Can a good guy take over the world?

[CIDE]

Alright, so I had an idea that game to me in a sleep-deprived stupor that's been bugging me ever since. I've seen plenty of ideas on how an evil character could take over the world, topple governments, etc. Easy-peasy with ideas being dime a dozen on how to accomplish the task with varying degrees of difficulty.

What about a good guy? I'm not just talking about the methods on how a good guy could effectively take over a world, continent, or even just an individual kingdom/city-state/etc. I'm asking about the morality of it all. Could an idealist do it while still remaining--at least to whatever code that they follow-- remain a good guy? And what if the system they're trying to take over and replace isn't inherently evil or even ruled by evil individuals; but it's still ****ed up to the point of widespread suffering and such?

I know we'd be getting into some gray RAI areas here as well as people's (very much welcomed) opinions on the topic. I just want to have a civil discussion on this.

[shadow_archmagi]

Good rule would inherently require the consent of the governed, I'd think. Can't so much take over as be chosen to rule, which is only really possible in a democracy or via the use of legends (IE: King Arthur.) For seizing power to be moral, you'd have to have an objectively immoral system.

[weckar]

He'd probably have to be Lawful. If he honestly thinks he can mandate a code of rules and methods that will improve the world, he could do it.

[AMFV]

Good rule would inherently require the consent of the governed, I'd think. Can't so much take over as be chosen to rule, which is only really possible in a democracy or via the use of legends (IE: King Arthur.) For seizing power to be moral, you'd have to have an objectively immoral system.

That's not necessarily true, D&D does not equate goodness with freedom, that would be Chaos. It would be possible for a lawful person to take over the world. Although the kind of politics that would require might make a good alignment difficult to maintain.

Additionally there is some significant debate over whether that's always good in the real world.

[LordConcrete]

I feel that maybe at first they'll be a good guy.
But eventually fall.

[jedipilot24]

Read some Dragonlance. The Kingpriests of Paladine (Bahamut) tried to do this and it ultimately backfired; badly.
They were genuinely good people but what started as crusades against evil became crusades against anyone disagreed with them, even if they weren't evil.
By the time of the Cataclysm the Kingpriest was paranoid, delusional and a bit of a megalomaniac--but still a good person.

[Red Fel]

Alright, so I had an idea that game to me in a sleep-deprived stupor that's been bugging me ever since. I've seen plenty of ideas on how an evil character could take over the world, topple governments, etc. Easy-peasy with ideas being dime a dozen on how to accomplish the task with varying degrees of difficulty.

What about a good guy? I'm not just talking about the methods on how a good guy could effectively take over a world, continent, or even just an individual kingdom/city-state/etc. I'm asking about the morality of it all. Could an idealist do it while still remaining--at least to whatever code that they follow-- remain a good guy? And what if the system they're trying to take over and replace isn't inherently evil or even ruled by evil individuals; but it's still ****ed up to the point of widespread suffering and such?

I know we'd be getting into some gray RAI areas here as well as people's (very much welcomed) opinions on the topic. I just want to have a civil discussion on this.

Surprisingly easily. In fact, it fits the profile. In particular, an LG character could take over the world, because that specific alignment combination is inclined towards "Goodness" and "Order."

A Good character would likely take over the world by merit, rather than by scheming. That is, he would earn it. The easiest way is to start locally. Become the hero of the town by going good and protecting the village from bandits, etc. (Some of you might recognize some of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16498238&postcount=2). That's because it works.) In time, the neighborhood hero might earn the attention of the capital, where he might either enlist in the King's army, or in the holy order of the Church of Somebodyorother. In either office, our hero will continue to excel, fighting evil where it can be found, protecting the weak, paying for lunch, and helping little old ladies across the street. He will rise in the ranks, becoming a General or a high-ranking Church official.

If he pursues a military career, it won't be long before the adoring public demands that he receive honors. He will likely wed a noble, becoming a noble himself. His battlefield will change from one of swords to one of treaties - he will become a diplomat, representing his people proudly, spreading peace between kingdoms. He will, of course, rally to the defense of his kingdom in times of war, crushing evil lands and allying with good ones. Over time, his legacy and his kingdom will spread. His reputation as a just and fair ruler will spur smaller lands to seek annexation into his kingdom. As his holdings grow, so too will his influence. Kingdoms, either out of fear or respect, may join his growing empire, or at least seek peace. It won't be long before his kingdom controls the continent, and all because he was a good soldier, a just ruler and a man of peace.

