Can two Good kingdoms wage war against each other?

[The Aboleth]

I had an interesting question pop into my head the other day, and I wanted to get your takes on it. As the title says: Can two Good kingdoms* wage war against each other? If so, what would be a reason (ruling out self-defense as an obvious example)?

I think most people would agree that a war to exterminate an entire people or brutally subjugate them would be considered Evil. However, since these are both Good kingdoms we can probably assume those reasons would be off the table. The best "Good" reason for war between two kingdoms that I could think of was in the case of a border dispute in which both kingdoms had a legitimate claim to the disputed area but diplomatic efforts had still failed. In such a case, I could see one kingdom sending in troops to the disputed area in an attempt to settle the matter by way of "We're here so it's ours," and the other kingdom sending their troops to rebuff that attempt--with war soon escalating after that.

However, even that seems like reaching. Is there anyway that two Good kingdoms could wage war and still be considered Good? Or is war in any form an inherently Evil act, and thus there is no way two truly Good kingdoms would wage it against one another? Thoughts?

*Putting aside the fact that kingdoms are not actually hive-minds whose entire populations think and feel alike, for the sake of discussion let's say that everyone in these kingdoms--from the rulers to the lowliest peasants--are indeed Good in alignment.

[RickAllison]

The classic reasoning would be the Jafars or the Vizzinis of the world. All you need is either a trusted figure that plots to misconstrue all the information or a fabricated scenario for the other nation to appear far less than Good. Or you can have a critical difference of opinion; you could have a nation that believes in mercy that is sheltering a reformed evildoer while the other believes more in justice and is willing to go to war to take down the murderer. You can even have more mundane concerns; a nation that is starving while a neighbor has just enough to get by may feel it is required to take over productive farmland to keep their citizens alive.

[SociopathFriend]

Can two Good kingdoms* wage war against each other? If so, what would be a reason (ruling out self-defense as an obvious example)?

Depends- does manipulation count as self-defense?
You know the drill. Kingdom A has an outpost wiped out and Kingdom B's standard is left there. Kingdom B has the same thing occur but with Kingdom A uniforms. Neither Kingdom actually did it but what are they to do?

[JackPhoenix]

Read what alignment mean in 5e first.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

Neither of them, CG especially, is opposed to an war of aggression. Most of the usual "boring" reasons for war... competing for resources, fear of potentional enemy growing in strength, incompatible political or religious views... are still valid. Manipulation is possible, but not necessary. Perhaps the aggresson genuinely believe the other kingdom will be better off under their rule.

[Arcangel4774]

Political/economical ideologies can be inconpatitable but still have a morally upstanding goal.

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?*

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone."

All 4 can be phrased as morally good.

[Unoriginal]

Kingdoms don't have alignment per se. "Good kingdom" can be used to describe a realm where the majority of people, or at least the majority of the ruling officials, are good. But like the alignment section says, people usually cannot constantly behave in a way that fit their alignment. Alignment is a description of your typical behavior, not of the absolute 100% of your behavior.

That being said, as others have pointed out, war, even as the aggressor, isn't against any of the good alignments. Good people would try to make their troops avoid commiting reckless looting, slaughter of civilians, rape, and the other horrors of war as much as possible.

[CantigThimble]

Just look at most wars throughout history. Plenty of them could have been waged by good people on both sides, brutal subjugation or extermination of the populace are really not that common.

Rome conquered numerous lands, and after their conquest those lands lived under the Pax Romana, with far greater peace and prosperity than they had before. The same case could be made for the British empire. The hundred years war was a conflict over sovereignty. Each had pretty valid claims regarding the limits of authority and the only way to resolve the issue without violence was for the other to cede a large province.

Were the people in charge of these conflicts 'good'? Probably not, but they're still conflicts that easily could have occured between good leaders.

[Camman1984]

I never liked the old polarised good and evil. good people can do evil things and evil people can do good. A good country would probably need a strong reason to go to war rather than just to murder people but it would still happen. And evil countries might go years without starting a fight purely because they know it would be the end of them because good is usually stronger.

