PDA

View Full Version : Lg Bbeg?



Solo
2007-06-12, 01:12 AM
Is it possible for a good aligned party to have as their antagonist a LG person/organization?

Offhand, I would say that under certain conditions (entangling alliances, independence movement) it would be possible.

What do you think?

Jannex
2007-06-12, 01:24 AM
Sure. The PCs don't even have to be evil. The LG person/organization might be "overly Lawful" (especially if the PCs tend toward Chaotic) or just take things too far. If the LG force is taking away choices from people, or limiting/controlling information, some PCs would see that as wrong, even if the populace seems largely content. It pretty much depends on where the PCs' (and, to an extent, the players') values lie.

Jasdoif
2007-06-12, 01:25 AM
Certainly. Good creatures don't always see things the same way, though they're far more likely to be peaceful about their differences then evil creatures are. Lawful creatures are also prone to having their own codes of conduct they live by, that may be mutually exclusive with each other at points.

So yes, a LG character with goals that conflict with, or are simply exclusive with, the players' goals can make quite an antagonist. The situation carries a different dynamic then the usual BBEG setup though, since good creatures aren't likely to see killing one another as acceptable ways to resolve their issues with each other.

AtomicKitKat
2007-06-12, 01:25 AM
Well, the X-Laws from Shaman King were mostly Lawful Good with strong leanings towards Lawful Neutral(ie, if you're not against the evil Hao, you're against us). If say, the Church of St Cuthbert decided to bring Law to the common people at cudgel-point, you could be facing them.

melchizedek
2007-06-12, 01:26 AM
One build that might encompass this would be someone who felt that anyone who was evil did not deserve to live. I like the idea of someone who was so against allowing evil to live that they were attempting to create a magical force that would kill anyone of evil alignment. Any decent heroes would be against this. Some people would argue that this character wouldn't actually be good, however.

Droodle
2007-06-12, 02:43 AM
You could also have a lawful good antagonist who is working for an organization which has become corrupt without his knowledge.....or even one who suspects the corruption but lacks the courage to stand against his organization. There are lots of ways to do it.

Green Bean
2007-06-12, 02:49 AM
I suppose you could go the way of having an actual bad guy frame the party for something, and then the LG organization goes after them. Or, alternatively, you could have one member turn traitor and the PCs are hired by someone else to deal with him. The PCs kill the guy, and the original organization, not knowing that the guy was a traitor, go after these clearly murderous loose cannons.

Bosh
2007-06-12, 02:57 AM
Maybe something like this:

1. Have the local ruler be someone who usurpted the former ruler. He's a bit of a hardass but he's smart and has brought peace to the land, reformed to local government and bought the support of the peasants by turning over the old guard's land to them.
2. Have the local ruler employ the PCs in dealing with some problems, have him pay the PCs fairly and give them some land that was previously owned by a relatives of the old ruler.
3. Have the LG BBEG be the heir to the usurpted ruler or his champion. Have the LG BBEG be a good guy but naive, tied to the old ways and fixated on restoring their birthright. Of course the LG BBEG views the PCs as hired thugs of a tyrant and thieves of his patrimony.
4. Blood!

Stevenson
2007-06-12, 05:17 AM
...dude, have you even looked at OotS?

*coughMIKOcough*

The Prince of Cats
2007-06-12, 05:59 AM
Miko was NOT Lawful Good, that was why she fell...

My take on this is that the focus could be shifted from good and evil to law and chaos. I was thinking recently that CG and LG tend to differ on some points. Feel free to disagree, but I saw CG as being quite good at righting immediate wrongs and championing the individual against unjust rules, while LG champions society and accepts that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Yes, it is unfortunate that one good person may suffer, but to make an exception of them would allow far too many evil people to use that precedent.

Now, what if that 'one' was one of the PCs, or if the 'few' included wives and sisters and brothers?

