good, but he's not doing what the PCs think is the best course of action.

hamishspence
2012-03-25, 04:47 AM
Exemplars of Evil gave an example- someone who, being fiercely opposed to capital punishment, keeps jail breaking prisoners who are due to be executed. Unfortunately the prisoners are indeed guilty and habitual.

aldeayeah
2012-03-26, 11:25 AM
Hmmm... the idea I get when I think about a CG Big Bad is someone who wants to force a disruptive change on the world for the long-term good. And the characters, or everything that they hold dear, happen to be unfortunate but neccesary casualties.

In other words, I think they need to have a vision of a (real or delusional) omelette that needs some eggs to be broken.

They can also be some kind of well-meaning revolutionary who accidentally starts some kind of Terror, and sticks with it for one reason or another (typical reasons: a combination of hubris, naivety, self-preservation, and the belief that the Terror is better than the former situation).

Lysander
2012-03-26, 12:46 PM
Hmmm... the idea I get when I think about a CG Big Bad is someone who wants to force a disruptive change on the world for the long-term good. And the characters, or everything that they hold dear, happen to be unfortunate but neccesary casualties.

In other words, I think they need to have a vision of a (real or delusional) omelette that needs some eggs to be broken.

They can also be some kind of well-meaning revolutionary who accidentally starts some kind of Terror, and sticks with it for one reason or another (typical reasons: a combination of hubris, naivety, self-preservation, and the belief that the Terror is better than the former situation).

Ultimately I think a good villain that isn't misguided is more interesting that one that's just being an idiot. It's a better story if the PCs can understand the villain's perspective, and can appreciate its benefits before ultimately rejecting it for its drawbacks, rather than the good villain just having a dumb plan.

aldeayeah
2012-03-26, 12:58 PM
Yes, but the villain has to be delusional in some way, or at least have a "wrong" set of priorities (from the PC's perspective), else he's not the villain.

Asgardian
2012-03-26, 10:48 PM
Its all a matter of perspective

The story of Robin Hood could easily ne twisted a bit where Robin is the villain on the piece to some people.

I mean technically he came home, committed a crime (killing the Kings Deer) and willfully defied the rightful legal representatives of the area and robbed people.

Robin didnt know what all that money was going to be used for. Supposed some of it was actually going to be used to build and orphanage or something in another town.

Now the people of Nottingham were benefiting from Robins actions and loved him. But how about the people of the town that WONT be getting their orphanage now. they'd be pretty pissed..

Lysander
2012-03-26, 11:47 PM
Yes, but the villain has to be delusional in some way, or at least have a "wrong" set of priorities (from the PC's perspective), else he's not the villain.

True, but it's actually possible that objectively speaking the villain's plan is the greater good, but it negatively impacts the PCs in some way they won't tolerate.

For example, lets say the "villain" is trying to stop a powerful demonic army from reaching earth through a portal. He wants to blow up the inert portal before it can be activated, which will cause earthquakes and volcanic erruptions and destroy the PC's homeland. Objectively speaking it's the smart thing to do: destroy one kingdom rather than risk the entire world. But the PCs might prefer to find another method that preserves their homeland, even if it's less likely to succeed and puts the entire planet at risk.

CGforever!
2012-03-27, 04:46 AM
True, but it's actually possible that objectively speaking the villain's plan is the greater good, but it negatively impacts the PCs in some way they won't tolerate.

I'd prefer this as a DM.

Make the pcs choose between defeating the CG villain and dealing with the consequences or going the extra mile and finding a way to prevent both disasters.

aldeayeah
2012-03-27, 05:58 AM
That's all good and well if they don't take a third option and join the villain.

Personally, I'd only give that choice to a group I trust.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-27, 06:53 AM
Yes, but the villain has to be delusional in some way, or at least have a "wrong" set of priorities (from the PC's perspective), else he's not the villain.

Not necessarily.

Who was the villain at the end of The Watchmen: Rorshach, or Ozymandias?

The CG villain can be somebody who was simply able to make the uncomfortable decisions the PCs weren't willing to make. He can, in fact, be not only good, but aiming for the greatest good; it's just that the "best" option isn't necessarily the "safest" option.