[Unoriginal]

...Discussing current politics is against the rules, but even without this, Camman1984, I beg of you to remove the "real life country as exemple", please.

Best case scenario it'll derail the thread.

[Camman1984]

...Discussing current politics is against the rules, but even without this, Camman1984, I beg of you to remove the "real life country as exemple", please.

Best case scenario it'll derail the thread.

Forgot where I was for a moment and didn't even consider that. All done and apologies.

[Cespenar]

Some quick, intentionally brief possibilities:

-If one of them was Good but interventionist,
-If one of them was Good but stupid,
-If one of them was being manipulated,
-"Lawful" Good vs. "Chaotic" Good, with a legitimate casus belli,
-Two lawful goods, supporting their respective allies on opposite sides,
-Different values of "good" due to different cultures,

etc.

[Regitnui]

Yes. "Good" is not objective in the minds of men by any means. If two rulers/governments disagree, war is always a possibility.

[Camman1984]

a more acceptable real life example extrapolated from my own life.

I would class my own life as LG, I follow the rules, I do good things, charity stuff etc. as does a guy who was a long standing friend, so both LG.

we had a big falling out over a myriad of stuff built up over years, led to a big argument and now we don't talk, but still both LG.

if we had both been the aggressive alpha male types it may have come to blows.

if we had both been aggressive alpha male types, brought up as nobles believing that peasants were our tools, who knows, war could have broken out :)

[BobZan]

A question that would also answer your question: what would make Canada go to war?

[Darth Ultron]

You can't really say vague things like war or taxes or such are one thing or the other....absolutes just don't work. It's like saying only good people can come out in the daytime and only evil people can come out at night...that would not make much sense.


Two good kingdoms could sure go to war over a misunderstanding or a mistake. They can also go to war over a resource, like clean water. Both the kingdoms of An and Za use Brightwater lake, but just as they are both good, does not mean they will both agree on everything all the time.

[Corsair14]

Good, being extremely subjective to the morals of the time and not subject to the perils of ethnocentrism, good kingdoms have waged war against each other since the beginning of time. Being good doesn't mean there is a lack of aggression or that they wont use violence to accomplish their national goals. Both kingdoms may be good but kingdom 2 has resources that kingdom 1 wants or needs but refuses or is unable to trade for it or has insane value attached so kingdom 1 invades to take it. War has little to do with good or evil but is a fact of life and necessity at times.

[clash]

It could also be a war out of desperation.

Kingdom A runs into hard times for one of the examples below:
* Economy is crumbling
* Drought causes famine
* Has no trade routes to get resources from

Kingdom A appeals to Kingdom B who cant spare any help. Kingdom A invades kingdom B to take what they need before desperation sinks their nation into chaos.

[Talamare]

No one believes they are Evil

Even Hitler believed he was doing the Will of God, Saving Humanity, and Creating Land for the German People.

[DivisibleByZero]

Isreal and Palastine have been at war for just about forever.
We went to war with England.
There are multitudes of real world parallels which should show you that war between two "good" nations is not unthinkable.

[alchahest]

Good Kingdom A: This artifact we protect deep within our capital will light the dark and bring all peoples into a new era of understanding and peace. Our wise and just king wields it rightly and our steadfast armies have protected it for centuries. Word comes of those who would take it from us and turn it to nefarious ends, using it to douse the light and usher in a new era of locusts and plague. We must protect our future at any cost.

Good Kingdom B: This artifact shortens the lives of all those on the planet, it is collecting this ephemeral energy for a dark purpose that our sages have uncovered but the merest hints of. Dark things are coming if the artifact is allowed to continue it's voracious, but subtle consumption. Dark things from beyond the crystal sphere, the place where time and distance bear less import than a grain of sand in the desert. They come, and with them they bring utter annihilation. We must protect our future at any cost.

Good Kingdom C: The artifact is the heart of an ancient man-god, beating so slowly that the fleeting lives of men and even elves are not long enough to witness it's motion. The Heart belongs in the body of it's ancient host, which was found within the gold mines of Kingdom D. We must recover the heart and take it unharmed to the body. The Ancient one is needed to finally seal the rifts that link our kingdom to the Nine Hells. We must protect our future at any cost.

