Would Lawful Good and Chaotic Good ever wage war with each other?

[Zhentarim]

It's just a thought bubble I had.

[TheIronGolem]

Yes, because wars aren't caused by alignment differences.

[Zhentarim]

Yes, because wars aren't caused by alignment differences.

In DnD, they seem to be.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Do you mean lawful good and chaotic good societies or do you mean a war in the heavans between the archons and eladrins?

To the former, yes, certainly. They'd seek to avoid it but politics can be a bugger like that sometimes.

To the latter, I wouldn't go as far as absolutely not but it's -highly- unlikely. It almost certainly wouldn't occur without some outside influence from "the deep end of the alignment pool."

[DarkSoul]

I think it would require a more "shades of gray" alignment system than what's present in D&D/PF. In the base rules good and evil are real, detectable forces, and a simple spell or paladin hanging around can tell you that while the barbarian horde next door is disorderly conduct personified, they're not evil, and generally care about the welfare of others in their own way.

A more likely scenario, in my opinion, would be that lawful good would try to ally with the chaotic good, or at least channel their chaos in a mutually-beneficial direction.

[daryen]

Outsiders? Probably not, except for some super contrived circumstance. There seems to be a pretty solid agreement by the Good outer planes to cooperate together to prevent dying one at a time.

Nations or groups? Sure. Doesn't seem like much a problem, either. Just consider the classic example of elves versus dwarfs. Chaotic Good elves and Lawful Good dwarfs typically hate each other for some reason or another, and are more than willing to fight if given half a chance. Getting a couple human societies to fight wouldn't be much of a challenge, either.

Even better would just be Lawful Good against Lawful Good. I could see two Lawful Good nations lunge at the opportunity to rip each other's throats out for a whole host of reasons. Different gods, different cultures, different races. Whatever. Heck, you could even set this up within a single religious organization if you have a powerful enough schism or heresy to fuel it. Both sides Lawful Good; both sides utterly determined to destroy the other.

The best part is that the two Lawful Good nations would likely end up de-humanizing (or whatever the species-neutral version of that word is) the other side, such that both sides will absolutely believe they are fighting for Law and Good and that the other side is either not Good or outright Evil. Detect spells are pointless when each side is entrenched and convinced of their rightness and that the other side are monsters.

[Pleh]

Good characters and societies tend to prefer nonviolent solutions when possible.

But it's possible to go to war. Battle of the Five armies, bro. Just because an army is good aligned doesn't mean they are the paragons of goodness and have no personal motives to pursue.

[Sayt]

On what level are we talking?

I personally think that it is really hard for nations to be Good (big G), and very easy for them to be evil(little e), because you're dealing with so many abstractions. You need to secure borders and food supply, you need to maintain foreign relations, keep peace within the realm.

But... yes, I could think of a situation in which a LG and CG countries could wage war.

Lets say that we have two neighbours, Lawsvilles and Chaovia. One of their natural borders is a forested mountain range. It's fairly close to a Lawsville population center, and bandits take up in the forest to raid across the border and many a nuissance of themselves. The Chaovians show no real interest in putting a stop to this. As far as they're concerned, these are just rugged back-country subsistence hunter/gatherers. And then a noble dies in a hold-up on the Lawvillestan side of the border, so the Prince-Regent sends peacekeepers (Light infantry/skirmishers/hired adventurers operating under letters of marque) across into Chaovia to root out the bandits and ensure the safety of their citizens, which is, y'know, what they think their job is. Chaovia takes a low view of their neighbours marching across the borders and arresting their citizens and killing those who resist, so they deploy their citizen militias supported by the national cavalry to push the Lawsvillian aggressors back across the border.

[Darth Ultron]

It's possible, but mostly no.

All good people agree on ''being good'', but they might have minor bits each, but it would be nothing that could most often lead to a war.

Remember that the idea that ''everyone is something or nothing or anything or whatever they say they are or whatever'' is not an idea in D&D. Good is good and does good things, evil is evil and does evil things....it's not the ''everyone does random things and is whatever they say they are''.

