Pure good and pure evil clerics adventuring together?

[nakedonmyfoldin]

So i'm wondering if this is possible. I have two players who want an "ebony and ivory" type relationship where they are totally opposite but still good friends. What are some rationalizations for why a good cleric and an evil cleric would adventure together?

I know it would not be likely, but lets just say they are adventuring together. How?

[Raven777]

Two Clerics of the same neutral god (a god of knowledge, or a god of nature, or a god of order, or a god of commerce) could get along. They have different personalities but are bound together through worship of the same god, and offer different takes on how best to serve the faith. After all, I doubt the friars at that God's abbey jump at each other's throat over alignment differences, or the cult wouldn't last long.

Lawful Good and Lawful Evil can also get along reasonably well, because the Lawful Good guy tends to feel bound by the rules that the Lawful Evil guy abuses.

[nakedonmyfoldin]

Those examples work, but in this scenario, I would want them to be polar opposites. Think Nerull and Pelor Clerics working together.

[Subaru Kujo]

Works well enough, as long as the party knows that the evil guy could be doing something else, but instead, he wants to help the world (as is the case with my cleric, though he wants to help the world to watch it die, preferably by his hand, and rise again as an undead utopia (details, who needs em?)). Much as I hate to say it like this, conflict within the party can be good. Party rending angst is bad.

[hamishspence]

LE and CE could both work as vigilantes, but with diametrically opposite attitudes as to how severe to be with villains.

[Malimar]

I'm thinking of the relationship between the demon Crowley and the angel Aziraphale in Good Omens. They've just been working against each other for so long that they've grown used to one another's company (to the point that sometimes they even fill in for one another). It helps that they're both pretty easy-going, and neither is particularly extreme (Crowley is described as not having "fallen" so much as "sauntered vaguely downwards"), and, when it comes down to it, they would both prefer that the world keep existing instead of ending.

[Averis Vol]

I DM'ed a game once that had a town sheriff partied together with a gritty smuggler who was constantly locked up by either him or his deputies. The town, more of a hamlet really, they were from got attacked by a wave of forest spirits and slaughtered nearly everyone. One was an urban ranger, the other was a swashbuckler, and OOC they had a grudge to see who could wind up with the higher strength score, so their characters in game were sort of 40k space marine throwbacks minus the stupid armor. Grudgingly the sheriff let him free to help the others strong enough escape (See: the party).

So their relationship was always tense at best. When they stopped off somewhere they would stay in different inns, they would fight on opposite sides of the battle and sleep on opposite sides of the camp. but with the Taer mark (a spirit fueled arcane mark that sapped strength the farther away you got from the other markees) they were sort of forced to stay together whether they liked it or not. I think the best interaction I got from them was when, while trying to evade a rampaging ogre frenzied berserker , the swashbuckler kicked out the leg from under a young lady so he could get away, which the sheriff definitely saw. So when they got to camp the gloves came off. The sheriff dropped his sword belt and breast plate while the swashbuckler threw down his chainshirt and spear, and the two proceeded to beat eachother so far into the negatives that the cleric was barely able to get them up for the night.

there were other incidents, and I'm not sure if this is exactly what you wanted, but I figure that this is mostly a RP problem, and if they desire to be clashing opposites, an example of how it would work out might be a good bit of insight.

[lsfreak]

LE and CE could both work as vigilantes, but with diametrically opposite attitudes as to how severe to be with villains.

Presumably one of those is supposed to be good?

Another option is simply that it's not that important to them. They act good and evil, but it's overshadowed by other traits. It could be the law/chaos aspect of their alignment, or it could be something else. The good character's personality is defined primarily by their willingness to help, while the evil person's is defined primarily by a brutal pragmatism. The good cleric wants to help the small village drive off the giants that make them pay half their food in tribute, but the evil cleric points out that helping here means Baron Von Evil massacres the village they're supposed to be secretly relocating - it's purely a numbers game. The evil character would rather give a dragon the city's vault for a cut of it, and the good cleric points out the benefits of having an entire city view you as a hero if you can defeat it. Or other traits; the evil cleric is first and foremost emotional (impulsive, overreacts, short-sighted, hurts himself and those he's around) while the good cleric is thoughtful, calm, and patient; they each keep each other rooted in reality, supporting each other and smoothing out their sharpest edges.