Good Kingdom D: Our poor kingdom has finally struck rich gold veins in hard to mine regions of our northern shore where the mountains touch the sea. We have every free man, woman, and child working the mines, while our priests keep them nourished and healthy, and bards sing of them bringing salvation to us in our time of direst need. Who would have thought that we'd find gold so deep in our own borders? Such an amount, and uncontested by anyone. We will be able to enter a new era of trade and and stability, and finally know peace and contentment. We must protect our future at any cost.

you know that kind of stuff.

[The_Jette]

You know, it is entirely possible for two groups of people to be "good" and still despise each other. Old feuds going back multiple generations lead to good people doing dumb things. Tension increases. Then, one day, a tipping point. Two groups of guards, or something, patrolling the same area run into each other. Insults are traded. Pride is wounded. Someone throws the first punch. Then, there's a bunch of dead soldiers. Neither side really knows who threw the first punch, but they both blame the other. In short order, diplomats are sent trying to keep the peace, none of whom actually have any interest in doing so because they hate each other so much. Each just wants the other brought low for insults, real and imagined. Then, without being able to overcome their hatred for each other, they go to war.

I know it makes seems more dramatically correct to have some evil, outside force twist the hearts of the kings against each other. But, sometimes people just don't get along. Look at the Catholics and the Protestants.

[Unoriginal]

No one believes they are Evil

Even Hitler believed he was doing the Will of God, Saving Humanity, and Creating Land for the German People.

That's not true. Even in real life, of people believe they're evil, they just consider that doing evil is better for them.

In D&D, it's even clearer. Your average goblin raider knows they're a petty sadist who want to make others pay for their lot in life, a Yuan-Ti high priest has no reason to think his plan to feed the world to a giant serpent isn't evil, and you can bet Acererak perfectly know how much of an evil ****stain he is.


Some people are convinced they do good when they're evil, sure, but it's not a given.

[Corsair14]

I disagree, that goblin doesn't believe he is evil. The drow don't believe they are evil. They are just doing what their society tells them they should be doing the way they always have done it. The human in a normal city that purposely goes and kills someone knows they are committing an evil act. Ravenloft actually tells this pretty well. There's a reason there isn't the normal classically evil races as dark lords. They are evil yes, but they aren't intentionally evil, they are just doing what their nature tells them. To be evil is to know the difference between the two and take the darker path. A human serial killer knows what he is doing is wrong but he enjoys the feel of power and continues to do it. A dark elf assassin raised in a society where life doesn't matter is evil to us by our standards or even by human society standards of the time, but to their own society its normal business, whats wrong?

[Strifer]

An easy example is an elven kingdome (located within an forest) and an neighbouring human kingdome which needs wood for building/expanding (or an extremely cold winter?) this can give a gruisome war to extinction from either side. Because from their point of view the other side is evil. Alignment is always subjective and a product of upbringing and culture.

[Temperjoke]

This is an interesting way to start this year's alignment arguments.

[MadBear]

What about a war similar to the Trojan war?

On one side, you have a good nation, whose see their princess as being captured and brainwashed by the other nation. There at war to fight for their honor, and to save the princess

On the other side, you have a good nation, who didn't capture the princess so much, as she fell in love with one of the princes, and wants to be with him. There at war to defend their honor, and to stop this nonsensical war of aggression.

And of course diplomacy failed. Both sides think the other has some hidden agenda (neither do), but because their too stubborn to take a hit to their own honor, they're at war instead.

[Dudewithknives]

Very easily:

One side could be LG who worships their LG gods and the old ways while the other is LG and is all about tech and magic and things gods are obsolete.
Both LG to the core but wage war due to different core beliefs.

One LG, the other CG. Both good people but completely different societies.

Both good aligned but have conflicting religious figures.
Huge difference between Tyr and Tymora.

You could always just have rival good nations based on rival ruling families.

