I guess the good guy needs a bad guy to define himself by, eh?
That's a very interesting thought. Does it mean that a "good guy" can't be a good guy without a "bad guy" poking and prodding him to support the good and fight the evil? Or does it mean that the "good guy" and his heroic characteristics already exist but are brought out into the open and highlighted by the actions of the "bad guy?"
If the first is primarily true, then the good guy really isn't good unless he's fighting evil. But if the second is primarily true, then he's good whether he's opposing evil or not.
I think - and I'm not adamant on this - that the second is primarily true, else the "good guy" would have to make a conscious decision every time he/she was faced with a "bad guy" as to whether he/she would oppose the evil. If the "good guy" is predisposed to oppose evil, then the second statement would be more true.
But it's a neat question. And it's framed within a very interesting story. I'm waiting for Peri the White's swordsmanship lessons to be needed. That will give Alexander (or Tempos, or both) a rude shock.
Ready for more!
