D&D 5E Good-Aligned Antagonists

[Caliban]

Just because they are "good" doesn't necessarily mean they aren't impulsive or don't have opinions or views they aren't willing to fight for.

A copper dragon makes its home in an area (desert, forest, wherever) and considers itself to be a protector of the area. PC's stumble through while on a quest and start killing any dangerous looking creature that approaches them. The dragon sees them as trespassers and vandals, they even killed a creature it was particularly fond of and considered a pet. Breathe weapon first, ask questions later.

Or a good aligned creature may be doing some shady things "for the greater good" - because they are impatient with how long it is taking to accomplish by legal means. Or because it's easier than dealing with the paperwork. The PC's may be hired to deal with them.

A good aligned "trickster type" creature may target the PC's for pranks or thefts in order to get them to pursue it - and then lead them into an evil organizations lair or camp so the PC's will fight the bad guys. Why doesn't it just ask them? Because it doesn't trust people to be altruistic.

 

[MarkB]

The most common way for the PCs to end up fighting good-aligned creatures is by being hired by an evil person who flat-out lies to them about the situation and how to resolve it. Of course, this tends to fall apart if the players know the Monster Manual too well, and recognise that their opponent is a good guy on sight.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So I was flipping through the monster manual, thinking to myself that there are some pretty cool good-aligned monsters out there....

Comic for illustrative purposes.

But how the crap do you ever use them? Assuming you aren't running an evil campaign and that your PCs are the typical bunch of good-leaning heroes, how do you justify throwing a coatl or a guardian naga at them? Are they just there as potential allies?

One idea that I've had noodling around in the back of my head for a while is Lawful Good drow as antagonists. The idea is that, as elves, they take the long view, and they realize that just as previous civilizations (dragons, mind flayers, etc.) toppled and fell as other, newer races simply overwhelmed them with numbers, even so elves must eventually get sidelined and then bred out of existence by other faster-growing races including humans. It's literally a fight for survival for them, and they exterminate humans (and any other non-elves) in much the same way that humans in Australia exterminate rabbits (IIRC). Not cruelly, but because it's "necessary" for the sake of their children and their childrens' children, given the way they've defined their racial identity.

To humans they are as scary as regular drow, and they still send out genocide parties and exterminate entire settlements, etc., but their motivations for doing so are genuinely Lawful Good and relatable, in a horrible Hobson's Choice/moral dilemma sort of way.

Normal elves are ashamed of the drow and refuse to talk about them--it's their dark secret--but drow never harm normal elves, and normal elves only rarely execute drow for their "crimes." (Imagine a human executing another human for killing someone's pet rabbit. It basically doesn't happen.) They more often imprison the drow, who are completely cooperative and do everything they can to serve their elven brethren while in captivity (always the first to do the nastiest jobs, etc.). Lawful Good, remember. The whole situation with humans is a big nasty mess and nobody knows what to do about it, but everyone also knows where it's leading in the long run too, so nobody can really blame the drow but they also can't bring themselves to sanction their actions either. Basically, normal elves just kick the can down the road.

Half-elves are a relatively recent development (the first half-elves showed up less than a thousand years ago) and are causing a major philosophical row amongst the drow. If humans are interfertile with elves, does that mean that humans can themselves be thought of as potentially the elves' childrens' children? If the whole elven race gets absorbed into the human race, and pure-blooded elves vanish but most humans have some elven ancestry, does that constitute the end of the elvish race or not? Is it a catastrophe worth preventing? Is exterminating humans in fact unnecessary to protect the elves in the long term? You can think of this debate as a variation on the real-world debate over whether it would be okay for machines to take over the world and end the human race, as long as the machines started out as human brains that got uploaded to the Matrix. Again, no one is really comfortable with either answer, but to the extent that there are rogue drow (also Lawful Good) at odds with their brethren, working to prevent genocide, they will often be found aiding half-elves. The other side of the debate considers half-elves as a particularly abominable and philosophically dangerous species of human, and tries to prevent them from being conceived, and to wipe them out if possible. Painlessly and humanely, of course.

So anyway, that's my idea for Lawful Good drow antagonists. They'll still attack the PCs, and they'll still call up spider-demons, and everyone will still be terrified of them except the elves (who don't want to talk about them), and the players may or may not ever figure out that these drow are actually Lawful Good... but if the PCs ever get into a conversation with one (e.g. a captive) and start trying to push the drow's buttons, they'll discover that the drow's psychology is completely different than they probably assumed.

 

[Thurmas]

I could see a scenario where you get to use the denizens of the forest to stage fights. Two scenarios strike me as possible.

One, an ancient evil takes refuge in a forest, his influence spreading among its inhabitants, influencing their thoughts and twisting their minds to his bidding. The normally good aligned creatures start lashing out at nearby settlements, attacking travelers and ransacking villages. You are hired to discover the reason the forest creatures are attacking and eventually stop the evil force from desecrating the forest. This could lead to encounters with Treants, Fey such as Pixies and Sprites, tribes of centaurs, or a Gold Dragon that has made his home near a forest lake.

Second, if you want to remove evil influence from the equation entirely, you could have the forest itself take a stand to fight back. Human settlements around the forest have been encroaching more and more, harvesting wood and clearing land to build farms. As the spirits of the forest feel more and more threatened, they realize they have to take action to prevent further destruction of their home. When any attempts at possible negotiation fail, the forest starts lashing out and fighting back. Thinking a Fern Gully/Maleficent type thing. The normally isolated and peaceful creatures are only seeking to prevent their homeland from being destroyed.

