Good vs. Good.... um, why?

MarauderX

Explorer
I am putting some 'good vs. good' campaign history together as to why good-aligned baronies never got along well enough to unite under one flag. Besides evil-doers mucking up the trust, why else might do-gooders never join forces? I am looking for a bunch of ideas, as there are about 10+ baronies that have warred off and on over centuries and could use plenty of reasons they might send their paladins into battle against one another.
Thanks again -
~MX
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Offensive habits. "Those damn eel-eaters!"

One kingdom's ruler offended another.

Border conflicts.

Trade disputes.

An adventurer (bard) from one kingdom insulted the other kingdom publicly.

Jealousy.

And the big one, the one that always starts ALL the fights? Different religions or patron Gods.
 
Last edited:

Why not alignments?

A Lawful state seeing a neutral or chaotic state as "too morally compromising" to get along with. Maybe not a source for war, but definitely a source for keeping cordial but distant.

Misunderstanding? An inept chancellor drafted a previous land agreement that puts a resource into BOTH states' hands? A chaotic ambassador that is jailed for lechery in the Lawful state?
 

credit. whatever happened in the past (military victory, economic aid, exploration) one group feels that the other group "stole all the credit" or got more credit than they deserved.

barony x had 2 knights in a skirmish alongside 85 footsoldiers form barony y. and those barony x %#&@%$'s have been stealing all the credit ever since!

after all, we were the ones who brought the chalice evil wicked pale greenness to the cleric of whosywhatsis, they just stood there while it was sealed in the tomb of colonel whateverhisnamewas and took all the credit for restoring order!
 

Limited resources.

"We must use the Holy Sword of Mighty Puissance to fight the Lich-King of Undermountain!"

"No, we must send the entire Divine Legion of Righteous Heros south, to exterminate the Half-Fiend Goblin Hordes!"

-- N
 

Blood - all have the blood of the king but which has the right to be next king?

Pride & history & clanish ways - damn, they are Hatfields!

Power - balance of that is, can go back to the first one, no one can shift power enough to stand on top and don't want anyone else to either.

Outside force - Guild/church/other works behind the thrones to keep things the way they are. This could be something like, the next king of the four lands will lay waste to the kingdoms, destorying all families... So no one wants to do that!
 

If you aren't just going to throw out the spirit of the D&D alignment system entirely, obviously the reason is that one or both sides are being secretly manipulated by an evil force. To construct reasons that good people should fight eachother, while perfectly accurate, is to abandon the D&D alignment mechanic altogether. If you want good vs. good, in my opinion, you have a choice: have an unseen evil force or stop using alignment.
 

You've already got some good responses, so I'll just say that literally any common basis for rivalry can be used. Being good in alignment doesn't lead to automatic agreement (contrary to what fusangite implies above). Even two states with similar alignments will not find necessarily themselves in complete agreement, just like two characters of the same alignment.
 

Different languages? I mean, a lot of governments in Europe are pretty goodly, and their governmental systems aren't all that different, so the main things that keep them apart are language and culture. Hell, I think most people want to consider themselves good, and the majority of governments are designed to do good rather than ill, but people just, y'know, disagree about things. Small things.

And that's good. Diverse cultures makes settings more fun.

But disputes can be over big things too. Imagine a lawful good society that punishes criminals by consigning them and all their offspring for three generations to slavery, selling them to families that need servants. It's eminently possible, yet morally repugnant to most people.

Imagine that Sindaire and Tennas are both goodly nations, but they can't agree on trade arrangements, and the Tennas ambassador caused a scandal last year by sleeping with the Sindaire ambassador. So when Tennas gets attacked by a larger than usual force of Goblins from the mountains, Sindaire decides to withhold assistance until Tennas agrees to certain reasonable trade stipulations. To the Sindaire mind, they're not being evil; Goblins attack all the time, and you shouldn't be expected to help your neighbor with every little problem they have, right?
 

Bad blood. Sure, they may not be evil now. But every country has a few tyrants in its history.

For example, let's say that the Empire of Generica was once ruled by the McNastypants dynasty. Under their rule, Generica ruthlessly swept over the surrounding kingdoms, looting and conquering. Ten years ago, however, Emperor Evil McNastypants XXIII was overthrown by the heroic Lord Smiley Squarejaw, who now sits on the throne. Emperor Smiley I wants to make nice with his neighbors, but he's having a tough time of it. He may seem like a nice guy, but he's still a Generican, and everybody knows you can't trust a Generican....
 

Remove ads

Top