[Honest Tiefling]

What's the campaign setting? Maybe these gods oppose each other, but there's something present that makes them decide that they can kill each other later, better go deal with Cthulhu first.

Or it could be a godly relationship like Horus and Set. Yes, one is good and one is evil, but they are still related and the point of the god king is to find a balance between the two extremes.

Heck, the evil god could be like Pazuzu (the god, not the demon in DnD) where he is evil, but a part of his job is to chase off someone who is even MORE evil.

Edit: Or, if the gods are related they are under a pact or laws that prevent them from shedding each other's blood, such as the reason why the Norse gods couldn't just kill Hodur.

[OrlockDelesian]

In Dragonlance it worked fine.

Raistlin Majere (an egocentric, hyper powefull, evil to the bone wizard (though I still loved him) spent most of his earlier adventures with a good aligned party, and later with a High Priestess of the purest and goodest god.
He had his own reasons and agenta of course, but he still saved his comrades more than enough times to be proclaimed a Hero.

I think you need to find a reason for them to need each other, be it love or actuall friendship.
Beiing friends with someone is more than having the same viewpoint. Maybe the good guy saved the evil guys life and the evil guy feels obliged by honor to repay the dept. Maybe they grew up together.
Maybe the world is ending and they must cooperrate.
The possibilities are endless, and I personaly think that with the right group of players it can be done, and be a lot of fun as well.

[aeauseth]

Generally evil and good characters aren't going to last as friends. An evil character might join up for an adventure or two, but will likely become disinterested at some point. Or the good character will leave because the party did something evil.

This presumes that you use alignment and role playing. If the good characters never do anything that upsets the evil character and vice versa, then all the characters are likely neutral.

I have seen DM that allow the evil player to "pretend" he is neutral within the party, and offer side missions (typically solo) to practice his evil tendencies.

Quick scenario. The well liked and rich town merchant is assaulted by bandits. The party arrives just in time to save him. The merchant is at 1 hp, and has thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure on him. Does the party save him, let him keep his belongings and escort him back to town (good). Kill him and take all his treasure (evil). Let him fall unconscious, stabilize him, steal his belongings, and move on to the next adventure (neutral?).

The evil guy is going to be upset if you are constantly passing up easy treasure. He'd think the merchant wasn't careful enough and that's his problem, and the parties gain.

The good guy should never let the innocent merchant die, let alone by the actions (or implicit) inaction of the party.

If you never do anything GOOD or EVIL then you’re NEUTRAL.

[chaos_redefined]

Heavy references to Order of the Stick ahead.

For starters, CE doesn't generally have a problem with working with LG until the LG becomes Miko or the like. It's the same kind of thing as Tarquin being happy to work with Elan. The problem occurs for the good guy who needs to justify the act of working with evil.

Options to do this include:
1) The Jail Warden. This is Roy's justification for working with Belkar. Essentially, if LG wasn't keeping an eye on CE, then CE would do horrible things to innocent people. This way, CE's destructive tendencies are directed towards the goals of the good guys.

2) Redemption. Essentially, LG travels with CE for the sole purpose of trying to convert CE.

3) They are friends. I can have philosophical differences with a friend, and still hang around them. What's the problem?

[lsfreak]

Quick scenario. The well liked and rich town merchant is assaulted by bandits. The party arrives just in time to save him. The merchant is at 1 hp, and has thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure on him. Does the party save him, let him keep his belongings and escort him back to town (good). Kill him and take all his treasure (evil). Let him fall unconscious, stabilize him, steal his belongings, and move on to the next adventure (neutral?).

I question whether stealing a good portion of someone's livelihood merely counts as "neutral."

Nonetheless, the party saves him and escorts him back. On or after the escort, depending on when the evil party member can catch him, the evil party member lets it slip how very unfortunate it would be if word got out to more bandit groups about how easily he was assaulted. Or maybe he quietly suggests the merchant keep in mind, in the future, how the party helped him out in a time of need, and that if they have a time of need in the future, the merchant should consider making sure the evil party member doesn't feel slighted by the aid they receive. Or maybe the evil party member simply recommends a good guard service or caravaneer's guild that he happens to be on the payroll of and will get a finder's fee for. Or maybe he does nothing this time, because he got the joy of whispering in one of the bandit's ears that they were pathetic as he slowly slit their throat.

