When players are proactive but good is still reactive

Isn't it interesting that you can have a proactive player goal where "good" is still reactive?

Take the following player goal from the book as an example (the book is excellent BTW so this is not a criticism at all):

"I want to free my hometown from the rule of the orc clans." This goal is:

Player = Proactive

Good = Reactive

See that? The orcs did something bad and good is reacting to it, even though the player is the proactive one here. Or take this example:

"I want to break the curse plaguing my family line."

This is also, player = proactive, good = reactive. The curse (evil) made the first move and the player is reacting to that.

So, there are actually two layers of proactivity here. There is the player / GM layer, and then there is the good / evil layer.

I bring this up not to say that this is a problem necessarily. The players came up with these goals, they are driving the plot forward (which is the center of proactive play). It's just to point this out: Proactive Good is sometimes rare and can be challenging to envision even in a proactive game.

It made me curious to make a list of all some goals a player might have where good is actually proactively like:

Obtaining a magical artifact
Mentoring someone
Establishing a new city
Seeking out a lost person
Winning a love interest
Building a structure of some kind

Perhaps it's just a philosophical consideration, but I think the thrust of the argument in the beginning of the book is a strong one. It begs is to ask the question: How can we have stories where good is truly proactive?

7 comments