The Tyranny of Good (aka The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intensions)

[Jolly Giant]

Thanks for your replies everyone. I know I'm walking the alignment borders here; that was kinda the idea. I should have been clearer about that; I suppose the "Tyranny of Good" title may have been misleading.

The long term development I was picturing was (at least partially) an exploration of the alignments; when does Good stop being Good? Some time into the campaign, LG NPCs will probably be slipping over to LN. Some LN NPCs might even fall into the LE bracket. I think I want a paladin; or at least somebody with a paladin-like mindset, to become leader of a nation and then slide from LG to LN (and eventually LE, perhaps) only by doing things he deems neccessary to protect his people from evil.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" would have been a less misleading thread title, I guess.

Sounds like a really cool campaign idea. What I see is the return of Evil, based in fear of that very thing.

To flesh it out, I think what you need is something that is going on right now that the PCs have to deal with. Talk about the campaign setting, then start with something like: "Okay, Jon, your PC's mom has been accused of witchcraft and the mob's outside your door." When he wants more info, just start roleplaying. "What for?" "Go ask her." etc.

If you want to keep the alignments that's cool. You could also do something like pose a question for the campaign, like, when does fear of evil become evil itself? or whatever. You know what you want. Let the players answer that question while you remain neutral (ie. provide adversity for whatever they come up with).

Could be really cool.

You got my intentions for the campaign spot on, LostSoul. The "Your mom's a witch" scenario is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for to flesh out what is still only a vague idea simmering on the back burner of my mind.

 

[delericho]

Check out the Kingpriest of Istar in Dragonlance for an example of exactly what you're proposing.

As with others, I have to say that when LG "goes to far" it slides first into LN and then LE. But that's fine, since the transitions will tend to be slow, and will tend to go unnoticed by those watching. Indeed, many of your villains will probably be surprised when they are confronted with their evil deeds.

Some ideas:

Clerics will scan people at random with Detect Evil. Anyone who pings as Evil is executed summarily. Of course, no-one watches the watchers...

Entire races are declared as being inherently Evil. First on the chopping block are the 'obvious' Orcs and Goblinoids. Of course, then the authorities make the mistake of conflating Chaos and Evil, and start a pogrom against the Elves. That they then resist just 'proves' their corrupt natures.

"For the good of everyone", adventurers are licensed.

"For the good of everyone", alcohol is banned. That should get the PCs taking action.

 

[Jolly Giant]

"For the good of everyone", alcohol is banned. That should get the PCs taking action.

Lol, I love that last one! That one's sure to get my players attention. Any more suggestions, anyone?

 

[Quartz]

I wonder if, for the way you present it, you're taking things too fast. Perhaps you should advance the timeline a hundred years or two? Enough time for the Inquisition to have started, and enough time for the powers of Evil to start infiltrating it. Think of The Name of the Rose.

 

[Hairfoot]

My memory is weak in old age, but wasn't it the dominance of good that brought about the apocalypse in the Dragonlance world?

 

[Umbran]

Ugh. Umbran, love ya, but I can't believe you said that. The only good thing about that book was that it wasn't longer. :\

The "villains" almost never actually do anything really "evil,"* they make stupid mistakes, and I never for one moment actually bought into their motivations. I found nothing redeeming about that book at all. The author tried too hard to make her main characters sympathetic, and in doing so, she basically turned them into non-villains. And it wasn't even amusingly or interestingly written.

Well, note the title - "Villains by Necessity. It wasn't "Villains by Nature". If they'd been really and truly evil, the Good guys would have found them and exterminated them. Basically, it is a book concerning what Neutral characters (who make up the bulk of the population - regular joes - do in a world where Good has won.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The problem, though, is that title aside, that's not really how the book was billed, or how the characters were described. (It's been a while, but I'm fairly certain that they included, among others, an assassin and a black-magic sorceress; evil archetypes, for the most part, not neutral ones.) They acted like "neutral" characters, but they were described as evil ones. It's the whole "show don't tell" thing, only in this case what was told didn't even jive with what was shown.

(Plus, of course, "Villains by necessity" is part of a Shakespeare quote, so it's not like she was going to tweak it for accuracy. )

But then, my problems with the book and the writing go beyond that, as do my philosophical problems with the very notion of "evil is necessary to counterbalance good," so I've probably hijacked the thread enough.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Fixed the title.

 

[Felix]

Tyrannical Good isn't. When the line is crossed into tyranny, the alignment has shifted along the Good-Evil axis.

What seems reasonable to me is that the institutions established by the Good folks who defeated Evil have been infiltrated and compromised. The laws established by Good have been perverted by Evil folks (be they aware of their Evilness or not) while they still may claim to be Good.

These tyrants may still claim to be acting in the best interest of the population. Actually, it would be fairly compelling if they were acting in the best interest of the country, though they are willing to use pragmatic means to do so. This would mean that the Good PCs are not only fighting the institutions that saved the world from Evil evil, but they're also fighting against a government that is actively and pragmatically pursuing the defense of their country.

In the end, the Good PCs may wind up destroying a government that, while not Good, effectively protects people from a resurgance of real Evil. If the PCs win, Evil comes back in a big way. Ironically, that may more effectively show the "Tyranny of Good": if you deny the government the ability to agressively and effectively fight Evil, this will allow Evil to gain strength and eventually overwhelm you. The theme would be: too much Good makes you vulnerable.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

What seems reasonable to me is that the institutions established by the Good folks who defeated Evil have been infiltrated and compromised. The laws established by Good have been perverted by Evil folks (be they aware of their Evilness or not) while they still may claim to be Good.

These tyrants may still claim to be acting in the best interest of the population. Actually, it would be fairly compelling if they were acting in the best interest of the country, though they are willing to use pragmatic means to do so. This would mean that the Good PCs are not only fighting the institutions that saved the world from Evil evil, but they're also fighting against a government that is actively and pragmatically pursuing the defense of their country.

In the end, the Good PCs may wind up destroying a government that, while not Good, effectively protects people from a resurgance of real Evil. If the PCs win, Evil comes back in a big way. Ironically, that may more effectively show the "Tyranny of Good": if you deny the government the ability to agressively and effectively fight Evil, this will allow Evil to gain strength and eventually overwhelm you. The theme would be: too much Good makes you vulnerable.

Whilst I disagree with the sentiment you can only fight fire with fire (or at least I think that's what this quote intends to portray), this is effectively a potential scenario that the PCs might have to face. Equally, destroying the government and replacing it with a properly good government again is their other real option (thereby rebalancing the original status quo).
Some possible options might also be considered here:
1. Only the PCs and a few other dissidents actively dislike the rule of their government. The PCs don't like to be told what to do and pushed around, but everyone else is happy with the situation because it keeps them safe. How far can the PCs return freedom to the population before they've given too much and the population begins to fall in upon itself.
2. The vast majority of people are neutral (i.e. in it for themselves, with others being helped by necessity or for reward). How do those people fit into a good society? Is that why things aren't working out now? Perhaps this would allow you to look at enlightened self-interest as a balance between selfishness and altruism, and where a society stands in those realms?