If he pursues a Church career, he won't be seeking control of the world through the power of the throne. He won't wish to control the lands, but to control the hearts of the people. In his new role as a high official of the Church, he will spread a new message of warmth and tolerance, coupled with the Church's unyielding war on the evils of the world. This is not only a war against evil people, but against suffering, tyranny and despair. Thanks to his influence, new Churches will spring up in every major city, and even the smaller towns will enjoy itinerant friars. The Church of Somebody will become the predominant faith in the world, influencing the great leaders and merchants and even warriors. And thanks to our hero's influence, he will be elevated to the role of Archbishop (or Pope or Grand Poobah or whatever) of the Church, prepared to lead the entire world into a new era of enlightenment and compassion.

It's not nearly as exciting (or as easy) as doing it through evil, but being a good guy who controls the world can be done, and in a very satisfying way. Most importantly, it is not only morally acceptable, but it is almost an imperative. Strongly Good characters feel a desire to create more Good in the world. Sometimes the best way to do that is from the top. Rising to high post on your merits, then using that position to create more Good, is precisely what I would expect from a very Good (especially Exalted!) character.

[Luciandevine]

It does seem morally possible for a good, or at least lawful, person to take over the world. As long as the people you currently govern aren't being significantly oppressed, and the people in the other kingdoms that you claim, for whatever reason, are okay with it, it seems viable.

An example would be you having spies in neighboring kingdoms, spies that simply observe, rather than manipulate. When you find a kingdom whose people are unhappy with their ruler, and hoping for a change, it seems reasonable that they wouldn't oppose you if you tried to take over, so long as you treated them fairly, or at least fair enough, lol.

[CIDE]

Damn, I wasn't expecting so many answers so quickly. I love it.

In my own opinion I'm not sure the law-chaos axis on the alignment scale really matters so much. Sure, it'd decide the reasons a character may attempt to take over anything and what would be left after they accomplished the task; but I could see a chaotic or neutral good character doing it just as much as a lawful good character. The Lawful Good character would just be a hell of a lot easier to justify for much simpler or easier reasons.

The chaotic character may see a lawful kingdom/empire/whatever as something that is slowly stagnating. Something that would choke itself out and die rather than flourish or help the world and may instead prefer something more akin to say communism instead. I'm not saying communism is better or anything. It's just an example here and depending on how it's done could still allow chaotic-aligned characters to enjoy it and flourish.

Also, into the morally gray area now. The likelihood of good-aligned organizations or individuals that may see our hypothetical good guy as a bad guy. Entirely possible and full of its own forms of opposition on top of the traditional bad guy wanting to get in the way.

Finally, aside from Fel's awesome example (I read your evil version too) what are some ways to mechanically do it? Leadership I think goes without saying but short of leadership or diplomancer cheese I'm not seeing how say...a RAW Paladin could really do this. Or, it could be a figurative take-over while the existing churchs and governments still have "official" power but the people may be far more likely to rally behind our hypothetical good guy. It all works the same.

I just love the idea to switch it up from the evil guy.

[weckar]

CIDE, somehow you only seem to be considering HOSTILE takeovers, which would definitely not be the most likely method for a good character.

[JoshuaZ]

“World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation.” -Harry James Potter Evans-Verres in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality).

This is going to reflect much more what you mean by good than anything substantial.

[Astral Avenger]

Its not world domination, its world optimization... (http://hpmor.com/chapter/6)

[Slipperychicken]

Good luck taking over a planet while maintaining your alignment.