[Story]

Or maybe the evil person does nothing because he wants people to think he's a hero so that he can take over more easily later.

[Subaru Kujo]

Generally evil and good characters aren't going to last as friends. An evil character might join up for an adventure or two, but will likely become disinterested at some point. Or the good character will leave because the party did something evil.

This presumes that you use alignment and role playing. If the good characters never do anything that upsets the evil character and vice versa, then all the characters are likely neutral.

I have seen DM that allow the evil player to "pretend" he is neutral within the party, and offer side missions (typically solo) to practice his evil tendencies.

Quick scenario. The well liked and rich town merchant is assaulted by bandits. The party arrives just in time to save him. The merchant is at 1 hp, and has thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure on him. Does the party save him, let him keep his belongings and escort him back to town (good). Kill him and take all his treasure (evil). Let him fall unconscious, stabilize him, steal his belongings, and move on to the next adventure (neutral?).

The evil guy is going to be upset if you are constantly passing up easy treasure. He'd think the merchant wasn't careful enough and that's his problem, and the parties gain.

The good guy should never let the innocent merchant die, let alone by the actions (or implicit) inaction of the party.

If you never do anything GOOD or EVIL then you’re NEUTRAL.

Or, he'd go along with the good members. You do too much evil with witnesses around, you are going to attract attention to yourself and the group. Which makes the group have a fun decision: they can either shelter you, and become outlaws themselves, or they can cut off your head at earliest convenience, turning it in to the nearest constable (also for easy money, for the guy that practices unabashed evil undoubtedly has a good price on his head).

Evil is evil. Very rarely is it stupid.

See, this is "good" evil:


I question whether stealing a good portion of someone's livelihood merely counts as "neutral."

Nonetheless, the party saves him and escorts him back. On or after the escort, depending on when the evil party member can catch him, the evil party member lets it slip how very unfortunate it would be if word got out to more bandit groups about how easily he was assaulted. Or maybe he quietly suggests the merchant keep in mind, in the future, how the party helped him out in a time of need, and that if they have a time of need in the future, the merchant should consider making sure the evil party member doesn't feel slighted by the aid they receive. Or maybe the evil party member simply recommends a good guard service or caravaneer's guild that he happens to be on the payroll of and will get a finder's fee for. Or maybe he does nothing this time, because he got the joy of whispering in one of the bandit's ears that they were pathetic as he slowly slit their throat.

[nakedonmyfoldin]

Could do, my players being infinitely creative came up with gay lovers. Despite their alignments, true love prevails. I find it tough to argue with

[Red Fel]

I could see LE and CG better than I could see LG and CE. I will explain.

LE is a manipulator. LE tends to be goal-oriented, and a more entertaining LE character, I find, tends to focus on the long-term rather than the short-term. As a result, he will work with protagonists in order to benefit himself, provided he can still adhere to his infernal regulatory scheme. CG cares less about rules and roles, and more about goodness and personal freedom. He's going to dislike working with evil, but he'll put up with it as long as it promotes his agenda. Thus, the LE will see himself as manipulating the CG to promote his aims; the CG will see himself as putting up with the LE for the greater good.

Contrast that with (how players often play) LG with a CE ally. I find that a lot of people play LG as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Even those who don't play LG as "Lawful Stupid" will nonetheless be extremely reluctant (to say the least) to willingly ally with evil, even for a time. They must make it abundantly clear that they do so under protest, that they wish to smite the villain, and that they will do so as soon as is practicable and honorable. CE, by contrast, isn't going to be reserved enough to be tolerable. CE, by its nature, is self-indulgent, sadistic and barbaric. There will be constant displays of villainy, from gratuitous kicking of puppies to other less mentionable acts, each one provoking response from the LG. It doesn't balance nearly as well.

