D&D 5E Is it possible to have a good-aligned final boss in a good campaign?

[Rygar]

In Dragonlance there is a character called the Kingpriest, he is the epitome of lawful good...

-At the onset of his reign he created an order of "Knights", and tasked them with rooting out worshipers of evil gods and those who performed evil deeds.

-Years later he decided that worshipers of Neutral gods are just one step from Evil, because sometimes they perform Evil acts. His knighthood then began rooting out the worshipers of Neutral gods.

-Years later he decided that Wizards were evil, even if they followed the God of good magic. His knighthood then began destroying wizards in the Lost Battles.

-Years later he decided that if you don't worship the good gods in the way that he believes is the way they should be worshiped, you are a heathen and should be eliminated. His knighthood then began eliminating those who worshiped the good gods in ways that were different from his church.

-Near the end, he decided that evil acts are not the only evil, evil thoughts are also evil waiting to become deeds, so he began drafting edicts of "Thought control" to make sure that people weren't even thinking of "evil" things.

He wasn't being evil, he was being lawful good. Lawfully the only way to worship/act was the way he determined is the right way, and if you were doing it any other way, thinking any other way, then you were violating the "Laws of the Gods" and were therefore not good.

So yes, a "Good" character can be the enemy, because at its most extreme good is indistinguishable from evil. You just have to reflect on how someone could perform "Good" acts that would harm others.

(Yes, I'm leaving a lot out of the story of the Kingpriest. They're amongst the best Dragonlance books written and I don't want to spoil the story if there is someone who hasn't read them but might want to)

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'd look at history for inspiration. Plenty of examples of medieval conflict where the combatants are, if not Good, not overtly Evil.

How about a nation where the king dies, with no wife, no siblings, and no heir. The rules of succession are vague. The king's two uncles both want the throne. They raise armies to fight. The PCs work for one of the uncles. Their foes are mostly other humans, who are mostly Good.

Or how about a region where the rightful king capitulates to a neighboring kingdom. The capitulation is totally lawful and would be of benefit to the inhabitants (increased trade, protection of a better army, etc.). Some folks don't agree with the capitulation and take up arms to resist it/stay independent. The PCs could be part of that resistance, or charged with putting it down.

Or a kingdom is colonizing a new land to exploit its resources and bring wealth back to the kingdom, thereby enabling it to better protect itself from its warmongering neighbors. The new land is inhabited by folks who don't want their resources shipped overseas. The PCs could be charged with securing those resources, or charged with convincing the colonists to leave.

The problem with this sort of campaign is you quickly get into discussions about D&D's alignment system and how that meshes with realistic motivations/cultures. If I'm Good, and you're Good, but we're soldiers for opposing armies at war and one us kills the other in battle... is that an Evil act? Sure doesn't feel like it'd be a Good act. Is it even possible to be Good, and be at war? I don't think D&D's alignment system is really robust enough to handle these questions.

As with all things, talk with your players before investing too much time in this. Might be, they just want to kill monsters and take their stuff.

EDIT: actually, looking over the 5e alignment section... it might work. If you presume that most humans are Neutral, and reserve Good and Evil for truly cosmic-level affiliation. In other words, go beyond the common D&D criteria of "All it takes to be Good is to not be Evil."

 

[Nivenus]

I'd say that by the traditional rules of D&D alignment a villain who is willing to do great evil in the service of good... isn't really a good villain. A lot of what's written down about alignment actually explicitly says that the ends don't justify the means within the game's definition of good, so a well-intentioned extremist is really more neutral than good.

That being said, a good villain might still be workable, particularly if you play up the dichotomy of law vs. chaos. Additionally, a good-aligned villain might be unintentionally evil; that is to say, serving evil purposes unknowingly through what they perceive to be good actions. This is a bit like the well-intentioned extremist example, except the antagonist isn't actually doing anything explicitly evil by their own hands: they're just enabling/empowering evil unknowingly. Or maybe they're not even serving evil but are merely threatening to destabilize the cosmic order through what appear to be perfectly good actions.

