If Good is a tangible and objective force, shouldn't a good BBEG be possible?

[Segev]

Not going to get deeply into a Miko debate, but I will quibble about her "still seeking the guidance of the 12 gods." At the end of her arc, she was just assuming they were behind whatever she chose to do. She wasn't seeking guidance, but justification. She was not quite to the point of telling the gods what they think, but she was close, and she WAS to the point of just declaring her own whims to be the gods' will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not going to get deeply into a Miko debate, but I will quibble about her "still seeking the guidance of the 12 gods." At the end of her arc, she was just assuming they were behind whatever she chose to do. She wasn't seeking guidance, but justification. She was not quite to the point of telling the gods what they think, but she was close, and she WAS to the point of just declaring her own whims to be the gods' will.

The classic "sin" of hubris/pride. A classic for a reason--it's really common. Good villains, especially successful ones, will likely have a dose of that. After all, they've been successful this far so they must be doing something right...

[Psyren]

Windstriker visiting her "as much as he is able" proves next to nothing about her destination, and that is where I will leave that. (For the record, I'm not saying she ended up in Hell.)

[kyoryu]

It was my impression that the OP was asking about an antagonist who is Good. Some people mistakenly interpret the "E" in "BBEG" as "End" (as in "end boss"). Which is why I posted with that C.S. Lewis quote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

To me, a Good Antagonist is most compelling NOT because he has "done something evil" or is "at a low point", but rather when he is at the height of his Crusade of Good. An antagonist who-through his Crusade of Good has become oppressive even to people who are Neutral-and thus needs to be reigned in-but he is so wholly devoted to this Good, that he must be stopped forcefully, because he refuses to be swayed by what he sees as "catering to lesser evils".

THAT'S a "Good BBEG" to me.

I agree with that quote 100%.

I'd still argue that that antagonist is no longer Good, even though they think they're acting in the name of Good. They're committing Evil acts, and with a completely clean conscience.

"You've gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" is great, except the people saying it never think they're the eggs that need to be broken.

I agree with you 100% though - the most compelling antagonists are the ones who are doing it for understandable or relatable ideas.

[LibraryOgre]

I agree with that quote 100%.

I'd still argue that that antagonist is no longer Good, even though they think they're acting in the name of Good. They're committing Evil acts, and with a completely clean conscience.

"You've gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" is great, except the people saying it never think they're the eggs that need to be broken.

I can't find the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "There's exceptions and grey areas in a lot of moral rules... but when you make a chain of such exceptions in the service of good, then you've created a philosophy of evil."

It's all well and good to say "I had to kill him for the greater good." And, sometimes, you might be right. But when you say it tens, hundreds, thousands of times, you start looking less and less like you're actually doing it for the greater good (though, of course, in D&D, with objective evil, you might still be on the moral high ground).

[hamishspence]

I can't find the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "There's exceptions and grey areas in a lot of moral rules... but when you make a chain of such exceptions in the service of good, then you've created a philosophy of evil."

It's from Star Wars: Legacy of the Jedi series - book 1: Betrayal - Ben Skywalker is remembering Luke's wise words:

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

[Max_Killjoy]

I can't find the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "There's exceptions and grey areas in a lot of moral rules... but when you make a chain of such exceptions in the service of good, then you've created a philosophy of evil."

It's all well and good to say "I had to kill him for the greater good." And, sometimes, you might be right. But when you say it tens, hundreds, thousands of times, you start looking less and less like you're actually doing it for the greater good (though, of course, in D&D, with objective evil, you might still be on the moral high ground).

The moral high ground isn't that impressive when it's a small dry-ish patch a few feet above the water in a moral swamp.

[hamishspence]

I'd say a character who consistently does the following (Recommended by the books)

(PHB)
protect innocent life
is altruistic
have respect for all life
has concern for the dignity of sentient beings
makes personal sacrifices to help others

(BoED)

helps others in need without expecting reward
is charitable
makes personal sacrifices
worships good deities
casts good spells (note- they don't have any redemptive influence)
offers and shows mercy to defeated enemies
forgives others
brings hope
redeems evildoers


is a bit more than "a few feet above the water in a moral swamp".

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd say a character who consistently does the following (Recommended by the books)

(PHB)
protect innocent life
is altruistic
have respect for all life
has concern for the dignity of sentient beings
makes personal sacrifices to help others

(BoED)

helps others in need without expecting reward
is charitable
makes personal sacrifices
worships good deities
casts good spells (note- they don't have any redemptive influence)
offers and shows mercy to defeated enemies
forgives others
brings hope
redeems evildoers


is a bit more than "a few feet above the water in a moral swamp".

Please note the context of the post comment I was replying to.

I was replying to the idea of someone who had used the justification "but it's OK because I'm only doing these things to people we've labelled "EVIL", so I'm still "GOOD"" many times.

[hamishspence]

Please note the context of the post comment I was replying to.

I was replying to the idea of someone who had used the justification "but it's OK because I'm only doing these things to people we've labelled "EVIL", so I'm still "GOOD" many times."