Another idea, which is kind of cheap in some ways, would be that the rogue does something illegal in order to foil a greater evil and gets caught. The party would (since he was serving the greater good) break him out of the gaol and suddenly a LG paladin may be after the party and inadvertently helping an elder evil by preventing the party from fulfilling their role in stopping it.

barawn
2007-06-12, 09:42 AM
Another idea, which is kind of cheap in some ways, would be that the rogue does something illegal in order to foil a greater evil and gets caught. The party would (since he was serving the greater good) break him out of the gaol and suddenly a LG paladin may be after the party and inadvertently helping an elder evil by preventing the party from fulfilling their role in stopping it.

The problem there is that unless you have an insane LG who's going to fall (like Miko), when the BB-G realizes the party's not evil, he won't be trying to kill them anymore, and if the party's truly good as well, they'll do the same. Nonlethal damage, however - that's fair play. The party will be trying to escape, not kill, and the BB-G will be attempting to capture, not kill. Perfectly doable, though.

Opens a lot of great possibilities, too. The BB-G could easily help out the party fighting some evil, and then promptly turn on them after the battle's over, and they've been weakened, to take them into custody. LG characters aren't supposed to lie or break their word, but they don't have to be nice to those who break the law.

Two LG forces opposing each other, though, is a bit harder, but not impossible - non-LG characters are usually involved, in that case.

lord_khaine
2007-06-12, 10:02 AM
well besides it suddenly being a BBGG, there is no reason why the party cant go up against someone of good alligment.
as we have seen in our favorite webcommic, something so simple as a misunderstanding can lead to several conflicts.

else you just have to find something they can disagree on, to such a degree that either side would be willing to die/kill for his goal.

Telonius
2007-06-12, 10:07 AM
It's certainly possible for LG people to fight each other. It doesn't have to be alliances, either. It could be competition over scarce resources, incompatible or misunderstood customs, rival churches, even an evil advisor to one of the parties turning them against each other. Any number of things could cause LG people to fight among themselves.

EDIT: Remember, LG does not mean the same thing as "smart" or "wise." If somebody really believes others are "out to get him," they can fight the good guys and maintain a good alignment.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 10:23 AM
My take on this is that the focus could be shifted from good and evil to law and chaos. I was thinking recently that CG and LG tend to differ on some points. Feel free to disagree, but I saw CG as being quite good at righting immediate wrongs and championing the individual against unjust rules, while LG champions society and accepts that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Yes, it is unfortunate that one good person may suffer, but to make an exception of them would allow far too many evil people to use that precedent.

I take advantage of the option of disagreeing. "Lawful = society over individual" is a common misconception. Monks have to be lawful, and they are all about individual enlightenment. A paladin who takes the "make one person suffer to save more" approach would fall, unless that one person was himself.

An easy way of making a LG antagonist is to make him duty-bound to someone less LG, who is against the players. For example, look at Yehat from Star Control 2 (not sure if they are all good, seeing as they really hate the Pkunk, but lawful in DNd terms for sure) - they were allied with humans in the past, but since their queen surrendered to the Ur'Quan, they are forced to, with great pain, fight you (though it's possible to persuade them to do otherwise).
Or General Leo from FF6 - 100% LG, but works for the megalomaniac evil emperor.

barawn
2007-06-12, 10:38 AM
It could be competition over scarce resources

I don't really agree there. Good is described as altruistic in the SRD - good characters really wouldn't compete over scarce resources. They'd share them. If they get scarce enough... well, that starts to become more difficult.


incompatible or misunderstood customs,

Yup, I agree there, although again, it'd be an ethical dilemma.


rival churches

I think that falls more under the 'evil advisor' part. Two LG churches wouldn't typically go to war with each other without actions of a non-LG character getting involved.


EDIT: Remember, LG does not mean the same thing as "smart" or "wise." If somebody really believes others are "out to get him," they can fight the good guys and maintain a good alignment.

Although in that case, they'd likely have to either believe their opponents weren't good, or be trying to subdue, rather than kill.