Here's my shameless self-plug list of evil acts, compiled from BoVD and BoED. I wrote it for Paladins, so just bear in mind that lying isn't necessarily evil. (Edit: Of special note is "bullying or cowing innocents" which involves political, physical, and magical coercion)


So far, I've got: Book of Vile Darkness Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it. Cheating (pg 7) Theft (pg 7) Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional. Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure. Vengeance (pg 8)- not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts. Worshipping Evil Gods and Demons (pg 8) Animating or Creating Undead (pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because of negative energy. Casting Evil Spells (pg 8) Damning or Harming Souls (pg 8) Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes: Allowing Fiends to exist* Selling one's soul to Fiends Summoning a Fiend Helping Fiends Creating Evil Creatures (pg 9) Allowing Evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image" Using others for Personal Gain (pg 9) Sacrificing another for a boon Greed (pg 9)- Although not an Evil Act in and of itself (it's not an act at all, but a motivation), it can easily lead to Evil Acts. Bullying or Cowing Innocents (pg 9)- Includes use of political and magical power in coercion, as well as physical power. Bringing Despair (pg 9) Tempting Others to do Wrong(pg 9) Tapping into Evil Power (pg 77)- Regardless of effects or reason for it, it's Evil. Period. This one's really broad, covering any Evil (Ex)traordinary, natural (when there's no tag), (Su)pernatural, (Sp)ell-like, and so on. Book of Exalted Deeds Forcing Anyone to Commit an Evil Act (pg 10) Using a Poison that Deals Ability Damage (pg 34) Using Drow knockout-poison is not evil. Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37) Committing Murder for Money (pg 73) Notes: "In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil. *Note: Although it is not explicitly stated, you could make the argument that a Paladin doesn't allow Fiends to exist in the same sense that a police department doesn't allow illegal drug deals to exist: it does its best to combat them, and by no means approves of their existence, but eliminating them entirely is too impractical to consider If any of you have a partial or complete list of Evil Acts, post it here, along with source and page number, and I'll update the list.
So yeah, you should be fine by RAW if you don't do this stuff too much. As I said before, good luck :smallbiggrin:

[BWR]

The Harmonium did that on their home world of Ortho. Granted, the H aren't nicnamed 'Hardheads' for nothing and they have a tendency to slip towards LN rather than LG, but I still think that counts.

[Blightedmarsh]

Killing in battle isn't inherently evil

I wouldn't have any sort of problem with a lawful good character engaging in aggressive wars against and conquering legitimate good nations. I wouldn't have a problem with such a character doing this to every nation between him and the sea for the sole reason of personal glory.

The proviso is that he has to follow a decent code of conduct. Offering cities reasonable terms of surrender and not sacking them, taking prisoners, not killing diplomats and civilians ectra.

[FinnDarkblade]

Another example of a good character with ambitions of domination would be Queen Aurala ir'Wynarn from Eberron. Granted, Eberron plays a bit loose with alignments, but she is Neutral Good, her people love her, she rules well, and she does want to take over the rest of Khorvaire.

[Brookshw]

Good luck taking over a planet while maintaining your alignment.

Here's my shameless self-plug list of evil acts, compiled from BoVD and BoED. I wrote it for Paladins, so just bear in mind that lying isn't necessarily evil. (Edit: Of special note is "bullying or cowing innocents" which involves political, physical, and magical coercion)


So yeah, you should be fine by RAW if you don't do this stuff too much. As I said before, good luck :smallbiggrin:

Nice list! I haven't read boed in a while so let me ask, its specifically killing good creatures to harvest them for their organs? Not any creature?

[FinnDarkblade]

Nice list! I haven't read boed in a while so let me ask, its specifically killing good creatures to harvest them for their organs? Not any creature?

If it was any creature then that would include regular animals, which would make every hunter in D&D an evil being. And in the standard fantasy setting's usual time period, hunting was one of the peasantry's main methods of obtaining food.

[Slipperychicken]

Nice list! I haven't read boed in a while so let me ask, its specifically killing good creatures to harvest them for their organs? Not any creature?

That's right, you can check BoED yourself, I even put in a page number so you can check my work. Bear in mind however, that killing normal people for their organs would likely count as Murder.

Animals don't get alignments (as they are incapable of moral choice), and are not sentient, so hunting them (whether for survival or sport) is not an evil act in dnd 3.5. You might trigger other evil acts like torture (covered by Bringing Despair IIRC, although BoVD also calls it out in the torture chapter) if you inflict too much needless suffering.