Think of it from a utilitarian perspective; Mill or Bentham's interpretations both apply, depending on how you approach it. For example, using Mill's interpretation, you might find a CG enemy who is willing to go to any means (even large-scale destruction) in pursuit of the highest ideal of freedom, because the higher-quality good is worth any quantity of lesser goods, and is thus worth the sacrifice of any quantity of lesser goods therein. For example, the current order could be ... Serviceable ... And not altogether evil, but perhaps just ineffectual, and as a result, a lot of people are still suffering. Stripping the world of this order would be an ugly shift for a great many people, and a lot of people may die in the ensuing struggle, but in the end, the BBCGG hopes, a perfect order (perhaps an order-without-order, such as a true anarchy) will arise that will alleviate the suffering of all.

Problem is, the old order isn't altogether bad; you might even say it's good. It's just not the greatest good, and that's not good enough.

You may take a page from Karl Marx (or perhaps the Russian revolutions that it inspired) or Malcolm X, or even just rip a page from the Classical Philosophy 101 textbook and use that as inspiration.

hamishspence
2012-03-27, 08:08 AM
?

The CG villain can be somebody who was simply able to make the uncomfortable decisions the PCs weren't willing to make. He can, in fact, be not only good, but aiming for the greatest good; it's just that the "best" option isn't necessarily the "safest" option.


Problem being that when "aiming for the greatest good" involves "committing a huge number of D&D Evil acts along the way" a good alignment becomes harder to justify.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-27, 08:58 AM
Problem being that when "aiming for the greatest good" involves "committing a huge number of D&D Evil acts along the way" a good alignment becomes harder to justify.

Define "Evil".

Is fighting against a Lawful Good authority, with the purpose of deposing it, inherently evil in and of itself, because it is standing in opposition of an entity both Lawful and Good in nature?

If not (and to me, it sounds chaotic, but certainly not evil), then presumably, a charismatic, Chaotic Good fellow (or lady) can create a rebellion of the discontented masses, declare open war against the Lawful Good order which they seek to depose and replace, accept that, amidst the harsh realities of war, people are going to die whether it's a bad thing or not, and act accordingly. This may even lead to further courses of action, such as: in BBCGG's efforts to end the war as quickly and decisively as possible (perhaps to minimize losses?), s/he hears word about a powerful magic item, which the PCs also want for some (un?-)related reason. The BBCGG and the party are now competing for the same resource, which cannot be shared, meaning that the BBCGG now has good reason to involve him/herself in the PC's lives and try to remove them from his/her grand plan.

As far as the ethics of these actions are concerned, this is the premise of every Good-aligned adventurer in every game with a Good-aligned adventurer, ever, as well as a great many in history and classical fiction and fairy tales, so it's not entirely heard of for a Good-aligned character to kill to advance a greater cause. Hell, it is even allowed to kill other Good-aligned characters to do so; otherwise, it would be impossible to have a Good-aligned party member (like the three involved in the OP's party) to fight a Good-aligned enemy (like the BBCGG the OP was describing) without one or both falling into the deeper end of the alignment pool as a direct result. The OP's post relies on the basic premise that, at least sometimes, it's OK for a Good-aligned character to kill other Good-aligned characters (although his interpretation of "good" is a stretch at times), so I think we have no choice but to operate under that same assumption for this game.

I guess the question I have for you, then, is: exactly what "D&D Evil" acts do you envision somebody needing to commit in order to depose a mediocre regime in order to replace it with a better one? Or do you believe that in and of itself is questionable?

aldeayeah
2012-03-27, 09:00 AM
I was going to make a similar argument, i.e., D&D Ozymandias wouldn't be CG, but didn't want to start a sterile argument.

I think our differences in defining what a good CG villain is stem purely from our different ideas of what CG is.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-27, 09:28 AM
I was going to make a similar argument, i.e., D&D Ozymandias wouldn't be CG.

Of course not. He's probably Lawful Neutral, all told, so he couldn't be much further from Chaotic Good.