[Corsair14]

Trojan war doesnt work since its actually a war about economics and a relatively evil(by every account I have heard or read) Greek King Agamemnon tired of paying for tariffs for products traveling through the Hellspont(?) which is controlled by Troy. They used Helen as a scapegoat if she actually existed at all and wasn't just the creation of Homer.

[MadBear]

Trojan war doesnt work since its actually a war about economics and a relatively evil(by every account I have heard or read) Greek King Agamemnon tired of paying for tariffs for products traveling through the Hellspont(?) which is controlled by Troy. They used Helen as a scapegoat if she actually existed at all and wasn't just the creation of Homer.

.... which is why I said similiar and not the same. It's also why I went on to clarify exactly what I meant....

[Pex]

Sure they can. After all, Canada and Denmark have been at war against each other for decades!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/world/what-in-the-world/canada-denmark-hans-island-whisky-schnapps.html

[mephnick]

A question that would also answer your question: what would make Canada go to war?

We're only polite as a front. We've been plotting against the world for 150 years.

[willdaBEAST]

If you're looking for a simple reason for a war between two "good" kingdoms, you could make it start over a very simple misunderstanding. Say two kingdoms formed an alliance through marriage, but the prince or princess of one family died suddenly and accusations started flying. Normally reasonable and fair rulers might start a bitter war over something like that and it wouldn't require any adjustment of alignment.

[Camman1984]

if memory serves nearly 8 million people were killed during the american-canadian war and that was started by something as simple as some foul mouthed Canadian actors being sentenced to death in America, after being implicated in the death of a child recreating one of their stunts.

[Kane0]

They sure can! All you need is the manpower and motivation.

Not going to give real world examples, but alignment doesn't mean all that much in 5e.

Edit: Resources are the most likely reason to go to war, but ideaology and other things can also do the trick. Good old fashioned vengeance works just fine too.

[CantigThimble]

if memory serves nearly 8 million people were killed during the american-canadian war and that was started by something as simple as some foul mouthed Canadian actors being sentenced to death in America, after being implicated in the death of a child recreating one of their stunts.

Huh? As far as I know the only wars between Canada and the US were the war of 1812 and the french and indian war and neither of those had casualties even close to the millions.

[alchahest]

it's a south park reference ;)

[CantigThimble]

it's a south park reference ;)

Ah, that makes sense.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not sure a Kingdom at least in the medieval sense could be "Good". It's pretty much built on systematic oppression.

An anarchosyndicalist commune on the other hand...

[The Aboleth]

They sure can! All you need is the manpower and motivation.

Not going to give real world examples, but alignment doesn't mean all that much in 5e.

Edit: Resources are the most likely reason to go to war, but ideaology and other things can also do the trick. Good old fashioned vengeance works just fine too.

People keep bringing up war for resources as an option, but isn't starting a war to obtain resources that you have no legitimate claim to considered "not good" (at best)?

Also, I know in 5e alignment doesn't typically mean much. This is simply a hypothetical thought exercise (or that's what I intended it to be, anyway).

EDIT:


if memory serves nearly 8 million people were killed during the american-canadian war and that was started by something as simple as some foul mouthed Canadian actors being sentenced to death in America, after being implicated in the death of a child recreating one of their stunts.

RIP the Baldwin family.

[Kane0]

People keep bringing up war for resources as an option, but isn't starting a war to obtain resources that you have no legitimate claim to considered "not good" (at best)?

It really depends on a ton of factors, and a lot can be justified. 'Legitimate claim' is a grey area at the best of times, as at some point or other pretty much everything has been gained or lost in conflict. Unless of course it was literally handed to you by a deity or whatever.

- We need space for farms/population expansion or we risk famine/plague
- We need ports/roads/mines for trade or we risk economic disadvantage/collapse
- We need to secure territory as a buffer against [insert threat here]
- Civil war to end internal instability (ironic as that sounds)

There are real problems for kingdoms out there, both internal and external. Going to war is often an adequate solution, be that short or long term.