[CIDE]

CIDE, somehow you only seem to be considering HOSTILE takeovers, which would definitely not be the most likely method for a good character.

True, because this is the more morally questionable one and mechanically more difficult one. Through politics or just being such a good guy I think is much easier (diplomancer/leadership/whatever else shenanigans and such) rather than a more traditional takeover. I'm very much open to discussion on other methods for it if there's something newish about it.


“World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation.” -Harry James Potter Evans-Verres in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality).

This is going to reflect much more what you mean by good than anything substantial.

I like that.


Good luck taking over a planet while maintaining your alignment.

Here's my shameless self-plug list of evil acts, compiled from BoVD and BoED. I wrote it for Paladins, so just bear in mind that lying isn't necessarily evil. (Edit: Of special note is "bullying or cowing innocents" which involves political, physical, and magical coercion)


So yeah, you should be fine by RAW if you don't do this stuff too much. As I said before, good luck :smallbiggrin:

I take the BoED and BoVD and their alignment stuff with a grain of salt, though. Some of it's just...no. Especially the sections in your notes and the bolded line. I can't agree to that and neither does almost any DM I've ever played with.


Killing in battle isn't inherently evil

I wouldn't have any sort of problem with a lawful good character engaging in aggressive wars against and conquering legitimate good nations. I wouldn't have a problem with such a character doing this to every nation between him and the sea for the sole reason of personal glory.

The proviso is that he has to follow a decent code of conduct. Offering cities reasonable terms of surrender and not sacking them, taking prisoners, not killing diplomats and civilians ectra.

I could get on board with that except the personal glory bit. That's selfish in my mind.

[Slipperychicken]

I take the BoED and BoVD and their alignment stuff with a grain of salt, though. Some of it's just...no. Especially the sections in your notes and the bolded line. I can't agree to that and neither does almost any DM I've ever played with.


Ehh. It's not that bad if you remember that a even a good person can do an evil act and maintain his alignment. Neutral people do evil acts too, just not often enough (or they lack the evil mindset and motives) to make them Evil.

I still think alignment itself is hogwash though, and most dnd games would be well-served by its removal. It just doesn't jive with the subjective nature of morality.

[MonochromeTiger]

Ehh. It's not that bad if you remember that a even a good person can do an evil act and maintain his alignment. Neutral people do evil acts too, just not often enough (or they lack the evil mindset and motives) to make them Evil.

I still think alignment itself is hogwash though, and most dnd games would be well-served by its removal. It just doesn't jive with the subjective nature of morality.

oh agreed, as long as alignment is in a game my group actively has a view of "if we think our character is good they're likely neutral and if we think they're neutral they're probably evil...at best". it doesn't mean a good character can't happen it's just that in an RPG with written views of good and evil it's nigh impossible to play a truly good character because someone will have decided "well anything enjoyable is an immoral and evil act, it doesn't matter if you're absolutely selfless or kind that demon said hi to you you're now evil".

that said, there are actually a huge number of stories where a "good" character manages to rule the world, sure most of them are children stories but the fact that they're there means a precedent exists for "hero defeats the villain and rules the land in peace and happiness"...even if that precedent does make my love of evil want to slap a storyteller senseless.

[Blightedmarsh]

Good people aren't obliged to get along, they don't have to be selfless or kind or even particularly nice.

One can be benevolent and kind king who never the less systematically crushes any sign of descent or unrest. He is the king; he rules by divine right. Anyone who opposes him opposes the gods and is therefor evil; QED

He conquers his neighbors at the first sign of weakness. He is a good king and therefore doing their people a favor by bringing them under his benevolent rule.

[Slipperychicken]

One can be benevolent and kind king who never the less systematically crushes any sign of descent or unrest. He is the king; he rules by divine right. Anyone who opposes him opposes the gods and is therefor evil; QED

He conquers his neighbors at the first sign of weakness. He is a good king and therefore doing their people a favor by bringing them under his benevolent rule.

Someone's been reading a bit too much Hobbes, eh?