[TheFamilarRaven]

I vaguely recall a line form the Book of Exalted Deeds that there have been wars between the CG and LG planes. But I mean, that came out of the Book of Exalted Deeds, so take that with a grain of salt.

Total war between the two groups belonging to either alignment seems unlikely. Good is good. The only times I see the two going at each others throats is when decided what to do with limited resources.

As an (extremely contrived) example, imagine there's an artifact which can only be used once. The LG peeps wanna use it to destroy the big demon overlord, Xiaugd'aouhf'kjsabs'o. The the CG guys wanna snuff out the great evil arch-devil known as McTyrant. Both can't have what they want so they gotta duke it out.

[Mordaedil]

World War 1 was started because of a series of tragedies where every attempt to diplomacy their way out had failed, where there were noone truly evil and just a difference in ideaologies or suffrage.

It's not exactly a matter of law vs. chaos, but lawful good versus lawful good.

So I see no reason why lawful good couldn't war against chaotic good.

[Segev]

Yes, it's possible. Marvel's Civil War was an attempt to write such a thing, though they botched it because the Lawful side was behaving closer to LN than LG (with heavy influence from the LE of corrupt bureaucracy).

But the core disagreement is a good example.

Do you trust the individuals to make good choices up and until each individual individually proves that he cannot be trusted? Or do you impose pre-emptive controls and codes which require those who wish to act to have permission to do so, so that cooler heads might prevail before even accidental wrongdoing can occur?

An LG nation might well feel obligated to bring law to the "unorganized hinterlands" that are, in truth, a series of CG city-states. Especially if the CG city-states' problems are spilling over a little into the LG nation's territory, or impacting the LG nation's people. CG has issues - trusting people means that bad apples have more opportunity to act with impunity. And that miscommunication and honest disagreement between neutral and even good people can lead to conflicts that are settled less than amicably.

LG, meanwhile, wants to pre-empt those problems, so sends out negotiators, ambassadors, and tries to make treaties and offer their law enforcement aid. But their own problems - LN and LE corruption within the ranks through abuse of rules, slow response times due to bureaucratic rigamorale, etc. - frustrate the CG types, who view the agreements as things more to hold to the spirit of than the letter. And as they break the letter, the LG types find themselves obligated to bring suit or even attempt to unilaterally enforce the agreements.

Wars break out because the LG society sees the CG society as a bunch of hooligans who at best don't know what they're doing and are causing trouble, and at worst are active law-breakers who can't be trusted and foment real trouble. Meanwhile, the CG society sees the LG people as oppressive bureaucrats and tyrants who get in the way of what needs to be done and use the letter of agreements to violate the spirit and impose their rules where they're neither needed nor wanted.

[Florian]

It's just a thought bubble I had.

The L-C axis is as opposed as the G-E axis is.
So, yes, they would, within the restrictions that the shared G component would allow.

[Inevitability]

Eberron's Last War had pretty much everyone fighting pretty much everyone, and that included generally-LG Thrane, generally-CG Breland and generally-NG Aundair. A war between these alignments isn't just possible, it's canonically confirmed in at least one setting (that admittedly treats alignment somewhat differently, but still).

[tomandtish]

Good can certainly go to war with Good. It can be done well or poorly. As someone noted above, the comic version of Civil War explored the concept but was poorly handled.

I've even been involved in a situation where two Paladins slugged it out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20907897&postcount=6), both fully believing they were in the right and both apparently fully backed by their deity.

There are always ways to justify it (resources, misunderstandings, honest disagreements on how to handle something). Handling it well will be the harder issue.

[Strigon]

*Ahem*

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/captain-america-civil-war-2016/large_large_5N20rQURev5CNDcMjHVUZhpoCNC.jpg

[Necroticplague]

Why not? If LE and CE can be slugging out in the longest war ever, I don't see a reason LG and CG can't be fighting it out over their differences. Their mutual respect for life might keep it from turning into the horrific stain the Blood War has become, but there's no reason their can't be some fighting to destroy/convert those who too closely resemble their greatest enemies.