One could argue that the LE/CG dynamic should parallel the LG/CE dynamic. One might very well be right. If your LE is the essential Dark Knight, effectively an evil paladin, that's precisely what one would expect. But I find that the practice doesn't play out that way. (Admittedly, I'm speaking from experience, not in absolutes.)

I'll offer an example. I was once in a Dragonlance campaign with a mix of good and evil characters. The good characters were all either NG or CG, which was helpful. One character was neutral, bordering on evil. Two of the characters were quite blatantly evil, however. One was LE, and only worked with the party because he had given his word to do so. The other was fairly NE, and the primary spellcaster. While she was with the party, she was friendly, helpful, and sweet; after all, these were her friends and she was happy to be of assistance. While she was off on her own, she was burning villages to the ground, raising their dead as zombies, and harvesting their remains as reagents for her twisted spells. There was no misunderstanding between the characters. The Good ones tolerated the neutral-towards-evil guy because he obeyed one of the good ones; they tolerated the LE because of his oath; and they tolerated the psychotically murderous sorceress because she was still their friend; she just killed a lot of people they didn't know when they weren't around to see it.

That worked, somehow.

Short version? Characters on the same general side of the alignment grid (LE/LG, CE/LE, CG/LG, maybe even CG/CE) can get along. Characters on absolute opposite ends (CE/LG, LE/CG) will have a much tougher, if not impossible side. Paladins are right out. The trick is to give the characters a reason to be together, unrelated to alignment. Character backgrounds work great.

And no paladins.

EDIT: It occurs to me that a substantial part of it is how one plays one's alignment. A player who sees their alignment as a piece of background, as opposed to a defining character trait, will have less of a problem consorting with the enemy, as it were. By contrast, characters for whom alignment is a defining trait will have a harder time.

So, a Paladin will have a tough time consorting with demons, a cleric of Shevarash will find it a challenge to tolerate Drow, etc. But a CG barbarian could come to appreciate the face-smashing skills of an LE Crusader, and a LG Monk could appreciate the spiritual insights of a CG Cleric, despite alignment differences.

[Con_Brio1993]

Reminds me of the book Good Omens where an angel and demon maintain a stable friendship for several thousand years.

It is possible for them to have certain things in common (they both like horse riding, or some such thing) but disagree philosophically. They can make a mutual agreement to not discuss philosophy and to avoid meddling in each others day jobs.

[Immabozo]

Think of Sheppard Book. The good one may be trying to save his "fallen" friend, the evil friend is trying to corrupt his good friend.

Or perhaps they are trying to show whose God is better. Or maybe on picked an opposite god to spite the other, to prove him wrong. Maybe one is trying to do something different to get out from the "older brother's" shadow

[Grushvak]

Alignments are not "teams", as in team Evil versus team Good. A good character does not have to be a holy crusader, vanquish-all-evil type, nor does an evil character have to be kick-the-puppy, stab-your-friends-in-the-back evil at all times. They have different motivations, they might not agree on a lot of things, but that does not preclude them from being friends.

The only issue here is that they are priests. But, again, not all evil and good deities are in direct opposition to each other. Just make sure they pick two gods that are not mortal enemies, as that certainly wouldn't help their case, and there's no more reason to overthink this.


Characters on the same general side of the alignment grid (LE/LG, CE/LE, CG/LG, maybe even CG/CE) can get along. Characters on absolute opposite ends (CE/LG, LE/CG) will have a much tougher, if not impossible side. Paladins are right out.

The campagin I'm currently playing has me as a LE warlock buddying up with a LG paladin of Pelor. It works, as long as the paladin keeps believing my character isn't completely rotten to the core.

[Story]

Why would an evil character try to corrupt anyone? Unless they're actually a devil or something they gain no benefit from it. Plus most people don't really think of themselves as evil.

[Subaru Kujo]

Why would an evil character try to corrupt anyone? Unless they're actually a devil or something they gain no benefit from it. Plus most people don't really think of themselves as evil.

The satisfaction at watching a paladin, savior of humanity, fall? I dunno, it might get some evil types off.

[Grushvak]

The satisfaction at watching a paladin, savior of humanity, fall? I dunno, it might get some evil types off.
There is an entire range of evil between "kind of a ****" and "cartoonishly evil". There are plenty of evil individuals who don't even think of themselves as evil.

