Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?

[Alexander123]

Usually in most conflicts I run, both sides consider themselves good, now the question becomes how do you know who is good and who is evil? There is an objective standard no question. I usually make it so that while both sides consider themselves good, one side is evil just doesn't consider himself so. The example is the farmer and the druid. The druid is clearly evil in my view even though he considers himself moral in opposing civilization and the use of natural resources for the betterment of man's life etc. etc. etc Now in these cases usually it is not some demonic or undead force fighting war. I'm sure the druid even has a cute little puppy! Another example that usually comes up, I would consider a paladin who would oppose the use of torture to be in fact evil. Or a pacifist spellcaster who tries to thwart efforts to go to war by making war difficult. I'm sure the spellcaster considers himself good and moral in doing so.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Sure, and this is so in almost every campaing I play/run. People generally like feel good about themselves.

Most Rl evil is really that indiference toward some actions some other people/culture feel are bad/evil. Performing those actions is rarely goal. Sure there are mentally unstable villain like people, but mostly it's different culture thing. People in past of our world had quite different morality.

Greed is most common form of evil in modern culture. I am actully planning scifi game so I am thinking how these things work there.

And competant forces can be (according to d&d alignment system) either good, evil or neutral, but might all feel they are just good. And their followers might agree.

There is this filk-song and first verse goes like this:

Two men walked on the beach in the sun.
One left footprints, the other left none.
One was a man who no man obeys;
The other a god from the ancient days.
"Look," said the man, "how my kind make war.
I summonned you here to ask what for."
"For wealth or land," the god replies,
"For life, or freedom, or some king's lies."


Sometimes perfectly good forces might stand at opposite sides of conflict, many things factor to this. This is only little simpler in D&D.

 

[El Mahdi]

...More interesting is a case where they have an objective claim to being in the right. In real life, that is of course extremely problemmatic (what is objective in the real world) but in a game, book or movie it isn't so hard. You just need to pick sides where the players/readers/viewers will have some sympathy with both views...

Excellent point. In fiction, objectiveness is usually replaced with a very subjective sympathy for one side or another, regardless of the objective evaluation of their actions or cause. It's why we can root for the "bad guys" in some works of fiction (Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, etc.). I think we most often take the side of the protagonist because we identify and sympathize with them. It's rarely because their cause is right, but more that we feel their cause is right, or we sympathize with their cause.

 

[jbear]

In real life, I don't think either party on different sides of a conflict considers themselves evil. History, when looking back at the facts objectively often tells a very different story. It is however quite rare that historians look back on history objectively.

But it is difficult to delve into that topic more than superficially without breaking forum rules.

Gamewise, a campaign where good and evil are mixed in shades of dark and light greys, is far more appealing to me personally. I like to play around with appearance of good and evil and then have the reality be far more complex. I do think it is certainly beleivable that two conflicting organisations could perceive themselves as good and morally right, and that depending on the perspective that you look at the source of the conflict, both could be partly right and partly wrong.

Anyway, just because someone is 'good', it doesn't mean they don't have deep flaws which can lead to causing damage to others unintentionally. Have you seen Battle Star Galactica? (2003 version) The series is full of conflicts between those who believe what they are doing is right.

Characters that are perfect aren't very believable. "Argh, I'm evilllll, let's destroy the worrllld!!" isn't very believable either, to be honest.

 

[jbear]

Usually in most conflicts I run, both sides consider themselves good, now the question becomes how do you know who is good and who is evil? There is an objective standard no question. I usually make it so that while both sides consider themselves good, one side is evil just doesn't consider himself so. The example is the farmer and the druid. The druid is clearly evil in my view even though he considers himself moral in opposing civilization and the use of natural resources for the betterment of man's life etc. etc. etc Now in these cases usually it is not some demonic or undead force fighting war. I'm sure the druid even has a cute little puppy! Another example that usually comes up, I would consider a paladin who would oppose the use of torture to be in fact evil. Or a pacifist spellcaster who tries to thwart efforts to go to war by making war difficult. I'm sure the spellcaster considers himself good and moral in doing so.

