Can good guys be the invaders?

[Jabrosky]

It seems that in most of the fantasy stories I can name off the top of my head, any army invading another country belongs to power-hungry bad guys and the good guys are on the defensive. My idea is to reverse the offender/defender positions so that the good guys are the invaders and the bad guys the defenders. Imagine heroic conquerors coming to liberate a population from an oppressive regime and bring them under their more benevolent rule. I'm sure this has been done before, but I haven't seen it as often as the Evil Invaders trope.

 

[San Cidolfus]

Good and evil is just a matter of perspective. It's easier to paint the aggressor in a negative light, and you're right, doing it the other way isn't done as often.

I'd be careful doing this with utmost realism in mind, though. We paint one side as evil because it makes the situation palatable. Because to be perfectly honest, war sucks for everybody involved. I once wrote a novel from three perspectives: a man in the invading army, a woman native to the country being invaded, and a woman from a neighboring nation whose warriors aided the besieged country. Nobody was really the villain; everyone was just trying to keep their head above the waters. As such, my dedication to emotional honesty made the ending quite depressing. The people who read it loved it, but you know what? They weren't clamoring for a sequel.

 

[Steerpike]

What you say is arguably true of our world, San Cidolfus, but I do feel that a fantasy author can create a world where good and evil are absolutes. You have that freedom as an author. So while you may take the approach of defining both sides as morally equally, each pursuing their own self-interest and characterizing the other as evil, you do not have to take that approach. I certainly think there is room to define the power structure in a given nation as inherently evil and construct the world such that the designation means something.

 

[San Cidolfus]

What you say is arguably true of our world, San Cidolfus, but I do feel that a fantasy author can create a world where good and evil are absolutes. You have that freedom as an author. So while you may take the approach of defining both sides as morally equally, each pursuing their own self-interest and characterizing the other as evil, you do not have to take that approach. I certainly think there is room to define the power structure in a given nation as inherently evil and construct the world such that the designation means something.

Oh, certainly. But in a world of moral absolutism, the likelihood of a truly evil nation being on the defensive is slim. We like our evil nations big and powerful so that we have a sense of accomplishment from toppling them. Not only that, but if an evil nation is weak, then good would rally to stamp it out 'ere it grow powerful and threaten once more. And if it is powerful, evil isn't likely to sit behind its borders and hang out; that doesn't jive with its misanthropic nature. We can certainly conceive of a powerful, evil, defensive-minded entity, but why would it just be sitting there? Gathering strength for the next push? Besides, if it's content to mind its own business, and the good guys attack as the aggressor, that blurs the morality a bit.

Morality is blurred anyway, because even if we have absolute evil, absolute good is a little harder to quantify. You have to get into mythology to find that, and if you have the paragons of holiness on the battlefield then the war takes on a whole different flavor. Black and white only works if you remove human nature from the equation, and if you do that, what in God's name are we writing about?

Black and white appeals to me now and then; I have to be in a mood for it. I like my fantasy gray and convoluted. The characters and stories are usually more interesting. And in a world with real people, aggressor and defender are both gray. Saints and jerks and nobodies and sociopaths exist on both sides, and we learn about our humanity where those collide.

Anyway, that was more of a ramble than I'd intended. Jabrosky was talking about people, not absolutes. People are gray.

 

[Jabrosky]

To clarify things, when I say one nation is "the bad guy", I don't mean it in the "pure evil" sense of the word. I picture the "bad" country to be an inward-looking one that currently isn't interested in military expansion but has no qualms about brutally exploiting and suppressing its citizenry when need be. For instance, if a certain ethnic group in the empire somehow pisses off the empress, she might arrange a genocidal campaign against them. Such a nation might not be "evil" in the pure demonic sense of the word, but they would definitely be unsympathetic.

 

[The Din]

Happens all the time, just look at the end stages of WW2 (not that all germans are nazis, but they were led by one and thus became the bad guys of said tale.) Or the retaking of Jerusalem from those christian babykillers...