[Con_Brio1993]

The satisfaction at watching a paladin, savior of humanity, fall? I dunno, it might get some evil types off.

Yeah but even evil people have friends. An evil person who is friends with a paladin might laugh if the paladin falls through some stupidity, but might not go out of his way to make the paladin fall.

[Subaru Kujo]

There is an entire range of evil between "kind of a ****" and "cartoonishly evil". There are plenty of evil individuals who don't even think of themselves as evil.
Of course. It's why I said some.

Yeah but even evil people have friends. An evil person who is friends with a paladin might laugh if the paladin falls through some stupidity, but might not go out of his way to make the paladin fall.

It honestly depends. Some are just forced into working with them (goodness knows I've been forced to work with a paladin of slaughter as a lawful good), rather than being actual friends. Allies of necessity, as it were.

[Red Fel]

The satisfaction at watching a paladin, savior of humanity, fall? I dunno, it might get some evil types off.

Imagine watching someone change over time. He used to be a paragon of virtue. Slowly, he slips. Little things at first; he hesitates for a second before charging valiantly into battle, he orders a second ale from the barkeep, he sleeps in more and slacks off just a bit on his training. Over time, he barely notices the changes. The people who spend a lot of time with him barely notice them. The people who haven't seen him, however, see a difference. Those who once sang his praises now speak about the man he was, not the man he is. Those who opened their doors to him now wave politely across the square, avoiding prolonged eye contact. He becomes confused by the loss of their attentions, disheartened. This becomes frustration, which leads to angry outbursts, further isolating him. Even his allies begin to notice the changes now, but their expressions of concern are misinterpreted by his angry mind. They're turning against him, like everyone else. Slowly, he cuts himself off from those closest to him, convinced that he's still the man he was, blind to the changes still accelerating. Only when it is too late, when he is so far gone that he has no-one left, only then does he realize what happened. He has no idea how it came to this, no idea how it started, and no idea how to fix it. He is lost, distraught and despairing. He is a ruined husk of a human being.

Now imagine there is a person who takes a particular perverse pleasure in watching the decline from exultation to exile, from glory to despair. Doing this to somebody would be like crack for them.

... I suppose the opposite is sort of also true, maybe.

[Subaru Kujo]

Imagine watching someone change over time. He used to be a paragon of virtue. Slowly, he slips. Little things at first; he hesitates for a second before charging valiantly into battle, he orders a second ale from the barkeep, he sleeps in more and slacks off just a bit on his training. Over time, he barely notices the changes. The people who spend a lot of time with him barely notice them. The people who haven't seen him, however, see a difference. Those who once sang his praises now speak about the man he was, not the man he is. Those who opened their doors to him now wave politely across the square, avoiding prolonged eye contact. He becomes confused by the loss of their attentions, disheartened. This becomes frustration, which leads to angry outbursts, further isolating him. Even his allies begin to notice the changes now, but their expressions of concern are misinterpreted by his angry mind. They're turning against him, like everyone else. Slowly, he cuts himself off from those closest to him, convinced that he's still the man he was, blind to the changes still accelerating. Only when it is too late, when he is so far gone that he has no-one left, only then does he realize what happened. He has no idea how it came to this, no idea how it started, and no idea how to fix it. He is lost, distraught and despairing. He is a ruined husk of a human being.

Now imagine there is a person who takes a particular perverse pleasure in watching the decline from exultation to exile, from glory to despair. Doing this to somebody would be like crack for them.

... I suppose the opposite is sort of also true, maybe.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of, more or less.

[Flickerdart]

It really depends on the gods. Clerics of Heironeous and Hextor might get along okay, even though their gods are sworn enemies - both of them are gods of war, and as Lawful clerics, their worshippers would generally be okay fighting under an authority figure of a different alignment (possibly while struggling to subvert their actions to bring about a result that favours their alignment). Likewise, a cleric of Kord would get along great with some followers of Gruumsh who decide to turn their violent tendencies to non-lethal competition, or Erythnul's faithful who embrace his idea that killing the weak and unworthy dishonours the god.