As an example, though: in the campaign I run, I've got an LG paladin who's on the run from his own order. He's still LG. He's fought LG paladins - he just didn't kill them. He never broke the law originally - of course, escaping and eluding arrest would be breaking the law, but he also knows that the order is corrupted by a fake paladin at the top, so at this point, no, he's not breaking the law, because none of the arrest warrants are actually valid. He perfectly well knows that he will be exonerated by the actual legal system, once he can manage to put it back in place.

But do note in that case that he refused to kill any of the LG paladins he was facing. He always subdued them (and usually apologized profusely as he was doing it).

Tengu
2007-06-12, 10:44 AM
Since when lawful characters are obliged to follow the law? "Lawful" is a misleading name, a better one would be "orderly".

You make a good point though - a good character should use non-lethal means of dealing with other good characters s/he fights, if s/he is aware that they are good.

barawn
2007-06-12, 10:54 AM
Since when lawful characters are obliged to follow the law? "Lawful" is a misleading name, a better one would be "orderly".

They're obliged to respect authority. Whether or not they acknowledge someone's authority is the big part - which is why the LG paladin stays LG, because he doesn't acknowledge the authority of a fake judge.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 11:01 AM
That I agree with.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-12, 11:09 AM
You know something funny.. Everyone is assuming the OP is using a Paladin. Solo never mentioned a Paladin.

A Lawful Good fighter would be easily capable of killing the PCs simply because he was hired to do it. It's his job, nothing more. Theres no malice against them, it's simple.

BBEG: Hey, you guys pissed off someone, so.. Sucks to be ya'll.
Party: Oh, well. Uh. Ok.
BBEG: *Attacks*

Paladin doesn't even have to get involved.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 11:12 AM
A hired hitman, who does not ask for reasons or anything, and just does what he's paid for, lawful good? I don't think it's very possible.

barawn
2007-06-12, 11:34 AM
I mentioned paladins because it was an example that I've had. An LG fighter still has to obey authority and respect life - hence the LG portion of it.


A hired hitman, who does not ask for reasons or anything, and just does what he's paid for, lawful good? I don't think it's very possible.

Yeah, that's not LG. That's LN at best, TN depending on who he allows to hire him, or even worse. At the very least, it's an ethical dilemma for an LG character if he's been ordered to do a non-good action by an LN superior.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-12, 11:36 AM
A hired hitman, who does not ask for reasons or anything, and just does what he's paid for, lawful good? I don't think it's very possible.

Except for the last two words, your first sentence just described at the very least a significant minority, perhaps even a plurality, of PCs. What's sauce for the goose. . .

Green Bean
2007-06-12, 11:51 AM
Except for the last two words, your first sentence just described at the very least a significant minority, perhaps even a plurality, of PCs. What's sauce for the goose. . .

The difference between a hitman and an adventurer is that a hitman is hired to kill someone, whereas an adventurer is hired to solve a problem.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-12, 11:56 AM
Agree with ^^ that the hitman example is not a great one.

However there are still lots of reasons that a LG character might oppose a good-aligned group, and not all of them involve evil deception, either. It's wrong to assume that all good creatures cooperate and have the same goals, even in a world with artificially black/white morality like the standard D&D setting.

Just for instance, imagine neighboring countries engaged in a longstanding feud over a certain territory. Both consider the land to be part of "their" ancestral homeland, and it has belonged to both at various times throughout history. Furthermore, recent advancements have created population growth, and there are no easy opportunities for expansion elsewhere to relieve the pressure.

Now, I don't think it's reasonable to discuss whether both sides in this conflict are Lawful Good. I think it'd be very difficult to assign an alignment to an entire nation. But I think it's quite possible for two small groups, both LG, to find themselves on opposite sides of the battlefield, and fight. It wouldn't be all-out "take no prisoners and burn the villages" fighting, but they wouldn't just lay down their swords either.

Of course, people being what they are, both nations would have their fair share of evil fighters as well. There would certainly be those who would see this territory dispute as a great opportunity to commit atrocities, and of course that would easily spiral into reprisals.

So yes, you could easily have the PCs playing some sort of special forces role, and being opposed by a Lawful Good enemy general. If they ever got a chance to meet outside of war, they'd probably get along well. There'd definitely be a mutual respect, even in combat. But as it is, they are antagonists.