Most interpretations of "crush any sign of dissent or unrest" fall under Cowing Innocents, which is an evil act. Also, not only is the dnd pantheon fallible, but they aren't always good either (and even the good dieties sometimes act like jerks. See the Burning Hate for a satyrical example).

[MonochromeTiger]

Good people aren't obliged to get along, they don't have to be selfless or kind or even particularly nice.

One can be benevolent and kind king who never the less systematically crushes any sign of descent or unrest. He is the king; he rules by divine right. Anyone who opposes him opposes the gods and is therefor evil; QED

He conquers his neighbors at the first sign of weakness. He is a good king and therefore doing their people a favor by bringing them under his benevolent rule.

ah the self justifications of a neutral monarch. edit: did I say neutral I mean "lololol-evil conqueror"

[Wings of Peace]

My gut answer is yes BUT the character would have to genuinely believe that all the bad things they are doing in the process are bettering the world.

[killem2]

I think so, but I wouldn't call it taking over the world. He would probably have to be some sort of long living being who is ace at diplomacy and convert everyone that he can to vote for him.

[Metahuman1]

If the system is strongly Lawful/True Neutral and hurting people, the Chaotic Good character has a very easy ability to justify fighting it, bringing it down, and replacing it with a less restrictive system that he helms, not cause he wants the power, but cause he's yet to find someone else he'd be willing to trust with it.

Let alone if it's any Evil.

[Wings of Peace]

After some thought I've changed my mind. A good character who focused on business tactics such as using magic to produce goods cheaper and faster, manipulating prices by flooding localized markets with cheap goods to drive down prices, and non-compete trade agreements in allied kingdoms, could probably create a monopoly that ends with them owning everything unless there's some sort of wizard trade federation to keep watch. Violence would only be used in retaliation to people ransacking your businesses.

[Eldariel]

I mean, an extreme case of Chaotic Good could see all order as stifling of peoples' freedom and thus want to entirely deconstruct the society as we know it and try to promote personal freedom to the only value. And of course he'd love for everybody to agree with him and if he genuinely believes it's the only way, he could even use fairly strong methods to try and achieve that, perversely robbing people of the very freedom he's fighting for.

Remember, alignment does not mean a person's logic is foolproof or that he can't be mistaken about matters related to values. It also does not directly pertain to sanity or mental health; a Good character who goes insane can still be Good. Most characters in an active medieval life likely lack the time to construct extremely indepth philosophical insights on their views, the possible flaws there-in and so on. That doen't mean 99% of people are incapable of being Good.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd say it's possible but it'd be deuced difficult to accomplish without an alignment shift, nevermind more difficult than it would be for an evil would-be ruler.

You have to observe the core tenets of good with minimal transgressions and taking and maintaining control of large swaths of land and people demands a lawful mindset.

Seizing control of a neighboring land would have to be done with ruthless efficiency on the battlefield but unending mercy for the civilian populace. Reasonable terms of surrender would need to be offered at every opportunity.

It'd be .... very demanding of the leader trying to accomplish this, nevermind the normal logistics and morale issues inherent in running any military operation.

The hardest part would be properly utilizing covert operatives. Observation and sabotage are difficult enough without having to worry about going out of the way to ensure civilian safety.

Realistically, it's only possible in the most technical of senses. Practically, it's virtually impossible.

[CIDE]

Ehh. It's not that bad if you remember that a even a good person can do an evil act and maintain his alignment. Neutral people do evil acts too, just not often enough (or they lack the evil mindset and motives) to make them Evil.

I still think alignment itself is hogwash though, and most dnd games would be well-served by its removal. It just doesn't jive with the subjective nature of morality.

My tabletop group follows a more karma based system and almost entirely throws alignment out. Even then there's still the concept of a "good guy" or a "bad guy" in the system. More often than not the "bad guy" doesn't last long in the party though.

This discussion wasn't entirely based around a character to play either. I just thought it'd be a good topic to get the wheels turning. I doubt I'd ever have a chance to play this out anyway.


My gut answer is yes BUT the character would have to genuinely believe that all the bad things they are doing in the process are bettering the world.

The worst part is that I could believe a few of the world's worst leaders may have possibly been thinking the same thing.


