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

[LightPhoenix]

Good does not mean agreeable and cooperative. Maybe the leaders just don't want to yield power to someone else. Perhaps they think they can do a better job than the competition. The goals of each of the kingdoms may be completely different - that doesn't mean they can't all be Good. Even the governments might be incompatible.

I can't give an example, as all mine would require real world political talk.

 

[MarauderX]

Great stuff! I will be incorporating a lot of it in, and use it for the underlying themes of why the now united kingdom might still be feeling a little shaky. Now it's up to the PCs to help (or accidently hinder) the relationships as they are. I think I have some great NPCs to throw in as representatives for the baronies that can really drive home the animosities from your ideas.

Thanks again -
~MX

 

[Dogbrain]

I suggest you read C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters as inspiration for how it can be that good people end up on opposite sides of deadly issues.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

For precisely the same reasons that basically decent people get into violent and bloody arguements.

1) Disagreement on whether act X is a sin. Abortion vs non-abortion is a prime example. A more applicable one is humans wanting to convert forests to farmland, and the local elves having an issue with it.

2) Religion: Muslim vs Catholocism, Judasim vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic. Two lawful good cultures could easily come into conflict if the laws are conflicting.

3) Infidelity: The Trojan war was fought over a woman. Perhaps the two rulers had their eye on the same woman, and the one that did not get chosen held a grudge.

4) Manipulation: Someone else who profits from a conflict keeps stoking the conflict to keep it current.

5) Conflict over resources / money: A gold mine was found directly on the border. Whose is it?

6) Honor / loss of face: If two people walking down the street bump into one another, most of the time, someone apologises, or nothing is said of it. But if both sides feel obligated to an apology, and both sides demand it, things can escalate pretty damn fast. Death before dishonor can easily mean "You will die before I suffer dishonor".

END COMMUNICATION

 

[rbingham2000]

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....

And not only that, but also keep in mind that you can have a few bad apples in every dynasty as well -- contrary to popular belief, good parents can bring forth some nasty, nasty kids, as well as vice-versa.

I can't think of how many stories have an evil prince ascending to his father's throne or usurping his brother's throne by murder or some other form of rat bastardry so he could gain power for himself (since I don't read a lot of fantasy).

 

[Epametheus]

In theory, rulers have to watch out for what's best for their people, and what's best for group A might not be best for group B. Cultural differences can also contribute this; think of an order of lawful good knights that regularly clashes with a tribe of chaotic good barbarians. Both sides tend to do the right thing, but they simply don't see eye-to-eye with each other, and periodic skirmishing reinforces the bad blood between the two groups (that's part of the set-up of Suikoden III, actually).

The problem is, those with the ambition to rule are usually a rather self-interested lot and are really just watching out for themselves. I'm not sure if you can actually find a historical example of good vs. good. Plenty of neutral vs. neutral and evil vs. evil, but not good vs. good.

 

[rounser]

An ancient feud that just sustains itself through further outbreaks of violence (look to the real world for examples). Dwarves have a reputation for holding this sort of everlasting grudge, traditionally against humanoids such as goblins, but it would be easy to switch that for a good people of some sort.

 

[s/LaSH]

Limited resources.

Our cattle are vital for keeping the populace of my capitol fed. They must drink water to grow big and strong. The only waterhole is just over the border with Antagonia, where they have the same food limitation.

Now, logically, I'm a good baron, and I don't want my people to starve. We don't have the resources to build aqueducts, so I set about gaining access to this waterhole. Unfortunately, Baron Antagon is concerned: he keeps the roads in his barony in good repair from taxes he makes off border tolls, but if every one of my drovers is crossing his border twice a day, either he drops the toll to ludicrous lows so my peasants can afford it, in which case the real merchants don't have to pay as much and his economy crashes; he keeps the toll and wipes out my economy; or waives the toll entirely for people driving cattle, and suddenly everyone crossing his borders has a cow in the wagon. Not to mention border security.

So I wonder about a new solution: perhaps I can gain provenance over Antagonia up to the waterhole, and he can gain equal regions of Meland. But that's no good; I gain all the advantage, unless I give him my prime farming land and crash my economy.

The quickest way to keep my people alive is to march on Antagonia and take the waterhole by force. I won't go beyond it. Unfortunately, to pay an army, I'll have to allow them to loot the Antagonian village beside the waterhole - I wouldn't have this problem if I were superrich. Now Antagonian citizens are part of Meland and turning bandit or guerilla, Antagonia is trying to take back their waterhole, and within a generation we're bitter enemies.



Does that sound realistic?

 

[Umbran]

Love - two barons, one potential baroness, and the end is obvious.

Treaty obligation - Let's say that two baronies (A and B) get into violent dispute. They may have treaties with C and D that compel their aid - so C and D get into the fight. Nasty things happen, so that C and D wind up disliking each other...

Accident - Two barons go out hunting. They get drunk, and one accidently shoots the other with a crossbow and kills him in such a way as it looks to be intentional...

Racism - one baron has a bit of orcish blood in his veins...

 

[LoneWolf23]

Sometimes Good people can end up on opposite sides of an issue simply because they disagree on how to achieve a good goal. As much as I hate to bring up real-world politics, the whole Irak issue is a good exemple of this: The US Government went into Irak because it believed Saddam was concealing and stockpiling WMDs and because he was abusing his own people. The French, Germans and Russians tried to stop them because the believed the UN Inspectors were doing a good job and because they were afraid that War would only cause more problems then they would solve.

Both sides did what they believed was the right thing, according to their beliefs, and this is a difference of opinion that may continue to taint further relations between the US and European powers (I'm Canadian, BTW, and I'm glad PM Paul Martin has started repairing relations with the US). But like last Friday's episode of Jag stated, both nations followed their conscience, and this difference of opinion shouldn't be allowed to ruin a long friendship.

A conflict between Good people/nations/organisations can occur anytime there's a difference of opinion: Good doesn't mean thinking exactly like every other Good character; it just means that you try to be more open-minded about differences when they occur. And even that isn't a garantee.