Person_Man
2007-06-12, 12:06 PM
Absolutely. Law enforcement and other government officials are sworn to uphold the law and maintain public order. Most PC's, including most Lawful Good PC's, regularly break very common and generally universal laws. Murder, theft, trespassing, libel (most nations don't have protected speech), heresy (most nations have an official state religion), etc.

1) PC's walk into a new nation, which is particularly large.

2) Border guard informs them that they are entering the nation of Ourlandthegoodland, and that they should conduct themselves in a lawful and just manner in accordance with the will of Heironeous.

3) PC's continue adventuring. Following the norm for adventurers, they break into strangers homes, kill the occupants, and take their stuff. Some of the Orcs/Flinds/Gnolls/whatever might even surrender, or beg that their children be spared, or at least run away,

4) One of the Orcs/whatever children that survives goes to the local authorities, and report what they've seen.

5) A warrent for the PC's arrest is issued by the Lawful Good authorities, complete with wanted posters that get more and more accurate as the PC's do more adventuring (assuming witnesses survive), and when law abiding townsfolk start to report "strange outsiders" with piles of gold coming into town and trying to buy potent flaming magical weapons, which they dutifully report to the Ourlandthegoodland Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The trick is that when you have LG vs. LG, you don't want to punish the PC's for being adventurers. You just want to punish them for doing things that a reasonable society would consider non-lawful and non-good.

An very high level Inspector Javert like Justicar would be perfect for a BBEG.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 12:10 PM
Except for the last two words, your first sentence just described at the very least a significant minority, perhaps even a plurality, of PCs. What's sauce for the goose. . .

A character who does not ask for reasons for killing someone cannot be good.

Unless, you mean that getting rid of raiding goblins or undead in the crypt is no different then killing a man your employer didn't like for some reason. Which is pure nonsense.

As much as I like Goblins, I hate the part that webcomic took in strenghtening the "all killing = murder, ebil!!1" aproach.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-12, 12:18 PM
I have a hard time seeing a LG character as The BBEG for a campaign. There are just too many ways for peaceful reconciliation. I think a LG mid-boss would be more reasonable.

although, I have run the Paladin who tracks the party for thier (framed) crimes, and who became so obsessed with their capture/destruction that he made a deal with the (input evil outsider here) to be able to defeat them. He was of course a blackguard by the time of the final showdown. Of course, even then, he was a mid-boss. The final campaign villain which the party eventually took down was the evil outsider that behind the entire plot.

Diggorian
2007-06-12, 12:23 PM
LG's can definately be antagonists because antagnonism need not be only a kill or be killed proposition. As mentioned by others, hinderence can take many forms.

Although, strictly speaking, if BBEG means "Big Bad Evil Guy" then Lawful goods cant be BBEG's. They're BAGs (Big Annoying Guys).

Kami2awa
2007-06-12, 01:12 PM
For an example of a nasty LG world read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". In this story people are kept in a permanent state of drugged happiness, and children are bred from birth into rigid castes each with their own role in society. Everyone is happy and healthy, and lives a rigidly controlled life in peace, but not many people from outside such a society would want to live there.

Another way to do it of course is the OOTS route; the PCs are forced to commit some evil act, or are wrongfully accused of one, and end up on the run from the Lawful Good law enforcers (paladins?) who are impervious to protestations of innocence from those they view as evil and deceptive.

Saph
2007-06-12, 01:19 PM
Another way to do it of course is the OOTS route; the PCs are forced to commit some evil act, or are wrongfully accused of one, and end up on the run from the Lawful Good law enforcers (paladins?) who are impervious to protestations of innocence from those they view as evil and deceptive.

Actually, an even better way of doing it is to do it EXACTLY the way OOTS did it: the PCs really DID do an evil act (or a very undesireable one, anyway).