Pelor and Nerull are a bad opposite to use because they're both Neutral on the Chaos-Law axis, so they don't have anything in common at all. You could have their clerics get along solely on the basis of personal relationships, but their churches would not be likely to tolerate that.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I like your players solution! What is the backstory in them?

[trodgerable]

Let him fall unconscious, stabilize him, steal his belongings, and move on to the next adventure (neutral?).

The evil guy is going to be upset if you are constantly passing up easy treasure. He'd think the merchant wasn't careful enough and that's his problem, and the parties gain.

The good guy should never let the innocent merchant die, let alone by the actions (or implicit) inaction of the party.

If you never do anything GOOD or EVIL then you’re NEUTRAL.

This is a pretty sociopathic view of neutrality. Stealing his stuff and leaving him unconscious on the side of the road is NOT neutral. It's blatantly evil and will probably cause much undue harm to the merchant and his way of life in the long run.

[hamishspence]

Presumably one of those is supposed to be good?

Sorry- second should have been CG, which is also associated with vigilantes in D&D.

[rexreg]

make the campaign a struggle of existence vs. non-existence...
or Being vs. Void

no alignment precludes a certain amount of will to exist...something on the horizon that will make the plane the party is on into Nothing will force everyone to work together whether they like each other or no...

i realize there are some who savour the Void and I'm not including them in the above scenario...

[Piedmon_Sama]

So i'm wondering if this is possible. I have two players who want an "ebony and ivory" type relationship where they are totally opposite but still good friends. What are some rationalizations for why a good cleric and an evil cleric would adventure together?

I know it would not be likely, but lets just say they are adventuring together. How?

Like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WGMG23GKY) **MAJOR Samurai Champloo spoilers**

If you don't know the series and don't mind being spoiled, here's what I mean:
Jin is a ronin, and he's basically straight-up chaotic good. "What honor is there in serving a master who's a complete piece of ****?" is the first quote we get from him, and he has no problems taking down the legitimate governor of a town if the guy is corrupt or a bully.

Mugen is an ex-pirate/bandit who grew up in a penal colony and if he's not Chaotic Evil, he's at least very very hardcore Chaotic Neutral. He repeatedly gets into fights to the death for fun, looking for challenging and interesting opponents. He'll also respond to any attempt to reign him in or control him with lethal force.

They're friends.

Well, not the first time they meet. Actually it's pure dumb luck that keeps them from not killing each other in their first encounter, and after that forces them to stick together. What ends up happening is, after being stuck with each other long enough they realize they respect one another as warriors, have come to implicitly trust and depend on one another for their lives. Jin definitely isn't okay with Mugen's gross habits but he's come to respect Mugen's strength (both physically, and of his character) and he knows Mugen will have his back in a fight, and vice versa. They're men of different principles, but they both have principles, letting trust exist. It's not a typical friendship but it is definitely a mutual respect, that I think could exist between any two alignments.

Mugen and Jin don't even realize they've become friends at some point. They have a running vow, once their mission is complete, to finish their original fight to the death. It's not until the very moment they realize they can't go through with it---as Mugen tells Jin, "you're the first strong guy I've met I just don't want to kill." Everyone else he'd killed was just another speedbump or an interesting challenge---Jin was likely the first fellow warrior Mugen actually got to know as a person. It doesn't mean Mugen's alignment turned good, it just means he decided "I'm not going to kill this one particular person, because I don't want to."

In short, as long as your player-characters know the other guy will have their back, and respects his competency as a teammate, there's no reason Good and Evil PCs can't adventure together. They might never be friends in the casual, companionable sense but a deeper respect (especially between two characters of the same class) could still exist. Characters who beep "evil" on the alignment grid can still feel love, respect, and comradry. You can play an evil character who simply doesn't want to betray his party (and even agrees to at least respect their morals while working with them) simply because he finds them worthy of his respect.

[Flavel]

If the clerics worship deities of the same pantheon it *might* work.

A cleric of Hades and a cleric of Apollo, for instance, might have dramatically different world views but realize that each has a necessary function to play in the cosmos. This is assuming that the deities the clerics worship are not enemies.

