Tainted with... Good?

You've heard the stories many times before. The land is corrupted and foul things rise up to torment humanity. A dark god rebels and spawns evil beings across the land. An evil sorcerer crafts an artifact that twists all who use it.

Cool, fine, we've been down this path thousands of times.

But why not the other way? A land blessed and divine things rise up? A god of light descends and spawns angelic beings across the land. A good priest crafts an artifact that guides others to the light?

Consider the Story of Garg and Moonslicer

But how would this be a 'bad thing', you might wonder? Where's the conflict that will drive the story?

Well, that it needs to create conflict isn't a given. Not everything has to cause people drama and angst. But if you absolutely must -- it's unbalancing. A land with such an abundance of prosperity draws the attention of nations that don't have such benefits, and that can lead to war.

Or you have a population that think they know better than anyone else, and try to push their values and views on other cultures. "We have the angels on our side, so of course we're in the right."

And artifacts that drive people to do good? Well, it's pretty much the same as those that drive people to do evil -- it usurps free will.

Yes, I get that it's easy to write when the enemy is evil, or the land is corrupt -- it makes a built-in conflict, because people want to fight wrong. But why would the universe only lean that one way?

The other thing is that, most times, the 'evil taint' is never purged, there's always some lingering malaise that will cause it to fester and boil over time after time. So why can't good do the same thing?

"We purged this place of divine influence - humanity is free to walk its own path again." And then 20 years down the line it all starts up again.

Writing evil is 'easy'. Try writing good some time to shake things up a bit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Balancing Act

Balance Balance might be the #1 thing talked about in gaming when you go into game theory and play. We talk about balanced rules, balanced parties, balanced encounters... Here's the thing. Mechanical balance isn't possible. Not really. Not without harming the game itself. Because for true 'mechanical balance', you need to have the mechanics control the decisions that the players make - right at character creation. It needs to control the choices players can make in an encounter. It needs to control the choices the characters make in the setting. It needs to control the choices the characters make as they level up. What gear they get. What bonuses they get. Who they encounter. What they can get from each encounter. What they can gather out in the world. The characters get pushed into smaller and smaller boxes, with less and less choices, all in the name of 'balance'. And what this does is make the character sheet really bland, and the mechanics really bland. You
Read more

It doesn't have to be about combat

Saw a post on FaceBook today, by a GM asking other GMs how to get the PCs to actually engage in combat -- the GM was upset that the players were going for non-combat solutions to their encounters. Personally? Let them have their non-combat solutions. If the PCs are anti-murder hobo, why not let them? Another GM wondered at hearing the players drive the story, and responded with, "what, I should just suck it up? My desires don't matter?" That's a pretty raw take of the situation, so here's my thoughts: 1) The GM's desires matter at the table. However... 2) The players drive the story. And their desires matter to. And what you need is equilibrium. You want combat? Sure, put in combat. There's some people who just don't listen to reason - they're there to have a fight, and trying to talk them out of it pisses them off more. Go for it. But if the players don't want combat? Then hold back on the combat -- let them have their roleplay. This is a role
Read more