Party Leader: "What are we accused of, anyway?"
Paladin: "I suppose there's no reason I shouldn't tell you . . ."
Party Leader: "Okay, let's hear it. I'm sure this is just a big misunderstanding."
Paladin: "You're accused of weakening the fabric of the universe by destroying Dorukan's Gate."
Party Leader: "..."
Paladin: "How do you plead?"
Party Leader: ":smallfurious: ELAN!!!!!"

- Saph

Kami2awa
2007-06-12, 01:22 PM
Oh, and of course you can have an LG organisation with an evil being in command (and presumably in disguise). If the BBEG in charge is too powerful to destroy then you could end up simply unmasking him; but having to fight the LG guys to do so (who won't hear a word against their leader).

Alternatively you could have a LG organisation who themselves are on a quest to do something outwardly virtuous but which will end in disaster (suppose they believe they need a certain artefact to cure a deadly plague. However said artefact is the only thing keeping a powerful demon imprisoned and removing it will release the demon and lead to far greater destruction). The PCs find this out, but can't convince the LG guys to stop their quest (no, not even with a Natural 20 on Diplomacy) and end up having to fight them to save the world.

Alternatively it could be the PCs who are doing something stupid like retrieving said artefact and the LG guys who are trying to stop them; the plot could be driven so that the PCs don't find this out until the final confrontation (and might end up having to fight against the consequences of their action).

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-12, 01:45 PM
A character who does not ask for reasons for killing someone cannot be good.

Unless, you mean that getting rid of raiding goblins or undead in the crypt is no different then killing a man your employer didn't like for some reason. Which is pure nonsense.

Not necessarily true. If a group of adventurers grows to really trust the employer that they're working for to send them to do the right thing, and they forget to ask "why" on this particular mission (or just assume that since he's always sent them against evil before, he's sending them against evil), or he sends them in a fit of rage that won't hear questions, or somesuch, then it could work. Of course, taking orders to kill someone from someone in a rage might not be that "good" of an act.

Also, there's always the possibility that Side A (good, possibly even LG) is involved in something that kills person B, who happens to be the daughter of the LG count of C, who sends his (likewise LG) knights to avenge his daughter. This might be resolved by reasonable negotiation (if it were an accident), but an overzealous knight might refuse to negotiate (path to evil and all, but he might not do this often. He could have a personal connection to the daughter and only be so zealous for her). Plus, they might not have killed her entirely by accident; perhaps Side A was overzealous in sweeping up those associated with Unsavory Element D, or perhaps the "accident" involved a fireball cast by Side A's sorcerer on Enemy E. No knight will take "well, yes, we killed your liege's daughter with a fireball, but we were aiming for her goblin captors and killed them too. We didn't know she was valuable" as an excuse.

In this case, the Knights of C and Side A are equally likely to be the PCs.

Good people are as prone to anger as everyone else, for the most part; miscommunication + anger (possibly even very little miscommunication) leads to violence as often as it is necessary (or more). Paladins, Celestials, and Saints might not be able to kill anyone in a fit of rage, but, so long as it's a rare thing, the person "deserved" it to some degree, and they've done enough good to atone for it, other people (your Fighter, your Knight, your Good Wizard, and so on) can remain good.

After all, just look at Herakles. He's a nasty, horrible brute (killed his lute teacher because his fingers were too big, IIRC), but is given as CG in Deities and Demigods and is widely regarded as a hero. Look at Zeus; nearly the same thing. In fact, lots of people in Greek myth are horrible, violent, near-psychotic murderers, and those are just the good guys.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 02:05 PM
True Stuff
You're quite right right, since I assumed in my example that the employer in mention is someone who is basically a stranger to the PCs. Though a smart good character wil probably, just in case, ask nevertheless is the Generic Evil Wizard he's asked by his mentor to kill as evil as those 10 GEWs before.



After all, just look at Herakles. He's a nasty, horrible brute (killed his lute teacher because his fingers were too big, IIRC), but is given as CG in Deities and Demigods and is widely regarded as a hero. Look at Zeus; nearly the same thing. In fact, lots of people in Greek myth are horrible, violent, near-psychotic murderers, and those are just the good guys.

