Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?
- Thread starter Alexander123
- Start date
- Status
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
That doesn't look like "Incoming!"...that looks more like he's just launched an "IC-BM."
Eridanis
Bard 7/Mod (ret) 10/Mgr 3
Alexander123 - We don't allow real-world political or religious discussion on these boards. It's an interesting topic; please rephrase your post to remove the real-world references.
- Eridanis
ENworld Moderator
You have several examples of this when you have good forces who are willing to sacrifice a few for the many vs. good forces that are trying to spare all lives and unwilling to sacrifice a few. That type of motivation for each side would put them in conflict with one another where each side believes their reason and motivation to be the 'just' and 'right' way.
Another example would be where one side's perception of the facts (either tricked, or simple misunderstandings) makes them believe what they are doing is right . Though this second type is harder to pull off since it requires few or no chances for clarification on the misperception.
Alexander123
First Post
I have actually an example of this where one side's perception of the facts leads them to believe that what they are doing is right. I was recently watching a movie The Pillars of the Earth where a good and honest monk betrays a conspiracy by members of the aristocracy and the daughter of the previous king to raise an army and kill the usurper king. Through choosing to reveal the conspiracy he results in the execution of a good and noble knight, the rape of this knights daughter etc.
Can two or more sides be 'fighting the good fight' against each other? Of course.
In one of the novels I'm currently working on, the main political storyline revolves around a plot that sees several great houses of one nation fighting each other for control of their nation's crown after the royal family is apparently assassinated. Each house has basically equal claims to the throne, each house has what they believe are valid reasons to oppose the other houses' claims, and each is fighting to keep the nation from being ruined/over run by outside influence.
To top it off, the surviving prince of the 'dead' royal family returns at the head of an army from another nation, believing he is leading the last of those who would loyally support his family's claims against usurpers. He plans to marry into the royal family of the other nation, and join the two into a greater empire, after he kills those who betrayed him and brought war to his homeland.
Lastly in the plot there is the beautiful twist that the entire war was drummed up by a religious leader in the second nation who was attempting to draw even more nations into a holy war/crusade so that his homeland could rebel and strengthen their position while most of the armies were abroad.
Every party is acting in the name of good. The houses are fighting against corruption, dishonour, betrayal, etc. The second nation is fighting against tyrants and heretics. The other nations that would march to the aid of the first nation are doing the same. And the entire plot was designed to overthrow an oppressive empire.
In one of the novels I'm currently working on, the main political storyline revolves around a plot that sees several great houses of one nation fighting each other for control of their nation's crown after the royal family is apparently assassinated. Each house has basically equal claims to the throne, each house has what they believe are valid reasons to oppose the other houses' claims, and each is fighting to keep the nation from being ruined/over run by outside influence.
To top it off, the surviving prince of the 'dead' royal family returns at the head of an army from another nation, believing he is leading the last of those who would loyally support his family's claims against usurpers. He plans to marry into the royal family of the other nation, and join the two into a greater empire, after he kills those who betrayed him and brought war to his homeland.
Lastly in the plot there is the beautiful twist that the entire war was drummed up by a religious leader in the second nation who was attempting to draw even more nations into a holy war/crusade so that his homeland could rebel and strengthen their position while most of the armies were abroad.
Every party is acting in the name of good. The houses are fighting against corruption, dishonour, betrayal, etc. The second nation is fighting against tyrants and heretics. The other nations that would march to the aid of the first nation are doing the same. And the entire plot was designed to overthrow an oppressive empire.
The Shaman
First Post
Of course two good-aligned states, factions, races, or religions can be in conflict.
Consider the eons-old conflict between elves and dwarves over natural resources; dwarves want timber for mines and forges and water for mills and produce all manner of wastes whereas elves want to maintain pristine woods and waters. Elves monkeywrenching dwarven works and dwarves clear-cutting a sacred grove can potentially escalate into a sharp conflict.
In my 3e game years ago, the adventurers encountered a situation in a small village as villagers were sharply divided between the lawful good cleric of the deity of agriculture and a neutral good druid; the cleric wanted to remove a woodland for more farmland and the druid wanted it preserved as-is. The cleric's followers were not pleased when the druid warped all their wooden plows and tools.
Challenges between two orders of good-aligned knights may be a feature of tournaments; two good-aligned schools of wizards may attempt to thwart one another from recovering an artifact or a powerful mage's spellbook.
Bear in mind that the conflict between law and chaos can be just as bitter as the conflict between good and evil; the escalating conflict between the aforementioned elves and dwarves can ultimately be seen in this light.
Consider the eons-old conflict between elves and dwarves over natural resources; dwarves want timber for mines and forges and water for mills and produce all manner of wastes whereas elves want to maintain pristine woods and waters. Elves monkeywrenching dwarven works and dwarves clear-cutting a sacred grove can potentially escalate into a sharp conflict.
In my 3e game years ago, the adventurers encountered a situation in a small village as villagers were sharply divided between the lawful good cleric of the deity of agriculture and a neutral good druid; the cleric wanted to remove a woodland for more farmland and the druid wanted it preserved as-is. The cleric's followers were not pleased when the druid warped all their wooden plows and tools.
Challenges between two orders of good-aligned knights may be a feature of tournaments; two good-aligned schools of wizards may attempt to thwart one another from recovering an artifact or a powerful mage's spellbook.
Bear in mind that the conflict between law and chaos can be just as bitter as the conflict between good and evil; the escalating conflict between the aforementioned elves and dwarves can ultimately be seen in this light.
Haltherrion
First Post
In the simplest sense, your question seems to require an obvious "yes." Most people, forces or nations feel they are in the right.
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.
Are you trying to setup a scenario, campaign arc, plot hook or setting where this is the case? I'm sure the forum can come up with some thoughts on something more specific.
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.
Are you trying to setup a scenario, campaign arc, plot hook or setting where this is the case? I'm sure the forum can come up with some thoughts on something more specific.
In a real world sense of "we both think we're right", the answer is trivially "yes": There are a lot of different systems for morality and ethics in the world. None of them are 100% compatible with each other.
In the D&D world sense in which "good" and "evil" both refer to objectively verifiable criteria, it is still quite trivial to hypothesize two forces thinking that they're both right even if they belong to different alignments.
When it comes to two forces who are both objectively "good", the answer remains "yes", except that the conflict won't be over any ethical or moral disputation. (Barring a really convoluted set of circumstances.)
But most wars and conflicts aren't fought over ethical or moral differences.
In the D&D world sense in which "good" and "evil" both refer to objectively verifiable criteria, it is still quite trivial to hypothesize two forces thinking that they're both right even if they belong to different alignments.
When it comes to two forces who are both objectively "good", the answer remains "yes", except that the conflict won't be over any ethical or moral disputation. (Barring a really convoluted set of circumstances.)
But most wars and conflicts aren't fought over ethical or moral differences.
- Status
Similar Threads