I agree that the idea of absolute good guys is detrimental to realism, and a decent story. If you must make their cause a righteous one, just put in some equivalent to a world destroying nuke in the 'bad guys' hands, or have them capture some painfully good princess, etc. But if they conquer a whole nation without a single soldier having his way with a young maiden, or some old dear having her favorite spoon pinched, then you're going to lose your cynical readers.

I prefer to see two ambiguous civilizations going at it, plenty of good guys get caught up in such wars. (though I still prefer to hear from the 'bad guys', ie: Joe Abercrombie)

 

[topazfire]

Imagine heroic conquerors coming to liberate a population from an oppressive regime and bring them under their more benevolent rule.

The first thing I thought of when I read this was the invasion of Iraq by the United States. I will not get political in this thread as I know there are very strong personal opinions about current and historical military actions and invasions from many perspectives.

I agree with San Cidolfus that good and evil are a matter of perspective. That being said, your comment about genocide touches heavily on Human Rights issues and there are things that humanity (albeit mostly western influences) have deemed as immoral and illegal. I see fantasy as a means of escape from the grim reality of mess we have created and also as a social critique.

By all means, the 'good guys' can be the invaders - but they better have a darn solid reason for invading, and evidence to back it up. (oops, didn't mean for that to sound politically slanted - but charactes in the book (as well as readers) could challenge the reason for invasion)

Have a look at more diverse real world perspectives rather than just WWII. Just to list a few: Japan invading China (Manchuria), the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, Iraq invading Kuwait, The United States (unsuccessfully) invading Lower Canada in 1812, and even look at the conflict over disputed regions such as Kashmir and the Falkland Islands.

Perhaps the real world perspectives will show that truly anything is possible. Twist societies own misuses of resources and judgement to inspire and fuel the ideas that you are having

 

[James Chandler]

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is a great source for the idea. Irrespective of political leanings, etc., there just aren't that many examples in history where the invader was motivated by something other than conquest. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate the U.S. and the invasion, etc., but there are many who were thrilled. While a lot of them suffered, many took advantage of the situation to put themselves in positions of power. Remember, after the initial invasion, the Iraqis welcomed the U.S. with celebrations, literally people dancing in the street. The Kurds, a minority population, couldn't be happier. As far as good and evil, realistically, you'll have good people and bad on both sides of the invasion/occupation. The dramatic tensions between the invaders, the anti-invaders and the pro-invaders should be very rich - a lot of fun to write and read.

 

[ThinkerX]

This is one of the trickier areas to navigate.

Genuinely 'good' nations embarking on a campaign of conquest...that tends to require something 'special' at work. A religious crusade could work. So could an effort to put back together a broken empire from the old days.

On my primary world (150 years prior to most of the stories) this is how the dominant empire was put back together: Some newly civilized barbarians with close ties to the what was left of the old empire had problems with neighboring fiefs that were getting seriously involved in banditry and black magic (very roughly comparable to North Africa a few hundred years ago). One of the barbarian warleaders decided enough was enough, mobilized his warband, and conquored the offending country. He returned home to a glorious celebration and an unavoidable marriage offer to a ranking princess in the old empire, and after a bit of intrigue and a minor revolt or three wound up being ruler of the emperor reborn. His actions ended a regime that had pretty much turned into a giant criminal cartel, and forced the decadent ruling clans of the old empire to shape themselves up at least somewhat. The new emperor then went and conquored another decadent nation never part of the old empire, one ruled by a cruel sorcerous aristocracy, tripping off a series of events that resulted in getting him killed and haunting the newly reunited empire for a long, long time (right up to the period my stories are set in). However...while the barbarian warleader turned emperor was certainly 'good', and his original people...generally well behaved...it would be difficult to claim the empire as a whole as being 'good'. Definitely better than many of the surrounding peoples and nations, but not as 'good' as some.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Look at Warhammer 40K. The Imperium of Man slaughters thousands and thousands of lives everyday. They destroy entire planets to rebuild humanity to it's former glory. They set out across the stars with a "manifest destiny" approach and use extreme and hateful prejudice against aliens, heretics, and mutants. So yeah their goal is pure but they use twisted and cruel means to achieve it. But good and evil is often portrayed as a POV.