Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9170222" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I just don't see how that can be parsed as "good." The whole point of Watchmen is that, in a world without someone like Superman to set the moral standard for everyone else,* superheroes would lose their ability to understand or relate to the concerns and problems of people, and that very alienation is what would turn them into something monstrous or broken.If you made Ozymandias a deity, or a wizard, or any other powerful fantasy figure, he would be seen as an overtly evil being that has to be taken down, no matter how "right" he might be. He might believe he is righteous, and maybe at one time he was righteous. The narrative makes quite clear he isn't anymore.That's sort of the fundamental problem with any "villain" with a Good alignment. You either need them to be sincerely good but mistaken about the facts of the situation, or actually evil but simply pretending to be good, or having such a warped perception of morality that they genuinely believe that (say) slaughtering orphans is something Good people do. The second and third don't work, because they clearly make the villain in question not actually Good; one is a hypocrite and the other is insane. The first can work in limited contexts, but it's very fragile at best. It's vulnerable to "have a single respectful, earnest conversation" and "simply looked in the right direction and saw the truth," and if the story (meaning, usually the GM) conspires to ensure that neither of these things ever actually fixes the problem, it comes across as*Keep in mind, Dr. Manhattan is a reference to Captain Atom, not Superman--there is no Superman-analogue in Watchmen. This is intentional.Though, by that same token, this too is vulnerable to the above "looked in the right direction and saw the truth" response. If they're sincerely LG and not simply LN, doing things because law is simply the way things should be, then any serious harm their antagonism causes is good reason for them to stop their actions and try some other way. As [USER=1210]@the Jester[/USER] said above, a competition--where there really is only one possible winner, and the conflict is sanctioned and reasonable--it becomes a lot more reasonable, since that context allows an LG character to earnestly pursue a "selfish" end without being evil for it.I think, in the context of the River Kingdoms, an LG antagonist would make more sense as someone who is offering protection from a genuine external threat, but only to those who agree to become full citizens, including the possibility of conscription, and pay taxes into the common fund which will be spent on improving protection and infrastructure. They respect the autonomy of others, try to help within the limits of their abilities, and don't force anyone to do anything...but they're also withholding protection they could offer because others won't play the game by their rules. Expecting others to contribute isn't necessarily a bad thing, but demanding that they sign up for all the restrictions and expectations of the LG society is a big ask, and it's kind of skeevy (not evil, but not exactly shiny goodness either) to basically say "oh sure we could protect you, but we'll only do it if you give up your whole way of life to live the way we tell you to."</blockquote>

Verification