Killing "objectively evil" beings For The Greater Good? That's a bit more shaky, true.

BoED is one of the few books to say "just because a being happens to be evil, does not mean that killing it is always the morally good thing" (example given, being declaring war on orc villages).

It also stresses that when it comes to Evil Acts, the ends do not justify the means.

Eberron Campaign Setting 3.5 also brings the "not every evil being deserves killing" idea up - focussing on NPCs in general.


If anything, 3.5, more than 5e or 1e, is the edition most prone to applying Respect For Life to Evil-aligned Beings.


Similarly "torture is Always Evil even if your victims are thoroughly evil" is mostly a 3.5-ism.

[tomandtish]

I can't find the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "There's exceptions and grey areas in a lot of moral rules... but when you make a chain of such exceptions in the service of good, then you've created a philosophy of evil."

It's all well and good to say "I had to kill him for the greater good." And, sometimes, you might be right. But when you say it tens, hundreds, thousands of times, you start looking less and less like you're actually doing it for the greater good (though, of course, in D&D, with objective evil, you might still be on the moral high ground).

My version: "Those who talk about the necessary evil always stress the necessary. They tend to gloss over the evil. But the evil always remembers."

[LibraryOgre]

The moral high ground isn't that impressive when it's a small dry-ish patch a few feet above the water in a moral swamp.

True, but it also comes back to who is "objectively evil". For example, you can make a strong argument that ANYTHING that's "Always Evil" on the 3.x scale will always be evil, outside of major magic. Yes, there are rare exceptions, and you'll find Lawful Neutral Succubi who run brothels based around experience, but it's overwhelmingly true that killing that Imp is probably not a bad thing, and results in a net decrease of evil on that particular non-Lower plane.

Orcs? Again, orcs and other humanoids get a little iffy. Most are evil. Some are not. They have the capacity for good, it just comes harder for them (if you go with the idea that they have an iota of the ichor of an evil god in their veins). Killing all the orcs is problematic

[Segev]

True, but it also comes back to who is "objectively evil". For example, you can make a strong argument that ANYTHING that's "Always Evil" on the 3.x scale will always be evil, outside of major magic. Yes, there are rare exceptions, and you'll find Lawful Neutral Succubi who run brothels based around experience, but it's overwhelmingly true that killing that Imp is probably not a bad thing, and results in a net decrease of evil on that particular non-Lower plane.

Orcs? Again, orcs and other humanoids get a little iffy. Most are evil. Some are not. They have the capacity for good, it just comes harder for them (if you go with the idea that they have an iota of the ichor of an evil god in their veins). Killing all the orcs is problematic

"Kill the orc encampment" quests are only problematic if the GM is not thinking it through, or trying to create a problem. Replace "orc encampment" with "bandit camp," and you have roughly the same moral weight unless the GM is trying to create a problem. The reason orcs get attacked is because they start it, as a general rule, in generic RPGs. You're not hunting them down because they're orcs; you're hunting orcs because they're raiding and pillaging.

[LibraryOgre]

"Kill the orc encampment" quests are only problematic if the GM is not thinking it through, or trying to create a problem. Replace "orc encampment" with "bandit camp," and you have roughly the same moral weight unless the GM is trying to create a problem. The reason orcs get attacked is because they start it, as a general rule, in generic RPGs. You're not hunting them down because they're orcs; you're hunting orcs because they're raiding and pillaging.

Also depends on the nature of the encampment, though. If it's a war camp with only warrior orcs, it's different than if it's a settlement of a tribe, with non-combatants. Same with a bandit camp... is it a bunch of bad guys, eating stolen food and peeing stolen beer into the fire? Or is a Merry Men type situation, with women and children in amongst the bandits? That's where the ambiguity comes in... when you're dealing with noncombatants.

[Segev]

Also depends on the nature of the encampment, though. If it's a war camp with only warrior orcs, it's different than if it's a settlement of a tribe, with non-combatants. Same with a bandit camp... is it a bunch of bad guys, eating stolen food and peeing stolen beer into the fire? Or is a Merry Men type situation, with women and children in amongst the bandits? That's where the ambiguity comes in... when you're dealing with noncombatants.

"How do you know they're noncombatants?"
"Are they worth any EXP when killed?"

[LibraryOgre]

"How do you know they're noncombatants?"
"Are they worth any EXP when killed?"

"Get some! Get some! Get some!"
"How can you kill orc women and children?"
"Easy... you get 1/attack/level when they have less than 1 HD!"

[Segev]

"Get some! Get some! Get some!"
"How can you kill orc women and children?"
"Easy... you get 1/attack/level when they have less than 1 HD!"

"Dude, are you sure that's a good idea?"
"What? They're going down in a hit each!"
"Two words: action deficit."

[Kelb_Panthera]

I am in a mood for thought experiments as of lately. My latest thought was.

1. In D&D it is often mentioned that 'good' is a cosmic force, as in: good deities, good outsiders.

2. Good is objective, it is an item or person's determinable quality

So in theory, similar to a well written villain with a good goal whose values are completely shifted into 'vile' deeds i.e. slaughter everyone in the city so they cannot be turned into undead. be pulled on its head?