[Red Fel]

Why not? If LE and CE can be slugging out in the longest war ever, I don't see a reason LG and CG can't be fighting it out over their differences. Their mutual respect for life might keep it from turning into the horrific stain the Blood War has become, but there's no reason their can't be some fighting to destroy/convert those who too closely resemble their greatest enemies.

While this mentions a key point, I have to disagree.

LE and CE fight, not only because they differ on the L-C spectrum, but because they're both horrible. E, by necessity, is self-serving at the expense of others. Of course E will fight E. LE will fight CE, LE will fight LE, CE will fight CE, NE will fight everyone because NE is comprised entirely of total jerks.

Yeah, I'm horrible. Venite ad me, Frater.

LG and CG, on the other hand? They do have the ideological differences. And if it were just a question of mortals, of course they would fight, in part because mortals are fallible. They make mistakes. But also because mortals have mortal desires and ideals and comprehension. Examples have already been given in this thread of people disagreeing - strongly - over how to do what's right, and what's best.

Necrotic correctly notes that no CG vs. LG fight would be as bloody as the Blood War, because both sides value life; they don't want to kill each other. Contrast with Evil, which, as a rule, really wants to kill you in increasingly creative ways.

Now, if we switch from mortal Good to Cosmic Good, the potential for conflict sharply decreases. Cosmic G has an innate appreciation for its fellow G, even if it shows disdain for those who differ on the L-C spectrum. It seems improbable that there would be a situation that would result in all-out war. Individual conflict, certainly. For example, if an LG "avenging angel" type was pursuing a CN wrongdoer - CN, not CE - to pass judgment for certain actions committed, and the CN took shelter with some CGs, and the LG tried to pull jurisdiction, the CGs might refuse just to be contrary. "Your laws have no power here." And then there would be a fight.

But a full-scale war seems unlikely, for the simple reason that what defines Good is compassion for others. A certain degree of selflessness. Good characters - Cosmic Good, Good writ large - would rather avoid needless violence and bloodshed of their own. Now, some enjoy a fight, sure, as long as there will be no long-term consequences; the locals in Valhalla love to fight to the death, knowing they'll wake up in the feast hall later. But that's not true war. And Cosmic Good is smart enough to know that they can work out their differences. CG would never fight LG just to be contrary; LG would never attempt to take over CG. Not that they necessarily respect one another, but they respect one another's existence.

[Zhentarim]

While this mentions a key point, I have to disagree.

LE and CE fight, not only because they differ on the L-C spectrum, but because they're both horrible. E, by necessity, is self-serving at the expense of others. Of course E will fight E. LE will fight CE, LE will fight LE, CE will fight CE, NE will fight everyone because NE is comprised entirely of total jerks.

Yeah, I'm horrible. Venite ad me, Frater.

LG and CG, on the other hand? They do have the ideological differences. And if it were just a question of mortals, of course they would fight, in part because mortals are fallible. They make mistakes. But also because mortals have mortal desires and ideals and comprehension. Examples have already been given in this thread of people disagreeing - strongly - over how to do what's right, and what's best.

Necrotic correctly notes that no CG vs. LG fight would be as bloody as the Blood War, because both sides value life; they don't want to kill each other. Contrast with Evil, which, as a rule, really wants to kill you in increasingly creative ways.

Now, if we switch from mortal Good to Cosmic Good, the potential for conflict sharply decreases. Cosmic G has an innate appreciation for its fellow G, even if it shows disdain for those who differ on the L-C spectrum. It seems improbable that there would be a situation that would result in all-out war. Individual conflict, certainly. For example, if an LG "avenging angel" type was pursuing a CN wrongdoer - CN, not CE - to pass judgment for certain actions committed, and the CN took shelter with some CGs, and the LG tried to pull jurisdiction, the CGs might refuse just to be contrary. "Your laws have no power here." And then there would be a fight.