[FreddyNoNose]

I had an interesting question pop into my head the other day, and I wanted to get your takes on it. As the title says: Can two Good kingdoms* wage war against each other? If so, what would be a reason (ruling out self-defense as an obvious example)?

I think most people would agree that a war to exterminate an entire people or brutally subjugate them would be considered Evil. However, since these are both Good kingdoms we can probably assume those reasons would be off the table. The best "Good" reason for war between two kingdoms that I could think of was in the case of a border dispute in which both kingdoms had a legitimate claim to the disputed area but diplomatic efforts had still failed. In such a case, I could see one kingdom sending in troops to the disputed area in an attempt to settle the matter by way of "We're here so it's ours," and the other kingdom sending their troops to rebuff that attempt--with war soon escalating after that.

However, even that seems like reaching. Is there anyway that two Good kingdoms could wage war and still be considered Good? Or is war in any form an inherently Evil act, and thus there is no way two truly Good kingdoms would wage it against one another? Thoughts?

*Putting aside the fact that kingdoms are not actually hive-minds whose entire populations think and feel alike, for the sake of discussion let's say that everyone in these kingdoms--from the rulers to the lowliest peasants--are indeed Good in alignment.
That is for the DM to answer.

[MadBear]

Causes:
1. Land dispute: Both think they have valid claim over a piece of land
2. resource dispute: both need resource X to survive
3. 3rd party provocation: You could have a 3rd party tricking both kingdoms into attacking each other for its own reasons
4. Honor: many ways this could play in, but basically if both parties feel that their honor is on the line, this could lead to an ever escalating state (maybe kingdom 1's soldiers chase bandits into kingdom 2's territory. Kingdom 2 misunderstands and thinks kingdom 1 is invading, sending it's own troops to the border. Kingdom 1 now sees a pile up of forces seemingly unprovoked and responds in kind. As the 2 lines stare at each other, 1 of the fires their bow by mistake killing a soldier on the other side. They retaliate, and so on).
5. Chaotic v Lawful (civilization vs nature): A human civilization decides to start killing off some of the more dangerous beasts around the outskirts of their kingdom. An elven kingdom sends men in to stop these "poachings". Now it looks like a foreign invasion on one side, and the stopping of animal cruelty on the other.

[PeteNutButter]

A lot of people point out a lot of reasons that two good nations might go to war, and that’s because it really doesn’t have all that much to do with alignment.

War is much better understood by game theory. The only way being sufficiently good comes up is a “good” nation would require more incentive to war as they would value the lives lost more than a nuertal or evil nation.

So to put it in simple game theory terms a nuetral nation might have a -3 value for going to war but a good could have a -6.

Incidentally, my current campaign has two powers warring, one of which is mostly ~LN with the other ~CG. There is no clear right side.

[JackPhoenix]

So to put it in simple game theory terms a nuetral nation might have a -3 value for going to war but a good could have a -6.

Be careful to avoid stack overflow, though, or you may end up with nuke-happy Gandhi.

[Kane0]

Be careful to avoid stack overflow, though, or you may end up with nuke-happy Gandhi.

Cookie to you, made me laugh at work!

[Malifice]

Good, being extremely subjective to the morals of the time

The question presumes the existence of objective good, not subjective.

Broadly defined in DnD as: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

[Cybren]

Nations don't have friends, only interests.

[xroads]

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?*

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone."


I'll be honest. I mostly came on here to give a kudos to Arcangel for the BioShock reference. :smallbiggrin:

But so as not to derail the thread from the OP's question, I'll chime in with my two cents.

Yes. Two good kingdoms can certainly fight each other. Even setting aside the influence of evil NPCs within a given kingdom, conflicting ideologies and/or needs are often all that's needed to justify a war.


For example, Kingdom A's people are suffering through a sever famine.
Kingdom B is trying to relief the suffering as much as they can, but they barely have enough resources to feed their own.
Kingdom A decides it has no choice but to use it's military in a desperate gambit to crush B for it's resources.


As another example, in some settings, dwarves & elves, races that are typically considered good, have fought wars against each other.