Alternatively, perhaps each cleric is attempting to redeem/corrupt the other?

Alternatively, perhaps each cleric is on a similar quest or other over-arching mission that happens to be complementary to the other's goals? Wouldn't be the first time that world-shaking events make strange bedfellows.

[visigani]

Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil I think are the only ways this works.

The lawful Evil character owes the Chaotic Good character some debt, or respects the CG character for something they did or whatever.
So the LE character swears an oath of begrudging fealty to the CG character
and off they go.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So, a Paladin will have a tough time consorting with demons, a cleric of Shevarash will find it a challenge to tolerate Drow, etc. But a CG barbarian could come to appreciate the face-smashing skills of an LE Crusader, and a LG Monk could appreciate the spiritual insights of a CG Cleric, despite alignment differences.

Well, depends on your view of Shevarash. In the novels (not quite a valid source, I know), the followers of Shevarash murdered one of their own in cold blood when he refused to kill a child, and the cleric wasn't stripped of his powers. Make of that what you will.


This is a pretty sociopathic view of neutrality. Stealing his stuff and leaving him unconscious on the side of the road is NOT neutral. It's blatantly evil and will probably cause much undue harm to the merchant and his way of life in the long run.

Agreed. Stealing his stuff, stashing it in a bag of holding and escorting him to town, apologizing for not being able to catch the bandits who stole all of his money/goods? That's a lot more neutral than stabilizing him and leaving him at the side of the road.

[pwykersotz]

I put forth Professor X and Magneto.

The key is not what divides them, but what unites them. What unites these two friends? Love of country? Pursuit of justice? Or maybe they find equals in each other and have decided to see whose ideology wins out when they work side by side?

[Seto]

I agree with a lot's that been said.

However, with the "they can have philosophical differences and still be friends" thing, there's a problem. Personally, I have very close friends who hold widely different philosophical views - I still love them. But we don't adventure together. In the cases of adventurers, the problem is not just philosophical opinions, but actions that stem from them. The good cleric can agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however misguided or evil (if he is somewhat open-minded), but when the evil guy is about to kill an innocent person, he forgets about philosophy and says : "I CANNOT let you do that". The reverse is often less true, but can be.
So I think it's tricky to have "pure good and pure evil" (meaning they are not likely to concede much) clerics adventuring together. Tricky, but not impossible : it is actually a pretty fun rp challenge : finding them reasons to put their differences aside (in that case, they might work together but they'll still likely hate each other). If you want them to actually be friends (or lovers), they should hurt a lot when seeing the other be so "misguided", and try to rally him to their ways. Or just accept that there are other views of life and the other might be right in his own way (but this is slipping towards Neutrality - but then, wouldn't it be fun if the lovers started pure good and pure evil, and became Neutral through a mutual and progressive understanding of each other and subsequent relativism ? although that would probably be mechanically bad for clerics, losing their abilities and whatnot.)

[MinMax Hardcore]

It really depends on the setting and the adventure.

Let's say I play a LG paladin who works with an underground boss
who is CE while in a city that is completely corrupted.

The CE mafia guy is trying to control the city, but needs the
LG paladin help. The only reason why the CE mafia guy working
with the LG paladin, because the paladin is loyal and trustworthy.
It is really hard to find trusted companions in this corrupted city.

Now for the back story for the pure good and pure evil cleric.

The evil cleric worship the god of slaughter. He is the type that goes, "Blood for the Blood God, skulls for the skull throne!". Doesn't matter if you are good, evil, strong, weak. He want to throw the world into chaos and watch the slaughter.

The good cleric worship the god of mercy. He attend the sick and the dying which are soon put to the sword by the evil cleric. Although he is helpless to stop the slaughter, the best he can do is help put the souls to rest. Without his work, there will be a lot of restless spirits.

Now why they are gay lovers? Maybe they have a maso/sadist relationship? Maybe they are just kinky and leave it at that.

Edit: Oh wow, what if good cleric is the sadist and evil cleric is
the maso. Just imagine their relationship.

Good Cleric: You naughty boy. You shouldn't slaughter all those people. *whip*
Evil Cleric: I can't help it. I'm a bad boy! *cries*
DM: *face palm*