But a full-scale war seems unlikely, for the simple reason that what defines Good is compassion for others. A certain degree of selflessness. Good characters - Cosmic Good, Good writ large - would rather avoid needless violence and bloodshed of their own. Now, some enjoy a fight, sure, as long as there will be no long-term consequences; the locals in Valhalla love to fight to the death, knowing they'll wake up in the feast hall later. But that's not true war. And Cosmic Good is smart enough to know that they can work out their differences. CG would never fight LG just to be contrary; LG would never attempt to take over CG. Not that they necessarily respect one another, but they respect one another's existence.

That was one of the most in-depth and thoughtful post I've seen in a while.

[Kelb_Panthera]

-snip- Venite ad me, Frater. -snip-

I have a tendency to brevity that keeps me from making posts like this with any frequency. This is, essentially, the thought process that led me to my own, much more brief response. Kudos to you, Red, for phrasing it so much more elegantly.

However, can we all take a moment to appreciate that Red Fel just said, "come at me, bro," in latin? Bravo sir. Bravo.

[hamishspence]

I vaguely recall a line form the Book of Exalted Deeds that there have been wars between the CG and LG planes. But I mean, that came out of the Book of Exalted Deeds, so take that with a grain of salt.

It specifically stated that this was always due to corruption of some kind - matching what's said here:


It almost certainly wouldn't occur without some outside influence from "the deep end of the alignment pool."

[Florian]

It specifically stated that this was always due to corruption of some kind - matching what's said here:

That´s pretty much a heap of bull manure an originates from the WotC guys not being able to handle their own source material they´ve been handed down to create the RPG, unlike what the´ve done to Magic, the card game.

Red Fel actually managed to fall into the same trap, let´s call it the Paladin Assumption, by talking about "Cosmic Good", which is actually NG, disregarding the "Cosmic Law" and "Cosmic Chaos" as equally strong and distinct than "G" and "E" variants are.

[Strigon]

Red Fel actually managed to fall into the same trap, let´s call it the Paladin Assumption, by talking about "Cosmic Good", which is actually NG, disregarding the "Cosmic Law" and "Cosmic Chaos" as equally strong and distinct than "G" and "E" variants are.

Actually, Cosmic Good is just Good. If a being whose only facet were Cosmic Good existed, they would indeed be NG, but Cosmic Good is not NG.
When you say a character helps the innocent, those actions aren't Neutral Good, they are simply Good. There is no data on the L/C axis, so no judgement can be passed there.
Also, in general, Cosmic Law and Cosmic Chaos aren't necessarily equally strong; consider a LG outsider - an Archon, for instance.
If what you say is true, then an Archon would have no preference between a CG being and a Devil. They are both diametrically opposed on one axis, but identical on another. If Cosmic Law were just as important to them as Cosmic Good, then these two would be functionally equivalent.
However, as we all know, an Archon would have no dealings with a Devil, but would consider dealing with a CG being. There's the old saying that Paladins are meant to be lawful GOOD, not LAWFUL good. In this case, it's more like "LAWFUL GOOD".

Now, having said that, I do absolutely believe that LG and CG could go to war.
Such a war, though, would be unlikely to occur in the first place, and would certainly not be total war. It's likely that both sides would claim theirs to be the true Good; Chaos claiming that freedom is Good, and as such Lawfulness can get in the way, with Law claiming safety is Good, and Chaos - by its very nature - invites Evil.

It would look nothing like traditional wars; there would be very few actual deaths, I suspect, and certainly no collateral damage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

At least for mortals, absolutely. It's called a security dilemma (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma): basically rational actions by each side are misinterpreted by the other, leading to an ever-escalating series of responses.

[Segev]

If what you say is true, then an Archon would have no preference between a CG being and a Devil. They are both diametrically opposed on one axis, but identical on another. If Cosmic Law were just as important to them as Cosmic Good, then these two would be functionally equivalent.
However, as we all know, an Archon would have no dealings with a Devil, but would consider dealing with a CG being.I wouldn't be too sure of the bolded part.