If the system is strongly Lawful/True Neutral and hurting people, the Chaotic Good character has a very easy ability to justify fighting it, bringing it down, and replacing it with a less restrictive system that he helms, not cause he wants the power, but cause he's yet to find someone else he'd be willing to trust with it.

Let alone if it's any Evil.

I really like this one.


After some thought I've changed my mind. A good character who focused on business tactics such as using magic to produce goods cheaper and faster, manipulating prices by flooding localized markets with cheap goods to drive down prices, and non-compete trade agreements in allied kingdoms, could probably create a monopoly that ends with them owning everything unless there's some sort of wizard trade federation to keep watch. Violence would only be used in retaliation to people ransacking your businesses.

I never thought of the economic method of doing it. Hey, a good Artificer or a level 12+ Warlock (with the right feats or chameleon dip) could really take advantage of this with even the most expensive magic items. Doesn't the Warlock build them for free? He could sell them for virtually nothing and put everything else out if he can keep up with supply and demand. But hey, I guess that's what Ice Assassin or if high enough level simulcarum is for.

I'm not sure a D&D world could do this with purely mundane equipment.

[Coidzor]

Read some Dragonlance. The Kingpriests of Paladine (Bahamut) tried to do this and it ultimately backfired; badly.
They were genuinely good people but what started as crusades against evil became crusades against anyone disagreed with them, even if they weren't evil.
By the time of the Cataclysm the Kingpriest was paranoid, delusional and a bit of a megalomaniac--but still a good person.

As I recall, he was only "good" because of authorial fiat and the actual reason for the cataclysm was that he was too successful at purging evil in a setting which is predicated upon the necessity of Evil because of reasons which are never adequately explained.

[MonochromeTiger]

As I recall, he was only "good" because of authorial fiat and the actual reason for the cataclysm was that he was too successful at purging evil in a setting which is predicated upon the necessity of Evil because of reasons which are never adequately explained.

it is a well known rule of reality that without us evil aligned people the "good guys" have nothing to crusade against to make themselves feel better. life is also more boring in general....that's right...evil makes the world go in a constantly spinning orbit around a gigantic plasma ball in the sky.

[Metahuman1]

it is a well known rule of reality that without us evil aligned people the "good guys" have nothing to crusade against to make themselves feel better. life is also more boring in general....that's right...evil makes the world go in a constantly spinning orbit around a gigantic plasma ball in the sky.

I'm more fond of the eastern version.

"Shadow cannon exist with out light, but Light cannot exist with out shadow, both are intertwined, and neither can ever truly destroy the other. "

[Coidzor]

What about a good guy? I'm not just talking about the methods on how a good guy could effectively take over a world, continent, or even just an individual kingdom/city-state/etc. I'm asking about the morality of it all. Could an idealist do it while still remaining--at least to whatever code that they follow-- remain a good guy? And what if the system they're trying to take over and replace isn't inherently evil or even ruled by evil individuals; but it's still ****ed up to the point of widespread suffering and such?

I know we'd be getting into some gray RAI areas here as well as people's (very much welcomed) opinions on the topic. I just want to have a civil discussion on this.

Depends on the time scale you have to work on. If you've got all the time in the world you can afford to never be the one who declares war, but still capitalize on the weaknesses of other states, establishing protectorates over territory they're no longer able to defend against monsters and evil states that are eventually absorbed into one nation or confederation of nations, having pet bloodlines of kings that are raised and paired to promote cultural unity between their nations until they're readily absorbed into a greater whole... Liberating vast tracts of lands from warlords and despots, bringing stability, prosperity, and peace so that of course the people in those territories will want to continue to be under your protection...

If you wait long enough there'll always be some crisis needing adventurers to deal with to provide justification for putting a territory under one's protection, or a succession crisis where you're afforded the opportunity to get your candidate on the throne, married to the spouse you've selected for them and raising their heir in the way you find most advantageous until you've successfully unified the kingdoms or just gotten one's self declared heir at one point.

Carving territory out of the wilderness is also a good way to gain prestige and potentially lead to fights due to others trying to lay claim to lands which have been made useful and secure, which, of course, will afford the opportunity to gain further territory.