Indeed. It only shows how much did the writers of that book know about ancient Greek myths. Barely any character or god in them would be considered good - the whole Olympian pantheon does horrible things to mortals and each other, mostly on a whim or because they're bored.

Daedo daShoegod
2007-06-12, 02:18 PM
In a campaign I was playing, our party was fighting demons, and in order to find out their vulnerabilities and learn of the current demon cult in the area we visited a Demonologist. Because we veiwed this demonologist practice a demonic rite at one point, an Astral Deva hunted us down, claiming we were evil ourselves. He by far was worse than the actual BBEG, and main churches and holy places would refuse service to us, etc, etc.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-12, 02:28 PM
yeah, that's what makes ancient mythology so cool :smallbiggrin:

The problem comes from modern writers, who start with the assumption that being Good is part of the definition of godhood. Which, in most of the classical mythologies, it really isn't. The Greek gods especially are really a lot like regular people, only they can shoot lightning bolts and turn into animals. In their spare time they are adulterous, cruel, and petty.

It's not really a tenet of such pantheons that the actions of the gods are some sort of example for humans to follow. The Giant plays on this in the comic, with the infamous WWTD strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html)

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-12, 02:54 PM
The problem with having a LG villain is that the way to handle it is having someone who is well meaning, but flawed in some critical way. However, the problem is that a villain needs to be someone really menacing, who the players need to really hate.

If they ever do anything really tyrannical, oppressive, or otherwise villanous, they really cross the line into being LN or LE.

I'd say LG antagonists work best as lesser antagonists, either unwitting pawns of the real BBEG or problematic beuaracrats who inhibit the heros with out really directly opposing them.

In fact, it makes a really nice moment when the players finally do overcome the obstacle of the LG antagonist, to gain an ally; or to have the real BBEG destroy the LG figure just as his potential for redemption was revealed.

asqwasqw
2007-06-12, 03:16 PM
Big Brother is watching you!

Make the PC's fight a twisted goverment who still thinks it is good.

Tengu
2007-06-12, 03:44 PM
In fact, it makes a really nice moment when the players finally do overcome the obstacle of the LG antagonist, to gain an ally; or to have the real BBEG destroy the LG figure just as his potential for redemption was revealed.




16. Hey, I Know You, Too!
You will also confront/be confronted by at least three of these obligatory antagonists:
<snip>
* The irritatingly honorable foe whom you never get to kill because, upon discovering the true nature of his superiors, he either nobly sacrifices himself or joins your party.


But hey, a good cliché ain't bad! :smallwink:

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-12, 04:07 PM
But hey, a good cliché ain't bad! :smallwink:
I was thinking Miko, but yeah; if you there's a good universal idea for an RPG story, then Final Fantasy has done it 12 times already.

Stevenson
2007-06-12, 04:17 PM
Miko was NOT Lawful Good, that was why she fell...

.

However, Miko was also an antagonnist pre-falling.

Green Bean
2007-06-12, 04:43 PM
Big Brother is watching you!

Make the PC's fight a twisted goverment who still thinks it is good.

Thinking you're good =/= actually being good.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-12, 05:35 PM
Unless, you mean that getting rid of raiding goblins or undead in the crypt is no different then killing a man your employer didn't like for some reason. Which is pure nonsense.

Circumstances. Thats all that really matters.

Lawful Good Mercenary for hire?

Lawful - "My employer wants something, I've got an obligation to do what they ask of me. As long as I'm being paid, I've got a job to do."

Good - "Killing an innocent person is ridicilous! It's not part of my job, and definitely doesn't help me do my job!"

Good isn't about just "respecting life". If Good characters were only respecting life, then the PCs who killed a bunch of raiding goblins aren't Good anymore because they killed someone. Good is about doing what you want without putting others at risk or in danger. If you want to kill a bunch of PCs with a LG villain, then the villain would just avoid harming bystanders, if not wait until there are no bystanders.