Both of these can lead to some interesting moral dilemmas for the players. Do they seek to kill all of the creatures that are attacking even if they realize they are good creatures? Once they realize they are being controlled by an evil force, do they try to get to the evil with as little bloodshed as possible? Do they seek some diplomatic solution to the destruction of the forest, or perhaps get swayed to the side of the forest against the human towns surrounding them?

I think I just made a new campaign to create.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

PC's don't have to be out-and-out murderhobos to do....questionable things. In fact, it is a bigger moment if non-murderhobo PC's encounter good monsters with a beef against them. I find that is a good way to keep a campaign from going too dark.

PC's, particularly higher level ones, can be invested in their society (especially if you have been giving out titles), and few, if any, societies are "all good." That could put a good outsider (especially a CG one) in opposition to the PC indirectly: Bob the Fighter just got a barony, including some land, and BetterthanYou, the Ghaele Eladrin, has just come into town to liberate it from the tyranny of nobility (including confiscating all the nobles' property [I especially love doing this if a player has given me the "theft is neutral" line sometime in the campaign]). Bob might be sympathetic to BetterthanYou, but there aren't a lot of PC's that will willingly give up that much loot.

And if a PC is a warlock (even a good one) and is "too successful", that is advertising for the Forces O' Darkness.

 

[MarkB]

One idea that I've had noodling around in the back of my head for a while is Lawful Good drow as antagonists. The idea is that, as elves, they take the long view, and they realize that just as previous civilizations (dragons, mind flayers, etc.) toppled and fell as other, newer races simply overwhelmed them with numbers, even so elves must eventually get sidelined and then bred out of existence by other faster-growing races including humans. It's literally a fight for survival for them, and they exterminate humans (and any other non-elves) in much the same way that humans in Australia exterminate rabbits (IIRC). Not cruelly, but because it's "necessary" for the sake of their children and their childrens' children, given the way they've defined their racial identity.

So, genocidal racists are Lawful Good?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, genocidal racists are Lawful Good?

You sound like a Vegan talking about meat-eaters. "So, murderous flesh-eating carnivores are Lawful Good?" You're superimposing your own value system on others and judging them solely by how well they conform to it.

The difference between a good murderous flesh-eating carnivore and an evil murderous flesh-eating carnivore is apparent to someone who looks at the way they live their lives; but it's not apparent to someone who just lumps all flesh-eating carnivores together as intrinsically evil. By characterizing them simply as "genocidal racists" you show that you've already made up your mind how you're going to view them; but to the elves it's a very complex moral dilemma*. (Just as meat-eating is a very real moral dilemma to some people in real life: where do you stop?)

* For example, "genocidal racists" would be unlikely to settle for a one-way portal into an infinitely-large pocket universe, but Lawful Good drow who are concerned for the future of their race would jump at that possibility. It solves the problem without requiring genocide.

 

[MarkB]

You sound like a Vegan talking about meat-eaters. "So, murderous flesh-eating carnivores are Lawful Good?" You're superimposing your own value system on others and judging them solely by how well they conform to it.

The difference between a good murderous flesh-eating carnivore and an evil murderous flesh-eating carnivore is apparent to someone who looks at the way they live their lives; but it's not apparent to someone who just lumps all flesh-eating carnivores together as intrinsically evil. By characterizing them simply as "genocidal racists" you show that you've already made up your mind how you're going to view them; but to the elves it's a very complex moral dilemma*. (Just as meat-eating is a very real moral dilemma to some people in real life: where do you stop?)

* For example, "genocidal racists" would be unlikely to settle for a one-way portal into an infinitely-large pocket universe, but Lawful Good drow who are concerned for the future of their race would jump at that possibility. It solves the problem without requiring genocide.

By setting themselves aside from all other races and deciding that they're the ones who deserve to survive, aren't these elves also imposing their own value system on others, and not only judging but also condemning and executing them?

 

[clutchbone]

So, genocidal racists are Lawful Good?

You sound like a Vegan talking about meat-eaters. "So, murderous flesh-eating carnivores are Lawful Good?" You're superimposing your own value system on others and judging them solely by how well they conform to it.

The difference between a good murderous flesh-eating carnivore and an evil murderous flesh-eating carnivore is apparent to someone who looks at the way they live their lives; but it's not apparent to someone who just lumps all flesh-eating carnivores together as intrinsically evil. By characterizing them simply as "genocidal racists" you show that you've already made up your mind how you're going to view them; but to the elves it's a very complex moral dilemma*. (Just as meat-eating is a very real moral dilemma to some people in real life: where do you stop?)

* For example, "genocidal racists" would be unlikely to settle for a one-way portal into an infinitely-large pocket universe, but Lawful Good drow who are concerned for the future of their race would jump at that possibility. It solves the problem without requiring genocide.

Easily handwaved:

- LG drow see humans as humans see orcs, inherently Evil. This is due to local Evil Human Empire that the drow smashed hundreds of years ago, and the long-lived isolationist elves can't comprehend the notion that the short-lived humans are so extremely variable. "Do you expect us to seriously believe that an entire culture - an entire species - can change so quickly, within mere decades!? Preposterous!"

- Reframe the genocidal aspect to "culls against an invasive species". Humanoids (except for elves, which are nature's custodians or something) are nothing but a different type of beast. It's morally good to keep an invasive species from overrunning an environment. "For the good of this land, for the good of the Mother Spirit that sustains and guides all elf-kind, we must keep their numbers down! We drow once failed to uphold our duty to preserve this world, and look where that decision has brought us! We will not fail again!"


*Edit: main point is this... just because they're Good, it doesn't mean they're Right. "The road to hell..." and all that.