Now, if they're looking to change things for the better in the short term and they can't reform the existing system, that's tougher. Partially it depends upon whether they've got a nucleus of a state themselves or if they're basically just an individual or part of an organization that's going to try revolution to overthrow the current, not-really overtly evil but still complicit in suffering and oppression regime. Pretty sure you don't have to be Neutral-to-Evil to be a Revolutionary, so that'd work.

Unprovoked war to take over a mismanaged state is harder to justify, though if they're completely incompetent and the situation is getting out of control, one could certainly step in and de facto take control of the state, though one would be better served putting in a friendly government than absorbing the territory or making it a puppet state without the situation being just right for either.

[tomandtish]

Read some Dragonlance. The Kingpriests of Paladine (Bahamut) tried to do this and it ultimately backfired; badly.
They were genuinely good people but what started as crusades against evil became crusades against anyone disagreed with them, even if they weren't evil.
By the time of the Cataclysm the Kingpriest was paranoid, delusional and a bit of a megalomaniac--but still a good person.

Remember that during the Night of Doom, all true clerics left the land (occurred before the Cataclysm). At that point, no cleric were being granted powers. I've never seen stats on the King Priest at the time of the Cataclysm itself, but there's certainly circumstantial evidence that he was no longer good aligned (whatever he may have thought). Remember, by the end he was targeting followers of other good gods as well.

It would be extremely difficult to do it without losing the good alignment (IMO), and would probably require some indication of worse consequences for everyone if you didn't. Even then, I'm not sure it would work.

[Metahuman1]

The worst part is that I could believe a few of the world's worst leaders may have possibly been thinking the same thing.

I really like this one.



Your probably right on at least some of them, but I'll leave it there to avoid breaking forum rules.

That said, yeah, what better set up then to simply take out a horrible bureaucracy/evil dictatorship as a good aligned person who strongly believes in the individual and personal freedom as well as goodness.

Your not risking a fall to evil, you REALLY are playing your alignment.

[Marcelinari]

I think that one might very well be able to take over the world whilst remaining Good. The closest real-life example I can think of would be Augustus Caesar, and honestly that's a terrible example, but his public methods and justifications, if taken literally, would make for a Good ruler.

Imagine - the country is in chaos, in civil war. The government is shot all to hell, the most powerful generals are vying for control. What is one to do, for the good of the state? Marshal your armies, seize control of the government, and fix everything. It may not be constitutional, but it's the best way to save as many lives as possible.

Now you have defeated your enemies, the state is at peace, and everything is working harmoniously. However, last time there wasn't a strong leader in control, everything went to hell, and you have proved yourself to be a benevolent monarch, so you should just stay in control, just in case. You can even reinstate the constitution, but there need to be alterations made, just in case something terrible happens again.

This is where we depart from any semblance of Augustus.

Now your neighbours, they're a strange bunch. They're not evil, per se - there's no slavery or rampant executions going on, but they seem to be unusually harsh in their tax laws, and they are such a heavily stratified society that an awful lot of people are living in abject poverty. Now, in your country, everyone's doing just fine. Sure, some people make more than others, and some people made pretty bad business ventures and are down on their luck, but the state keeps them housed and fed, at least, so they've got that going for them.

Your neighbours simply won't see it your way, however - they're convinced that everything is fine, and it looks like they're incapable of even seeing the disparity in their culture. It'd be best if you organized some sort of governmental takeover and reorganized everything in a more equitable manner. You can be trusted, right? I mean, you fixed your own country, and 'it's not my business' is hardly an excuse that a paladin would accept, so you should try and make things better for everyone.

Rinse and repeat. Every culture has things that a 'Good' person might find objectionable, and eventually the goal becomes 'if every country was united under my rule, there would never be a threat of war ever again!'. All done with good intentions.

[Wings of Peace]

I'm not sure a D&D world could do this with purely mundane equipment.

Even if you couldn't replicate mundane equipment easily it doesn't really matter. You don't need absolute control over every market you just need control over every market that matters.

