A Chaotic Good Villain

[GenericGuy]

It’s no longer all that original to have a Lawful Good villain, well for me at least, so I’ve decided for my next campaign the BBEG will be Chaotic Good.

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

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

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

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

[Kuma Kode]

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

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

[Grinner]

On the Sliding Scale of Morality, this guy definitely scores a Neutral, making him Chaotic Neutral. Maybe if you made him a little more idealistic? A Well-Intentioned Extremist?

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

[Tuhljin]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

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

[GenericGuy]

Party make up: One fighter, Two mages, Two Rogues

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

Exemplars of Evil (despite the name) does discuss the issue of "nonevil villains" - it is plausible.

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

[Kuma Kode]

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

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

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

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

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

[Averis Vol]

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

[Mastikator]

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

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

[Acanous]

I have a prior character that would make a decent villain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[B!shop]

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

[ScubaGoomba]

Alright, I went to the TV Tropes article on Chaotic Good to see which examples they'd put out there to create a basis and stumbled upon this definition (spoiler'd for length):

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

[prufock]

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

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

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

[Oracle_Hunter]

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

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

Make him wreck something the PCs care about. Maybe a lot of things.

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

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

* * *

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

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

[willpell]

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

[kieza]

I've always used the following example to explain alignment to new players. (Bear with me, there's a point to this.)

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

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

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

[zorba1994]

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

This, so much this.

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

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

[Weirdlet]

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

[Arcanus81]

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

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

[hamishspence]

The tricky part is keeping them "good"- since Good people generally don't commit Evil deeds routinely.

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

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

[Berenger]

This kind of guy?

[CGforever!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a CG elf rogue to do?

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

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

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

[willpell]

In the same vein, consider V (of V for Vendetta - moreso the comics version than the movie version) or Anarky from DC comics.

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

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

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

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

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

[Rorrik]

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

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

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

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

[Dr.Epic]

An antagonist can be Chaotic Good. A villain by definition is evil.

[Yora]

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

Or he thinks it's acceptable. Dragon Age 2 has a great case of such a character:

Spoiler

Show

Anders is pretty much a paragon of chaotic good, but when the local chief priestess keeps calming everyone down when the Templars have killed another mage, he thinks it's better to get the mages to fight back instead of agreeing to another attempt of diplomacy, as so many times before. So he blows up the temple with everyone inside or near it.

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

[MonkeyBusiness]

If I were running a scenario with a BBCGG as the villian, I'd start with a character much like Boromir in The Lord of the Rings.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


.

[Mike_G]

It depends on the world.

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

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

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

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

[Mikeavelli]

Consider taking inspiration from Team America, World Police, who intend to spread freedom worldwide, but end up wrecking everything with collateral damage because they're stupid.

[willpell]

Boromir was a good man....but his goodness contrasted with his character flaws: ambition and jealousy.

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

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

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

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