The point of that was that Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan, and the Silk Spectre agree with him at the end. He may have been their greatest villain, but when actually presented with the picture in its entirety, there was definitely not a schism between Ozymandias and the rest of the Watchmen present, barring Rorshach, of course; they all agreed with his priorities and his goals (if not his methodology), so when the master stroke actually came, the biggest problem they faced wasn't the enormity of Ozymandias' actions... But instead, the realization that they saw eye-to-eye with him. The villain doesn't need to have a "wrong" perspective to the rest of the PCs; in fact, some of the absolute best villains probably have the "right" perspective, moreso even than the PCs (once all the facts are on hand, at least).

That's where the "Good villain" part comes in. Say you have a Chaotic group that, while maybe not entirely happy with the way things are, are convinced that, at the very least, the current order is good enough that it doesn't merit a bloody revolution. I mean, there's poverty and crime in the outer margins of society, and these people need to be advocated for... But does that really need to happen at the expense of the entire power structure?

Enter "Good villain". He's also not happy with the way things are, but unlike your adventuring party, he's not at all convinced that this is "good enough", because he knows, either in his mind or from cold experience, that things can be better. He plans a revolution, and between his charismatic demeanor and just generally good ideas about how to run a nation, he gathers up a lot of followers. He may not have the military wherewithal or the support from higher up on the social ladder to have the necessary connections to manage a clean coup d'etat, so a longer revolution is a inevitability, one in which many people will die, as the harsh realities of war unfold--but this is a necessary evil in his mind, and he presses on. Perhaps in pursuit of some "master stroke" to help decisively end the revolution (this doesn't have to be an evil thing, either, in order to raise red flags for the party; it just has to be a shiny bauble that they also happen to want).

The party resents BBCGG for destabilizing a regime that wasn't altogether bad, because in their mind, "good" was "good enough". They may labor tirelessly through most of the campaign under the impression that suppressing this violent revolution is the necessary solution, because even for chaotic this is a bit much; or, they may not be directly involved with this nation at all, and they deal with the BBCGG peripherally, through "MacGuffin hunt" conflicts, with little idea of his greater scheme. Then, in the endgame, when all the cards are laid on the table, the PCs are faced with the inevitable conclusion: his ideas aren't just sound, but they really do sound better than the old way of things. The person they've been fighting all this time actually has the capacity within them to run a free and just state, and with just a little help, can end this revolution and put into effect this regime for the greater good of the people. He wasn't evil; he was just the one person who knew what everyone else needed before they did, who was daring enough to take the gamble to make it happen. Heck, some might even join him at the end. (Or, they could kill him and undo all his hard work, and his plans unfold after the fact. You know, the "bad ending".)

Does that sound chaotic? Yes. Evil? I think not. It shares the Ozymandias concept in that it's a character with a similar ideology and maybe even priorities than the PCs, who didn't do what the PCs wouldn't, so much as did what they didn't.

Lysander
2012-03-27, 09:44 AM
Also, the PCs don't necessarily need to be the ones trying to stop the violent overthrow. The PCs themselves could be the ones willing to kill people for the greater good, and the villain the one unwilling to compromise when it comes to harming the innocent.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-27, 09:47 AM
Also, the PCs don't necessarily need to be the ones trying to stop the violent overthrow. The PCs themselves could be the ones willing to kill people for the greater good, and the villain the one unwilling to compromise when it comes to harming the innocent.

Given how easy it usually is to point a group of PCs at something and get them to kill it, this is probably actually the likelier scenario.

hamishspence
2012-03-27, 10:04 AM
Define "Evil".


Murder tends to fit within the definition. 3 million murders (less for the comic version) is a whole lot. It seems to me that most legal systems would call those actions murder rather than "justifiable homicide"

as to when "killing to advance a greater cause" does not qualify as murder - that's trickier.

aldeayeah
2012-03-27, 11:21 AM
The point of that was that Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan, and the Silk Spectre agree with him at the end. He may have been their greatest villain, but when actually presented with the picture in its entirety, there was definitely not a schism between Ozymandias and the rest of the Watchmen present, barring Rorshach, of course; they all agreed with his priorities and his goals (if not his methodology), so when the master stroke actually came, the biggest problem they faced wasn't the enormity of Ozymandias' actions... But instead, the realization that they saw eye-to-eye with him.
That's just because by the time the others arrive, the crime is already done. And by that point, the least harmful course of action is to play along with the criminal.

