D&D 5E Good-Aligned Antagonists

[Tony Vargas]

Ah, but sterilization (whether directly or by subtle sabotage as you suggest) dooms the sterilized population to eventual death by starvation because no young workers will be born to take care of the aged. One could therefore argue that sterilization is therefore more cruel than outright killing!

No need to take it that far, you just need to control the fast-breeding species's numbers, not drive them to actual extinction. Get the birth rate down below replacement until you get a handle on things, then let it rise to replacement after a manageable level is reached.

I mean, birth rates /are/ below replacement in much of the developed world. And no one's even trying to make that happen...

...that we know of.

Good is a disposition, not a specific, unified course of action, and that there are numerous reasons why PCs might come into conflict with beings who are themselves inclined toward Good.

Of course. And, especially when you bring in self-identified 'good' (of course we're 'good' - y'know, to our own kind...).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, I just thought of another really twisted one:

Let's say you're running a campaign where Good-aligned souls go (or are widely believe to go) to a happy afterlife, and Evil-aligned souls go to misery and torment. This is treated as common knowledge by PCs, NPCs, and monsters alike. (Evil-aligned monsters may call it a monstrous injustice and rail against "Evil" as a misnomer, but even they believe that it happens.)

A Guardian Naga may observe that humans, unlike Nagas, occasionally change their alignment. Sometimes Good people turn to Evil, and sometimes Evil people turn to Good. It doesn't understand why this happens but it knows that it is so. Each Good person who swings to Evil is an infinite loss (one soul that will be miserable forever instead of happy forever), and each Evil person who swings to Good is likewise an infinite gain, so even a tiny probability of falling from Good to Evil is worth expending much effort to avoid, since tiny probability * infinitely bad consequence = infinitely large expected loss. In the interests of minimizing human suffering, therefore, this Guardian Naga resolves to seal the deal for Good people (seeking out and killing those who are clearly Good) while leaving untouched those who are neutral or clearly Evil, in hopes that some of them may someday attain Goodness.

In practice this means that you've got a Lawful Good mass murderer who specifically targets the best and more virtuous while leaving murderous scum untouched. When the PCs try to stop him, he forgives their misunderstanding (doesn't judge them harshly for judging him harshly) because he knows that their intentions are purely good... so he decides to kill them. Bonus points if he calmly and kindly explains the fact of his respect and appreciation for them in amiable conversation, right before his assassins launch their surprise attack on the PCs.

How's that for a twisted Good antagonist?

 

[MarkB]

This is why it is a good idea to change a few things from the MM every once in a while. Stats, general CR, alignments, intelligence level - various things.

And that's one of the things I really like about the Eberron setting - dragons are not colour-coded for your convenience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, I just thought of another really twisted one:

Let's say you're running a campaign where Good-aligned souls go to a happy afterlife, and Evil-aligned souls go to misery and torment.

A Guardian Naga may observe that humans, unlike Nagas, occasionally change their alignment. Sometimes Good people turn to Evil, and sometimes Evil people turn to Good. It doesn't understand why this happens but it knows that it is so. therefore, this Guardian Naga resolves to seal the deal for Good people (seeking out and killing those who are clearly Good) while leaving untouched those who are neutral or clearly Evil, in hopes that some of them may someday attain Goodness.

It could get more interesting if it has theories about what prompts alignment changes. What if evil humans tend to find goodness in the face of great adversity, for instance, or - oh, this is awful - or in the face of truly horrific evil (the evil torturer is fine being evil while he's torturing political prisoners, but when the new Caligula type starts him torturing babies, he can't take it any more and re-examines his morality)? Yeah, our Good Villain's gotta set that up more often to give more evil humans their shot at redemption...

...

So then there's the flip side of this question, what about Evil-Aligned allies (not protagonists, per se, that should be the PCs) of presumably good PCs?

That I have done. Allies of convenience, obsessive evil NPCs who's obsession happens to align their interests with a PC's. LE subordinates you can keep in line, if you continue to work with them. ...

 

[Caliban]

How's that for a twisted Good antagonist?