I might look to Kaelyn the Dove from Mask of the Betrayer as a potential example. Her crusade against the Wall of the Faithless in the game seems ripe material for a good-aligned antagonist fighting against the forces of cosmic order (lawful neutral and lawful good entities in this case).

 

[Grainger]

The alignment system doesn't mean that everyone with the same alignment works together. They might have a difference of opinion on how to achieve a goal, or even have wildly differing goals. They might disagree on what should be done (what to do with the One Ring) or disagree about what parts of the problem should be tackled, leading to different objectives for each faction ("sadly, we can't save Rohan, and if we waste our previous resources, we doom our entire effort" vs. "we have to stand by every ally, no matter the cost").

 

[Nivenus]

That's true, but again, you can't really have a "(good) ends justify the (evil) means" character in D&D and still have them be good... at least not in the long-term.

 

[Grainger]

There may not be "evil" ends involved, per se. It's not always clear-cut what the "best" course of action is. Perhaps there are two equally unpalatable choices, or perhaps the short-term "good" would lead to certain defeat.

And anyway, an "evil" end for a greater good is arguably the more "good" act. This is where it all gets into a big philosophical debate, and it's one reason why I don't use alignment in my campaign. I'd rather get on with it, rather than make judgement calls about players' decisions and have to label them "right" and "wrong". As such, I'm delighted that alignment is very minimal in 5e.

Edit: it puts me in mind of how much I disagree with Gygax's take on "good" behaviour. In a forum thread, he once made a "ruling" that killing "evil" prisoners was unequivocally a Lawful Good act. Not something I philosophically agree with, to say the very least. Morality is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, and we all have very different ideas about what "good" actually is. I also have similar problems with law/chaos in old school: people thought that Lawful Good was the "most good" and Chaotic Evil was the worst evil. But I digress from a digression...

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I'm not very familiar with Les Miserables but it seems like Inspector Javert (an officer hunting a criminal) and Jean Valjean (criminal who broke the law for a good cause) are an example of a Good vs. Good conflict. Maybe you can do something similar by having a Good adversary pursuing the party instead of the party pursuing the Good adversary.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You could devote an entire campaign to how the good god of JUSTICE and the good god of MERCY go to war with each other over how they treat the losers of a war that just finished before the start of the campaign.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm not very familiar with Les Miserables but it seems like Inspector Javert (an officer hunting a criminal) and Jean Valjean (criminal who broke the law for a good cause) are an example of a Good vs. Good conflict.

Javert has always been my closely held example of a Lawful Neutral character. He only cares for the law, not letting small things like starving people be an excuse for someone having to serve a 5 year sentence for breaking a window and stealing a loaf of bread.

Jean Valjean, however, is pretty clearly Chaotic Good, as he is willing to break a window and steal bread to feed his sisters starving child.

Still, however, you have a good point in that its possible to have not-evil characters being both sympathetic and the "bad guy".

 

[GreenTengu]

There can be a conflict between a Chaotic Neutral cause and a Lawful Neutral cause.

For instance... Pirates vs. Navy.
Both sides can have evil characters. Maybe one side is controlled by an evil character but has a lot of good characters fighting for it while the other side is controlled by a good character but has a lot of evil characters fighting for them.

Because it isn't about good or evil.... it is about people who wants absolute freedom to go whereever they want, whenever they want, answer to no one and contribute nothing to society and they are going against a group that is all too painfully aware that people running around doing whatever they want means a lot of people committing a lot of crimes against innocents, conquering local districts and possibly unleashing great dangers that can destroy the world and they have been so zealous about enforcing it that they to have caused the death of hundreds of innocents bolstering their enemy's cause.


In this sort of conflict where there isn't a clear right or wrong, but two paths that are probably both going to stop evil while bringing other evil into the world... well... absolutely.


You could also have two sides that both require some sort of McGuffin to survive (hell, maybe not survive-- merely thrive if they get it and decline if they don't), neither of the sides are wearing black hats and therefore evil and deserving of total extermination... but rather, each side has its good and bad elements. There just isn't really any room for comprimise. One side will win and be exulted, the other will lose and be destroyed. In such a conflict one could easily have it end up where the PCs will fight someone good aligned regardless of their choice of side.