No, and Archon would not be comfortable working with a Devil. But against a sufficient threat from Chaos, they would both find the other's literal honesty (if not spiritual honesty) reassuring. The fact that, unlike the Chaotic enemy, they can trust the given word of the other to the letter means they can stand together successfully. Neither has too much issue with having to be quite specific in the wording of their agreement, either: the Devil is used to being in those details, and the Archon is well aware that even shared good intentions don't prevent hard feelings if the two sides of an agreement aren't on the same page as to what, precisely, they're agreeing to.

An Archon finds the Devil's vile proclivities repugnant, but he also finds the CG outsider's "ends justify the means" approach equally horrifiying. (Yes, the CG guy means that he's screwing the rules to do the right thing; that's not how the Archon sees it, though.)


There's the old saying that Paladins are meant to be lawful GOOD, not LAWFUL good. In this case, it's more like "LAWFUL GOOD". Paladins are, yes. They're meant to be erring on the side of good if they have to err. But that isn't true of all LG types, certainly not all LG Outsiders. Some will refuse to err at all, and be caught by catch-22s between the two. Some will err one side or the other with equal frequency.

The line between "good with Lawful tendencies" and "Lawful GOOD" is fuzzy, but mostly lies in whether the adherence to Law is a mild preference for the order it brings (but not ever at the expense of what's right) or it's a near-rigid view of Law as a bulwark against unintentional Evil.




I also agree that LG and CG - even on the upper planes - can go to war. LG and LG can go to war. CG and CG can go to war. It's a matter of why. The reason it seems so unlikely is because a key difference between G and E is that E is looking for an excuse to use any means necessary (and violence is often a powerful means) to get their goals, while G is looking for any excuse to help others be happy. The war of *G on *G is going to come about due to each side believing the other so horribly misguided that they will cause worse suffering than the war. Despite the botched handling of Tony's reasoning in Civil War, his motives and Captain America's illustrate this pretty well.

[Dr.Samurai]

I guess it depends on what "good" can mean in this context.

But I think if you're talking about intentions, then yes.

I think, without straying too far into politics, we're seeing some of this now on the left side of the American political spectrum, where a division has formed between liberals and authoritarians.

[Segev]

I think, without straying too far into politics, we're seeing some of this now on the left side of the American political spectrum, where a division has formed between liberals and authoritarians.

Really? I haven't seen that. It's interesting to hear. (Sorry, won't try to pry more out of you, 'cause politics. Just...huh.)

[hamishspence]

I wouldn't be too sure of the bolded part.

An Archon finds the Devil's vile proclivities repugnant, but he also finds the CG outsider's "ends justify the means" approach equally horrifiying.

Depends who's writing. Some writers portray "tolerance" as a big part of Goodness - which is why LG and CG are more likely to "agree to disagree" than LE and CE are.

For LG outsiders with a lower "tolerance for Chaos" than Archons - Arcadian Avengers from one of the later MMs, may qualify.

[Florian]

Actually, Cosmic Good is just Good. If a being whose only facet were Cosmic Good existed, they would indeed be NG, but Cosmic Good is not NG.
When you say a character helps the innocent, those actions aren't Neutral Good, they are simply Good. There is no data on the L/C axis, so no judgement can be passed there.
Also, in general, Cosmic Law and Cosmic Chaos aren't necessarily equally strong; consider a LG outsider - an Archon, for instance.
If what you say is true, then an Archon would have no preference between a CG being and a Devil. They are both diametrically opposed on one axis, but identical on another. If Cosmic Law were just as important to them as Cosmic Good, then these two would be functionally equivalent.
However, as we all know, an Archon would have no dealings with a Devil, but would consider dealing with a CG being. There's the old saying that Paladins are meant to be lawful GOOD, not LAWFUL good. In this case, it's more like "LAWFUL GOOD".

Now, having said that, I do absolutely believe that LG and CG could go to war.
Such a war, though, would be unlikely to occur in the first place, and would certainly not be total war. It's likely that both sides would claim theirs to be the true Good; Chaos claiming that freedom is Good, and as such Lawfulness can get in the way, with Law claiming safety is Good, and Chaos - by its very nature - invites Evil.