A good creature does evil things for the sake of good with such efficiency and effectivity that it is just silly not doing the "dubious thing" to further the cause of good (maybe force their good god onto everyone so people receive spells and abilities that can improve their lives, even if it means killing of vast majorities of rivaling faiths?

How would you build a campaign around an (L/N/C) good villain, be it outsider, divine caster or other? Caveat would be that the creature would not loose their "good" alignment or status short of DM fiat and/or good reasoning behind them being ultimatively evil.

This exemplifies a very common error wrt alignment. Objective alignment is assigned to a character based on his behavior as it compares to the objective standard. If a character is consistently behaving evilly, he's either already evil or rapidly becoming so. That's just how it works.

That said, a good antagonist is easy enough. Good mortals often have goals and responsibilities beyond simply being good people that can easily put them at cross purposes.

Take the example of two good kings whose kingdoms have come into conflict. Let's extend it; negotiations have been attempted to no avail. The resource the conflict is over (most common cause) simply isn't great enough to share or at least the nobles the kings have to keep in line feel that way and it's to be war. The PCs are patriots on one side of the conflict.

Many of their foes, including the main antagonist (a general or perhaps the king himself), are going to be good characters but circumstance has made it necessary, though regrettable, for them to do battle or, perhaps, even kill one another.

You want tough, try to figure out how to make some eladrin (CG outsiders) into the antagonists.

[NichG]

There's an LN-G society that has ruled that forms of ebullient self-expression are more harmful to the social fabric and morality of it's members than the harm created by educating a generation to be wary of music, art, poetry, and drama. Creative-types are subtly discouraged by removing sources of inspiration from their lives. The PCs may be acting to do something about this long term, but a group of eladrin have taken to kidnapping particularly creative children to raise in safety in order to preserve their gifts. The children are returned within a day, but having experienced the entire remainder of their childhood in fantastical realms. Parents are upset and the PCs are being called upon to do something about this. Not stopping it will remove any influence the PCs have built to change the society. Stopping it means going up against the eladrin who are willing to cooperate for short term change, but who cannot countenance the loss of an entire generation. To make things worse, the iron shadow is advancing down the Infinite Stairwell, making the preservation of creativity a matter of cosmic concern - long term compromise to let the PCs have their schemes is out of the question if it means losing chunks of the CG afterlife such as Selune's Realm to the contagion.

[Grek]

You want tough, try to figure out how to make some eladrin (CG outsiders) into the antagonists.

Super easy, actually. They're working on the orders of the Queen Consort, Faerinaal, who seeks to liberate the Lost Generation of eladrins bound to the Abyss during the Treachery of Pale Night. In order to do so, these eladrin have cast a mighty spell to transform a remote Arborean lake into a portal into the Abyss, permitting passage between the planes. Naturally, the interplanar community is outraged, and both Primus and Zeus have petitioned you to seal the gateway and bring them the eladrin responsible in chains, as their brash actions threaten respectively to tip the balance of power in the lower planes toward Baator, and to see Mt. Olympus invaded by a legion of rapacious demons.

[Segev]

A Lawful Good Empire has a bureaucracy of which the ancient Chinese Imperium would have been envious. It is a meritocracy, and good paper-pushers are highly valued for their ability to get things done smoothly. As a general rule, the laws are not just well-meaning, but are administered by wise and hard-working officers who bend them without breaking them as necessary to achieve genuinely good ends.

There is, however, a subversive cult to a powerful Eladrin (or cabal thereof) who view the bureaucracy as too slow and inefficient for the needs of the people on the ground. They tend to gain steam in times of trouble, and mobilize to do charitable works that are not approved. Often, this is overlooked because they don't cause harm and the misappropriated goods can be accounted for after the fact with a little more work. The cult creates more work after the fact, which is frustrating, but not malicious.

However, after a series of natural disasters and droughts, there are a number of emergency situations arising. The LG bureaucracy has spun into high gear to enact an ambitious and efficient plan to get resources where they need to be. However, despite all their best efforts, the needs of individuals - particularly where they are not yet starving but have immediate hardships that make forking over the required contributions endanger them - are being overlooked in this haste. The Cult is gaining support and is out-and-out ready to lead, if not a rebellion, at least a revolt of several outlying baronies who are refusing to turn over the demanded taxes for this humanitarian effort. They know why it's being done, but they consider their duty to their people, their families, friends, and neighbors greater than their duty to the counties and principalities on the other side of the kingdom.

The Eladrin preaches self-reliance and generosity only by choice, which is heretical to the LG attitude of duty that the greater bureaucracy espouses.

To the PCs as representatives of the LG Empire, these baronies worshipping this cult are in open revolt and are denying needed resources to the rest of the empire for their own selfish greed. To PCs working for the baronies, the Empire has enacted harsh taxes in trying times and rejected (due to "emergency measures") the usual option to stay an order for review, and become a tyranny that is going to starve the people of the baronies.