Seems kind of narrow-minded, but I guess it fits if you consider them to be insane while somehow still retaining their LG alignment.

I say this, because you stated they are unable to understand why people might change their alignment. Thus, they don't understand that a person may influence the people around them, and good people influence or inspire people around them to become good as well, while actively evil people influence people into becoming evil as well (less inspiration and more inciting anger and hate).

So by killing good people before their time, they are also ending any possibility of them influencing non-good creatures into changing their alignment in the future. Thus, they are actively promoting the spread of evil by eliminating a countering influence.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So then there's the flip side of this question, what about Evil-Aligned allies (not protagonists, per se, that should be the PCs) of presumably good PCs?

That I have done. Allies of convenience, obsessive evil NPCs who's obsession happens to align their interests with a PC's. LE subordinates you can keep in line, if you continue to work with them. ...

Oh, sure, that much is commonplace. It can be as easy as a loyal subordinate and war-buddy who just happens to love kicking enemies when they're down, or a monarch who knowingly puts his own security on the throne ahead of the long-term welfare of his people. It doesn't take Orcus-like malignance to be Evil in my book, which also means that there's generally no #TeamGood and #TeamEvil in a given campaign.

I mean, even if you do discover that the prime minister of your country is Evil-aligned, and gets a nasty little thrill out of savoring the despair on a young orphaned pickpocket's face when the executioner is getting ready to cut off his right hand--what are you going to do about it? Resign from adventuring and go into politics to try to reform the laws on pickpocketing? Kill the prime minister? What if the draconian law actually works? Are you going to toss out a good law just because some sicko enjoys wallowing in the penalty?

IMO, Conan-style adventuring works best if the world is kind of a sick place filled with lots of selfish evil people on all sides, especially in power, so that people who are genuinely good can stand out more. You've got the corrupt priests of Set on the one hand ruling over the city of Amon-hotep, and over here the barbarians of Kazakh who immediately slay out of hand any trespassers or capture them and sell them to the slavers of Nyissa, and here's a starving widow and her young son--the priests of Set don't care about them, dear adventuers, and can you please spare a Goodberry?

 

[Caliban]

Another lawful good opponent:

Dwarves have a hidden cavern in their stronghold that is dedicated to one of their gods. It is holy ground, and certain type of special crystal grows there, imbued with power by the prayers of the dwarven monks and priests who tend it.

This crystal is very useful in the creation of magic items, due to the power imbued into it.

PC's may be hired to sneak in and harvest the crystals.

The crystals may be a required component for a magical McGuffin the PC's need to accomplish something, and the dwarves don't agree with the what the PC's are trying to accomplish, so they aren't going to give them any, etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Seems kind of narrow-minded, but I guess it fits if you consider them to be insane while somehow still retaining their LG alignment.

I say this, because you stated they are unable to understand why people might change their alignment. Thus, they don't understand that a person may influence the people around them, and good people influence or inspire people around them to become good as well, while actively evil people influence people into becoming evil as well (less inspiration and more inciting anger and hate).

So by killing good people before their time, they are also ending any possibility of them influencing non-good creatures into changing their alignment in the future. Thus, they are actively promoting the spread of evil by eliminating a countering influence.

Or so it seems to me.

And maybe that's how the adventure (optionally) ends--a philosophical discussion in which the Guardian Naga finds enlightenment and changes its ways!

Not every adventure has to end in a bossfight.

 

[Dan Chernozub]

And that's one of the things I really like about the Eberron setting - dragons are not colour-coded for your convenience.

Never played it, unfortunately.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And that's one of the things I really like about the Eberron setting - dragons are not colour-coded for your convenience.

I've done settings where dragons are color-coded based on personality, and if their personality changes due to some kind of epiphany, their color changes as well. White dragons are white because they are brutal and stupid, not the other way around; and an ancient red dragon who grew remorseful over his own centuries of tyranny and slaughter could theoretically withdraw into contemplation and eventually turn gold. (Or a silver could suffer some brutal trauma, turn bitter and hateful towards everything, and become black.)