Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Good vs Good


Rules Questions


I am planning a good vs good scenario.

essentially a Lawful good society and a chaotic good society are in conflict.

my question is this...

which do you think is the more viable plot.

A lawful society decides they are going to 'fix' a chaotic society such as a great shining religious city out to 'civilize' the chaotic elves/barbarians/free society.

OR

A group of some sort seeks to free the people of someplace from the tyranny of an oppressively lawful good government or religion.

I know both are viable,but my question has more to do with testing the waters as to which is more viable as adventure fodder.

for example one option with the first example allows the players to be a group sent out by that society that later questions the validity of their actions. by the same token the second scenario allows a situation in which the players start of defending a wrongfully prosecuted group or individual but their activity leads eventually to leading a full rebellion.

I am kind of partial to the first scenario because it seems like it will create situations where even good outsiders, dragons and paladins may end up fighting each other.

NOTE: I once did a scenario where the players basically chose to support what they perceived as the lesser of two evils in a battle between a necromancer who in conflict with an evil cult bent on summoning an ancient demon to rule the world. But it didnt have enough moral dilemma. I think good vs good will achieve this much better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems like an oppressive tyrannical Lawful society would be Evil, eh?

Same with one that tries to "fix" other societies.

Star Voter 2014

I don't think either of your proposed setups actually works as a conflict between two generally good factions. Oppressive tyrants aren't exactly good by most definitions, nor are general warmongers. Here's a few things that do work though:

Both sides share a common enemy, but have radically different ideas on how to deal with them. One side wants to launch a surprise attack, while the other is trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Both sides have some horrifying problem that can only be solved with the help of a particular person/magic item/whatever.

Some third party has instigated a war between two societies by disguising troops as member's of one side's army and launching an attack against the other.

Don't want an external force in there? Go all Romeo and Juliet. The leaders' kids eloped, and both blame the other for a kidnapping.

Sczarni

I say go with the second idea. A group of chaotic good (players) trying to free the people of an oppressive (good) kingdome


tyranny and oppression are in no way good - scenario does not work

forcing your will on others is in no way good and not very lawfull - scenario does not work

the best good-good conflict I can think of, would be two outside dangers, maybe one LE on CE, and drasticly diferent views which is the bigger thread and needs to be dealt with right away - most drastic outcome: the wo forces of good does not cooperate, if one attacks the other they are no longer good, paladins fall, good outsiders turn away,, leaders get alignment change, the job of the players: bring the fallen faction back on the track of good


I think two separate kingdoms is creating your problem

consider one larger kingdom with political factions of Law and Chaos although both Good.

then you can introduce less good elements e.g. both factions start recruiting non-good law/chaos forces who are able to do the dirty work to further that factions goals while leaving the public face of both factions clean in the eyes of the public.

With both sides claiming to be good the difference that matters is law/chaos and both factions start becoming more zealous down those paths perhaps not as good as they claim to be ;) perhaps just human nature or perhaps driven by abyssal forces , devils working their manipulations on the lawful faction, demons on the chaotic faction. A slow process of corrupting a good society from the inside ;)


I'd do a rebellion. Taxation for improper purposes is theft (look up Frederic Bastiat for a view of what is proper and improper taxation that will produce the conflict you want). Theft from those who create rather than inherit value is morally indistinguishable from slavery. Slavery, according to Hobbes, is morally equivalent to killing. Myself, I'd count killing as kinder. Violence is therefore justified against improper taxation.

Charity with tax money is good to an absolute monarchist, since the money belongs to the monarch and charity is good, but evil to a republican or limited monarchist because tax money belongs to the state and the state has no right to take value from one citizen and give it to another without receiving equivalent value in return for legitimate public purposes.

Presto. Monarchist versus Republican with both sides leaders pinging as good or at least neutral.

Note, though, that because the republican view must be founded in logical ethics to be good both sides are lawful. They just view law differently.


