The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model has been widely regarded as the premier model for guiding offender assessment and treatment. The RNR model underlies some of the most widely used risk-needs offender assessment instruments, and it is the only theoretical model that has been used to interpret the offender treatment literature. Recently, the good lives model (GLM) has been promoted as an alternative and enhancement to RNR. GLM sets itself apart from RNR by its positive, strengths-based, and restorative model of rehabilitation. In addition, GLM hypothesizes that enhancing personal fulfillment will lead naturally to reductions in criminogenic needs, whereas RNR posits the reverse direction. In this article the authors respond to GLM’s criticisms of RNR and conclude that little substance is added by GLM that is not already included in RNR, although proponents of RNR may learn from the popular appeal that GLM, with its positive, strength-based focus, has garnered from clinicians over the past decade.