Honestly, this entire argument that Good = Don't Kill is just pure nonsense. Good kills frequently, and being Good doesn't mean you try non-lethal without a personal reason. Maybe the BBEG just doesn't like taking the risk that anyone he beats would try and seek revenge? Maybe he's trying to kill the PCs because he's worried about them harming any bystanders in the area?

Tengu
2007-06-12, 05:53 PM
Um, I said that good people can kill, and often will. What are you trying to argue about?

A good character SHOULD use non-lethal ways of dealing with enemies he knows that haven't done anything bad though.

TheElfLord
2007-06-12, 07:07 PM
An example I would use is the movie National Treasure. While not the hero's main antagonists, the Police Force, and specifically the main detective servers as an opponent for most of the movie. I would argue that the heros are either NG or CG, while the detective would be LG. Both groups have the same goal, but the way they go about it puts them at odds.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 02:27 PM
After all, just look at Herakles. He's a nasty, horrible brute (killed his lute teacher because his fingers were too big, IIRC), but is given as CG in Deities and Demigods and is widely regarded as a hero. Look at Zeus; nearly the same thing. In fact, lots of people in Greek myth are horrible, violent, near-psychotic murderers, and those are just the good guys.



Indeed. It only shows how much did the writers of that book know about ancient Greek myths. Barely any character or god in them would be considered good - the whole Olympian pantheon does horrible things to mortals and each other, mostly on a whim or because they're bored.



yeah, that's what makes ancient mythology so cool

The problem comes from modern writers, who start with the assumption that being Good is part of the definition of godhood. Which, in most of the classical mythologies, it really isn't. The Greek gods especially are really a lot like regular people, only they can shoot lightning bolts and turn into animals. In their spare time they are adulterous, cruel, and petty.

Not quite. Mythology is full of contradictions, Greek mythology in particular comes down to us in a divided form. There were Ancient Philosophers who had very strict definitions of 'Good' and were very particular about which versions of the myths they accepted as 'true'. Certainly, the Olympians can be depicted as cruel and brutal, but this view of the divine was not without it's detractors, even in the ancient world. Establishing a universally agreed mythology and interpretation of that mythology is well beyond our grasp.

Yeah, Lawful Good antagonists for a Lawful Good party. Certainly possible, but difficult and fraught with Alignment changing potential.

Jayabalard
2007-06-13, 02:52 PM
Except for the last two words, your first sentence just described at the very least a significant minority, perhaps even a plurality, of PCs. What's sauce for the goose. . ./shrug; maybe in your world PCs get to call themselves good while acting evil. A hitman (paid murderer) is not a good person, whether they're a PC or an NPC

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-13, 04:35 PM
An evil act does not an evil person make...
Murder is always an evil act; it's possible that circumstances might mitigate the act: self defense, protecting others, the need to stop evil; but it's the circumstances that makes it nonevil, not that murder is inherently neutral.
If a PC knocks out some bandits, and leaves. That's good. If the have them at their mercy and kills them, that is evil. Maybe not enough to trigger an alignment change or even cause a paladin to fall, but a small evil nonetheless.

The idea that PCs can arbitrarily murder their way through arbitrarily evil people and arbitrarily be good isn't some hard and fast rule of D&D, it's bad roleplaying that's been cemented into a cliche.

Tengu
2007-06-13, 04:57 PM
Killing in self-defense, or in defense of someone else, is rarely evil.

"If someone tries to kill you - you try to kill them back!"

Green Bean
2007-06-13, 05:35 PM
Killing in self-defense, or in defense of someone else, is rarely evil.

"If someone tries to kill you - you try to kill them back!"

Plus, you know, killing in self-defence isn't actually murder. Murder usually requires premeditation, which is hard to come by when you're just defending yourself.

Tengu
2007-06-13, 05:41 PM
That's also my viewpoint, but for some people, all killing is murder. I had such impression from ArmorArmadillo's post, for example:


Murder is always an evil act; it's possible that circumstances might mitigate the act: self defense, protecting others, the need to stop evil; but it's the circumstances that makes it nonevil, not that murder is inherently neutral.