If he hadn't already done it "thirty-five minutes ago", no amount of reasoning would have convinced the other characters -not just Rorschach- to not try and stop him.

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-27, 10:39 PM
Murder tends to fit within the definition. 3 million murders (less for the comic version) is a whole lot. It seems to me that most legal systems would call those actions murder rather than "justifiable homicide"

as to when "killing to advance a greater cause" does not qualify as murder - that's trickier.

I think we may have been talking about different things entirely.

I have no intention of justifying Ozymandias' actions as "D&D Good". The only point I meant to illustrate with him was that it's okay for the heroes to agree with the villain, or to realize that, once his plan is in effect, there is no superior alternative than to let it happen.


That's just because by the time the others arrive, the crime is already done. And by that point, the least harmful course of action is to play along with the criminal.

If he hadn't already done it "thirty-five minutes ago", no amount of reasoning would have convinced the other characters -not just Rorschach- to not try and stop him.

If you'd like, we could stop using "villain" in such abstract terms, and I could revise my original question to:

At the end of The Watchmen, who represents a greater threat to the peace and stability of the human race: Ozymandias, or Rorshach?

If you can make the PCs believe that the most sensible option after all the cards are on the table is to fold, then the person who goes all-in becomes the new villain. It doesn't matter if they're bluffing, because nobody else can afford to take that risk.

Does that sound more appropriate?

kieza
2012-03-27, 11:26 PM
because the higher-quality good is worth any quantity of lesser goods, and is thus worth the sacrifice of any quantity of lesser goods therein.

Speaking as a political economist, lexicographic preferences make it extremely difficult to define an appropriate social utility function. If the higher-quality good is worth an arbitrarily high amount of the lesser good, it makes more sense.

Aside from that, though, this is a good idea that keeps coming up in various forms: the CG villain has a plan that yields great long term goals (anarchic utopia) but has very high transition costs (chaos and bloodshed for 10+ years, let's say) and may also be an uncertain outcome.

More economist-speak: either the villain is highly risk-seeking, has information unavailable to society at large, or he has a higher discount factor for future periods.

One of the reasons I like utilitarian villains is that they're great for getting players to be proactive. I once had a group who ran into a villain kind of like this, except closer to Neutral Good. He was running a nasty, bloody revolution against a LN oligarchy, because he'd tried and failed to cause change from within. The players realized they kind of liked him, and so rather than go after him, they threw their resources into setting up a coup d'etat, and once they found a weak point and laid some of the groundwork, they showed it to the revolutionary and managed to win him over. You might be able to set up a similar situation with your group.

Morithias
2012-03-27, 11:45 PM
This is a tiny bit off topic, but I feel it could work.

This is a concept for a new campaign I want to try called "Adventurer of the Demon king!"

Your adventuring group is a group of adventurers who are travelling the world with a childhood friend...and she happens to be the future Demon King, who if she should ever resurrect her full power, she will turn evil, unite the abyss, and proceed to conquer/destroy all of reality.

Now she doesn't want to be the future Demon king, and can resist it's effects with certain foods, certain spells, and other such devices, but they are only temporary.

Also she is nigh invulnerable, you need to use exalted magic, and holy damage to even harm her, but this doesn't stop adventurers from attacking you.

As you travel, people hear of the Demon king, and out of fear that she's going to destroy reality, attack you and your party. They're good people, and they just see her (your childhood friend and potential love interest) as too high of risk.

It falls into a harsh reality. A lot of the enemies your group face, don't have bad goals, or even ones that could be considered misguided. It's an old philosophical debate, one made worse with the existence of divination magic existing. Your enemies are doing the very thing that many D&D groups do in every other campaign. Van Hellsing hate crimes. She's a future demon lord therefore she must die, that is their justification.

