Musing on some Good vs. Good tensions.

In our current campaign we are exploring the Tyranny of Law and wonton exploitation of Chaos. So in the next campaign, I’d like to see the Dragons of Law compete with one another for worshippers.

Aetoch and Siobhal, divines of agriculture and civilization will be the most expansionist, most likely. Their law will push back the chaos, making their lands safer, but at the cost of conquest/expansion. They’ll do this in a non-warlike way, especially since Cogadh is the divine of war. The question is, will they work together, or will they be jealous of one another? I think jealousy is more interesting here.

If we put the Aetoch’s home, the City State of Sveidi, and Siobhal’s home, the City State of Murad, on opposite sides of some lands caught in between, then they can both seek to expand into these lands. Let’s situate the town of Arbakka along a river in connecting Murad and Sveidi.

Arbakka is struggling as it lacks the resources to defend itself, and its laws do not push back the chaos that draws monsters to the lands.

Aetoch promises endless bounties in Arbakka’s fields, and harvest of its river fishing. In growing its agriculture, it will push back the chaos. But only if Arbakka swears itself wholly to Aeitoch.

Siobhal promises to build walls and incorporate a set of laws and class structure that, although it doesn’t have a lot of mobility and personal freedoms, promises protection and to take care of the health and comfort of all of its citizens… but only if they swear themselves wholly to Siobhal.

Writing this out — I need to introduce a chaotic good divine of some sort. Someone that doesn’t push back the chaos with law, but protects its people with adventurers.

Putting Arbakka (are my players going to call this Chewbacca? Probably…) in between these three and putting my players in position to help the town decide would be interesting? Or reductive! But the fallout will be interesting too.