As an example, lets assume you're correct and we can't easily make purely mundane equipment. That's fine, we'll just introduce absurdly cheap magic item equivalents into wherever your next target is. Unless the population has begun boycotting your goods they will most likely make the switch to your magic equipment because as consumers it will be in their best interest.


Edit:
Obviously this will make the manufacturers of mundane and magical goods upset so you'll approach those people first and offer to buy them out whenever beneficial to reduce the odds of people boycotting your goods.

In this thought exercise you have made yourself the ultimate producer of goods. So long as no one employs identical methods to yours there is very little reason why you shouldn't be able to dominate most markets as long as you're systematic.

[Pickford]

CIDE:

Alright, so I had an idea that game to me in a sleep-deprived stupor that's been bugging me ever since. I've seen plenty of ideas on how an evil character could take over the world, topple governments, etc. Easy-peasy with ideas being dime a dozen on how to accomplish the task with varying degrees of difficulty.

What about a good guy? I'm not just talking about the methods on how a good guy could effectively take over a world, continent, or even just an individual kingdom/city-state/etc. I'm asking about the morality of it all. Could an idealist do it while still remaining--at least to whatever code that they follow-- remain a good guy? And what if the system they're trying to take over and replace isn't inherently evil or even ruled by evil individuals; but it's still ****ed up to the point of widespread suffering and such?

I know we'd be getting into some gray RAI areas here as well as people's (very much welcomed) opinions on the topic. I just want to have a civil discussion on this.

Yes. (Too little?) There's no morality at all. All types of Good characters would either take over the world incidentally (i.e. they eventually become a ruler/power and one things leads to another, who killed who, etc...where they defeat an enemy and de facto take over their holdings) or they do it because parts of the world need uniting to protect it vs a greater threat. (i.e. Doing it for their own good).

Now, the ends don't justify the means, so good characters wouldn't always be doing good things, but that wouldn't actually make them not good.


shadow_archmagi:

Good rule would inherently require the consent of the governed, I'd think.

Not a requirement within the D&D universes. See: Good Monarchy.

Also: Chaotic characters just don't particularly care about who is the authority, that doesn't mean they're unwilling to claim it themselves.

[Blightedmarsh]

The thing of it is that neither power nor glory are evil or wrong. Seeking it or having it does not make you evil; simply makes you powerful.

I would say that it is perfectly acceptable for a strong good kingdom to conquer a weak good neighbor without justification, provocation or warning.

This is a violent world and being weak is asking for trouble. Far better that they fall quickly to your kind rule than to an orc horde or heaven forbid the elves? Far better for your people that a once friendly neighbor be brought under your protection rather than simply allowing them to fall to evil and be a threat on your doorstep. Can you truly morally justify not conquering them in the most expedient and merciful fashion possible as soon as possible?

As long as your people are safe from both your enemies and you then there is no need to quibble about moral pretenses. Dominion for dominions sake is not evil. It isn't the battle that's evil, nor the siege, nor the conquest. Its the rout, the sacking and the oppression you have to watch out for.

"Hi I'm king Thrasgut the glorious and these are my legions. Nice place you have; I'm here to conquer it. Face me or follow me; either way will be glorious."

[Sam K]

Good people aren't obliged to get along, they don't have to be selfless or kind or even particularly nice.

One can be benevolent and kind king who never the less systematically crushes any sign of descent or unrest. He is the king; he rules by divine right. Anyone who opposes him opposes the gods and is therefor evil; QED

He conquers his neighbors at the first sign of weakness. He is a good king and therefore doing their people a favor by bringing them under his benevolent rule.

General Tarquin says "Hi", and there's a short german fellow with funny facial hair that offers his best wishes.

[Blightedmarsh]

General Tarquin says "Hi", and there's a short german fellow with funny facial hair that offers his best wishes.

They are in good company; most of histories kings, emperors, presidents, chieftains and nobles are of this mind.

That Austrian fellow with the Charley Chaplin mustache kind of broke the idea of right of conquest. Before that it was completely standard practice and morally just.

If you count less direct forms of domination you can count most powerful modern countries in on that as well. No matter the cause, no matter the justification all conquering regimes attempt to control the defeated one. From the last fifty years I can not think of one case where a totally victorious nation did not at least try.