I have to disagree with a few of the people that say that the nations can't be good if they are trying to impose their will. In their mind they are enlightening and bring civilization to the barbaric and chaotic peoples. It is kind of the idea behind imperialism. I wouldn't say that 1800s great Britain was Evil but they were essentially performing the first idea.

I feel that the best way to go about the first idea is as I stated earlier.

The issue is harder with the second idea. I believe you have to make it more cultural differences rather than oppression that causes the rebellion. (We want our homeland returned to our people type movement where the homeland has been part of a larger Lawful Good Empire for centuries)

If people want an example of a war between good nation just look at World War I. That was a war caused by various alignments and started ebcause a non-affiliated terrorist group killed a guy

Shadow Lodge

aeglos wrote:
forcing your will on others is in no way good and not very lawfull - scenario does not work

Has anyone ever told this to 90% of all paladins ever created?


Scenario works perfectly.

Almost all real world wars are based on Good vs Good.

Muslims vs Christians in the various crusades. (both sides considered themselves good.

centuries of war between christian factions in europe are another perfect example.

and shia vs sunni have been killing each other since the second generation of Islam (and thats just looking at 2 religions lets not delve into all the others out there)

The point is most nations look at their side as GOOD and the other side as NOT-GOOD even if they worship the same god, have the same values, and want the same things over all.

In game terms it breaks down a little differently. its unlikley that 2 nations which worship Iomedae are going to come into conflict as the gods are much more involved in the game world.

however suppose you had a nation dedicated to Iomedae that was strong and ordered and considered its organization and honor a light for the rest of the world. kind of a holy roman empire. On the borders, however, is a great forest or open plane populated by a nation of nomads or free city states who worship Desna. For various reasons the two come into conflict.

Maybe the Lawful and Good people of the Iomedae nation wants to stop boarder conflicts at the fuzzy edge of their lands and over react, maybe they feel the 'fanatical' barbarian worshipers of desna are a threat to their values, or maybe they simply want to unify internal factions against an outside threat.

On the other hand maybe the Chaotic Good worshipers of Desna believe that the 'tyranical' worshipers of iomedae are encroaching on their freedom with border fences and prosthelytizing missions lead by over zealous paladins. Or maybe they see a great discrepancy between rich and poor and feel the need to free the 'oppressed' masses or possibly they simply become jealous of the riches they see in the Iomedae nation which they feel were earned through unfair trade and exploitation.

either way two 'good' societies come into conflict able to call down the holy support of angels and gods in their defense. The interesting thing in the story comes when the players have to limit their agression. its not like a normal story where they can slaughter a bunch of goblins for the crime of being goblins. the players will have to be a little more descrete, diplomacy where available and avoid torture and respect surrender... having said that they will also be more willing to trust the word of the Paladin that attacked them but now seeks to parlay.

seems like an interesting story.


note: when I say 'tyrannical' or 'fanatic' I am not stating a fact but rather an opinion. A free and nomadic society may see any one person or small group uniting a nation under its laws and order as tyrannical. On the other hand those unified and civilized people may look at the disorganized and poor nomads as barbaric and fanatical in their refusal to see the benefits of civilization.


Just realized I accidentally put this in RULES... can it be moved to GENERAL or ADVICE?


blue_the_wolf wrote:

Scenario works perfectly.

Almost all real world wars are based on Good vs Good.

Muslims vs Christians in the various crusades. (both sides considered themselves good.

centuries of war between christian factions in europe are another perfect example.

and shia vs sunni have been killing each other since the second generation of Islam (and thats just looking at 2 religions lets not delve into all the others out there)

The point is most nations look at their side as GOOD and the other side as NOT-GOOD even if they worship the same god, have the same values, and want the same things over all.