You might have to explain how a paladin (or anyone) opposed to torture could be considered evil.

 

[Haltherrion]

The Dragon Age CRPG has a lot of ambiguous morale choices. If you have it you can mine it for some ideas on opposing forces who each think they are in the right. It's at all levels of the game from little side quests to the main plot.

In particular, the Chantry offers a good model of paladins and a holy order that is sometimes attractive (they succor those in need) and sometimes not (their rigid views on magic).

As a basic model giving one side both some positive traits and some negative traits will often generally give you two "good" factions opposing each other.

 

[megamania]

Yes.

As an example I will mention my Storyhour- "Under a Darksun".


There is a belief that a son of a Dragon-King and a Avangion will rise and defeat the Sorcerer-Kings.

Everyone believes in this.

Sorcer-kings make a point of destroying any child of theirs if the mother was a preserver of any level.

One got by them... and yes mom was an avangion. Enter Mania whom is as much of a wildcard as the name suggests.


Sorcerer-Kings want him dead. Templars want the prestige given for killing him.

Pyreen are split on the subject. He will destroy the Sorcerer-Kings but what becomes of the planet of Athas in the process? Will he be any better? Worse? The Alliance sees both sides but not at the same time. They want the Sorcerer-Kings destroyed. period.

Then comes the haplas heroes who don't understand or think of the possibilities.



So many people are looking to do the "right thing" but are not sure what the right thing is when it comes this powerful child.

Its all about perspective and goals wished to be attained mixed with how far one will go to achieve these goals.

 

[Henry]

Eberron's Last War is an EXCELLENT example of five nation-states who each thought themselves in the right for seeking a claim to the throne, and destroying their continent and former way of life as a result of this process - and the one who lost completely was the nation who actually DID have a legitimate claim. However, I severely doubt Breland, Aundair, Karrnath, nor Thrane's citizens think of themselves as "evil" - they each had priests on their side working miracles, often priests of the same gods!

How can you be "Evil" when the Silver Flame itself is granting the argent columns of fire blasting those headstrong, foolish, murderous Brelish!?!

As I say, a great example of the topic.

 

[Alexander123]

As far as how a paladin who is opposed to torture is evil, the argument is this:

Your child will die unless you get certain information from this man who has kidnapped your child and the man refuses to give you this information. And let's say that you have only 2 days before your child is dead. You will be willing to do anything in your power to get this man to give up the information he has, including torturing him.

 

[Filcher]

As far as how a paladin who is opposed to torture is evil, the argument is this:

Your child will die unless you get certain information from this man who has kidnapped your child and the man refuses to give you this information. And let's say that you have only 2 days before your child is dead. You will be willing to do anything in your power to get this man to give up the information he has, including torturing him.

I might be cutting hairs, but your paladin cited isn't "opposed to torture," but only "opposed to torture unless it is necessary," which isn't the same thing.

There are at least a couple of fun ways to play a character through the Jack Bauer/24 moral dilemma:

• "By lowering myself to torture, I become what I oppose. Therefore, before I sully the honor of my beloved holy order, I divest myself of its titles." So you end up with a paladin giving up what he loves out of his sense of duty.

• "My faith is strong and I will sacrifice my own child to uphold the truth of Good. My sacrifice will grant me the strength of righteous fury, and we shall prevail in the end." See the story of Abraham for an example of a father giving up his son out of devotion to his beliefs.

And then less character driven ...

• "Okay, that's nice, Mr. Kiddie Stealer. Hey Wiz, can you charm this guy already?"

====

On topic, even when we don't do the right thing we usually rationalize our actions. I'd say both heroes and villains have created internal belief structures endorsing their actions in the name of "Good," however they define it.