The difference is you're now seeing it from the other side.

Also try this with your players, have them all play drow, or druger, or those evil halflings and humans from the book of vile darkness, but with good alignments. Then have them be the victim of being attacked by Paladins and "good" adventurers doing what are basically hate crimes.

They'll double think about sparing your villain's life next campaign, especially if they had a decent and sympathetic motivation. The best campaigns are the ones that makes your players grow as players.

willpell
2012-03-28, 01:35 AM
I love the future demon king (queen) idea a lot. I may steal it.


Also try this with your players, have them all play drow, or druger, or those evil halflings and humans from the book of vile darkness, but with good alignments. Then have them be the victim of being attacked by Paladins and "good" adventurers doing what are basically hate crimes.

Unlike the drow and duergar, who are adapted to life in the Underdark by having dark skin and light sensitivity, there's nothing indicating that the Vasharan or Jerren are any different-looking from standard humans or halflings. Not only would this mean there'd be no way of identifying them other than to Detect Evil, which wouldn't work if they weren't evil, but it'd mean a good Vasharan is really just an ordinary human and a good Jerren is really just an ordinary halfling (except the Vasharan's bonus feat has to be Vile, which pretty much precludes them being Good since Vile things are pretty much all defiling awfulness that would make you evil if you weren't already, or such is what I recall of them).

Now if Vasharans do look different from humans, then this works - except that basically you've just created garden variety racism. (Arguably the same is true of Jerren, as halflings being nonhuman is something of a hairsplit; the system doesn't treat them as human but from a fluff perspective they might be little more than a subrace descended from "little people" that has evolved to the point of acquiring its own set of racial traits and a patron goddess and such. The elongated skull, pointyish ears and hairy feet of can-we-call-them-hobbits-yet are not so far outside the range of what genetic adaptation can do to the human body that it's impossible to believe a human descent, and I don't recall them having a much longer lifespan, unlike elves and dwarves who are pretty thoroughly ruled out as ex-humans just by virtue of living for centuries as a default.)

Morithias
2012-03-28, 01:42 AM
I love the future demon king (queen) idea a lot. I may steal it.

I stole it as well. From Sengoku Rance (videogame, NSFW to google).

As for your other point....I'm not sure if they look different or not, but you get the point!

Oh! Another campaign idea I had is that a group of well-trained and good-aligned teamwork oriented heroes, who although being heroes can't find permanent homes for long due to what they are..

They are a team of legion devils that ran away from hell after deciding it wasn't worth their time to keep fighting for the devils.

I imagine a lot of CG people would attack that group at least at first.

hamishspence
2012-03-28, 06:00 AM
I have no intention of justifying Ozymandias' actions as "D&D Good". The only point I meant to illustrate with him was that it's okay for the heroes to agree with the villain, or to realize that, once his plan is in effect, there is no superior alternative than to let it happen.

I thought it was more a justification for either "His actions are D&D Not Evil" or "His alignment is D&D Not Evil"


Of course not. He's probably Lawful Neutral, all told, so he couldn't be much further from Chaotic Good.

Since I tend to place more weight on actions than intentions, I have less of a problem with the idea "the evil guy had a plan to Save The World- and it worked"- or "the guy began Good, was corrupted by his actions, to Evil- but never lost sight of his goal".

Lonely Tylenol
2012-03-28, 06:12 AM
I thought it was more a justification for either "His actions are D&D Not Evil" or "His alignment is D&D Not Evil"

Nope; it was neither. The sentence asking who, between Ozymandias and Rorschach, was the villain, was a self-contained unit; what followed was intended to be just a general statement about Chaotic Good villains out for the "greater good", and was only tangentially related in that the Ozymandias hypothetical was a lead-in.


Since I tend to place more weight on actions than intentions, I have less of a problem with the idea "the evil guy had a plan to Save The World- and it worked"- or "the guy began Good, was corrupted by his actions, to Evil- but never lost sight of his goal".

I place more weight on intentions than actions, but that difference is subjective.