In game terms it breaks down a little differently. its unlikley that 2 nations which worship Iomedae are going to come into conflict as the gods are much more involved in the game world.

however suppose you had a nation dedicated to Iomedae that was strong and ordered and considered its organization and honor a light for the rest of the world. kind of a holy roman empire. On the borders, however, is a great forest or open plane populated by a nation of nomads or free city states who worship Desna. For various reasons the two come into conflict.

Maybe the Lawful and Good people of the Iomedae nation wants to stop boarder conflicts at the fuzzy edge of their lands and over react, maybe they feel the 'fanatical' barbarian worshipers of desna are a threat to their values, or maybe they simply want to unify internal factions against an outside threat.

On the other hand maybe the Chaotic Good worshipers of Desna believe that the 'tyranical' worshipers of iomedae are encroaching on their freedom with border fences and prosthelytizing missions lead by over zealous paladins. Or maybe they see a great discrepancy between rich and poor and feel the need to free the 'oppressed' masses or possibly they simply become jealous of the riches they see in the Iomedae nation which they feel were earned through unfair trade and exploitation.

either way two 'good' societies come into conflict able to call...

The holy roman empire wasn't good though. They were neutral at best. What you have to keep in mind is that a "good" medieval empire is unrealistic as they all had major bigotries within them.

Shadow Lodge

johnlocke90 wrote:
The holy roman empire wasn't good though.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
-Bad analogy snip-

You miss out on the one thing that makes that fall apart.

In the real world, "Good" and "Evil" are relative and subjective. Not in Golarion.

Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are measurable quantities. You can cast spells that home in on those 4 distinct powers like a compass. Good and Evil are clearly defined in this universe. Whether the people BELIEVE they are one of the other is irrelevant. Certain acts are Good and certain acts are Evil, with a very few having mitigating circumstances.

Kthulhu wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
The holy roman empire wasn't good though.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss.

What's there to discuss?

All dat is da troof, da whole troof, and nuttin' but da troof.


Quote:
The holy roman empire wasn't good though. They were neutral at best. What you have to keep in mind is that a "good" medieval empire is unrealistic as they all had major bigotries within them.

there is truth in this statement and HRE was probably a bad example.. however the point i was trying to make was that the holy roman empire as with most religious nations BELIEVED themselves to be the holy light of the world and the agents of god on earth.

which makes one point which is countered by Rynjin

Quote:
Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are measurable quantities. You can cast spells that home in on those 4 distinct powers like a compass. Good and Evil are clearly defined in this universe. Whether the people BELIEVE they are one of the other is irrelevant. Certain acts are Good and certain acts are Evil, with a very few having mitigating circumstances.

excellent point. however... notice I am pitting LAWFULL good vs CHAOTIC good. while its unlikely that paladins be able to smite each other LAW and CHAOS are as opposed as GOOD and EVIL in the game world. thus its plausible that the sides make use of Axiomatic and Anarchic weapons against each other. And both sides may summon at the very least LN and CN outsiders like axiomites, inevitables, proteans etc. or even convince CG or LG forces like dragons to support one side or the other.

they fully recognize each other as "good" their dissagreement would be over what is the CORRECT expression of good, a free people or an ordered civilization.

I dont think the scenario is impossible...

my biggest question is would it be more entertaining as players to play on the side of 'freedom' or 'order' and would scenarios work better with the players on the offensive (infiltrate, prempt the other side) or on the defensive (counter incursions/raids etc)


Oh, if the question is just which is more FUN I can cast my vote to Chaotic. IMO, overthrowing a regime is always more fun than making sure one stays in power, if only because of the sense of change that comes along with it.


Possible points of conflict between good people (if good is broadly defined as 'doesn't want innocent people to get hurt'):

Pro-democracy forces want to overthrow a noble King-Arthur-like monarch. ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords in no basis for a system of govenmnent!")

Well-meaning libertarians versus well-meaning socialists clash over redistribution of wealth.

Drugs - legal or banned?

Mercy - should evil be exterminated, or rehabiliated?

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Good vs Good All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.