It would look nothing like traditional wars; there would be very few actual deaths, I suspect, and certainly no collateral damage.

Sorry, Strigon, you seem to want to give more weight to one axis than another. there simply is no "cosmic good".

[Necroticplague]

Depends who's writing. Some writers portray "tolerance" as a big part of Goodness - which is why LG and CG are more likely to "agree to disagree" than LE and CE are.

And then on the other hand, you have SS, which states in at least one place that Good and Neutral are liable to drive away monsters and any who associate with them, while Evil communities are more accepting of such.

[Red Fel]

That´s pretty much a heap of bull manure an originates from the WotC guys not being able to handle their own source material they´ve been handed down to create the RPG, unlike what the´ve done to Magic, the card game.

Red Fel actually managed to fall into the same trap, let´s call it the Paladin Assumption, by talking about "Cosmic Good", which is actually NG, disregarding the "Cosmic Law" and "Cosmic Chaos" as equally strong and distinct than "G" and "E" variants are.


Sorry, Strigon, you seem to want to give more weight to one axis than another. there simply is no "cosmic good".

Ignoring for a moment the contradiction between "Cosmic Good is actually NG" and "There simply is no 'cosmic good'" - and as an aside, don't tell me what I said, I'm the one who said it and I know what I said - you don't actually offer support for these statements.

Let me explain my position better. When I say "Cosmic Good," I mean, collectively, Outsiders with a G in their alignment columns. That includes NG, but also LG and CG. Beings formed, at least in part, from the cosmic essence of Good. So there is Cosmic Good - the term means those things which are inherently Good, by the nature of their very being.

My position is that Evil is inherently self-serving at the expense of others, while Good prefers not to harm others (aside from Cosmic Evil, defined as per Cosmic Good) where it can be avoided. I think, to some degree, most of us can agree with that position; if you disagree, please say so. Based on that, I posited that Cosmic Good was less prone to infighting than Cosmic Evil.

Now, if you want to address that argument with more than a blanket statement, I should like to hear your response.

[Segev]

Cosmic Good is absolutely less prone to infighting than is Cosmic Evil. But that doesn't mean that even two NG Outsiders couldn't come to blows.

Remember: Cosmic Good actually wants to hurt Cosmic Evil less than Cosmic Evil wants to hurt other Cosmic Evils. They're willing to, but only when Cosmic Evil forces it. Or seems to. (It's because of that "seems to" that two Cosmic Goods can come to violent conflict.)

[Red Fel]

Cosmic Good is absolutely less prone to infighting than is Cosmic Evil. But that doesn't mean that even two NG Outsiders couldn't come to blows.

Remember: Cosmic Good actually wants to hurt Cosmic Evil less than Cosmic Evil wants to hurt other Cosmic Evils. They're willing to, but only when Cosmic Evil forces it. Or seems to. (It's because of that "seems to" that two Cosmic Goods can come to violent conflict.)

Oh, I completely agree that two Good Outsiders could come to blows. Even two groups of Good Outsiders. But the question is actual, large-scale war, and I'm not convinced that could happen, at least not for more than a few moments before both sides got their heads on straight and realized that some kind of misunderstanding happened.

[Segev]

Oh, I completely agree that two Good Outsiders could come to blows. Even two groups of Good Outsiders. But the question is actual, large-scale war, and I'm not convinced that could happen, at least not for more than a few moments before both sides got their heads on straight and realized that some kind of misunderstanding happened.

Once you introduce incompatible ideological differences as to what best serves others, you can absolutely have full scale war break out.

Heck, two CG outsider nations could go to full-scale war if they had conflicting needs and wants that centered around best serving their populations.

[Dr.Samurai]

There are two parts to that alignment, and I think that even though they may agree on the good, the differences between law and chaos can be stark enough to warrant conflict.

So that a people that hold liberalism and the individual to a very high degree, would clash with people that appreciate the group over the individual and want to enact control over the people.

Both groups may want good things for everyone, but there is a potential for the lawful group to infringe on the chaotic group, and this can lead to conflict I think.

[Florian]

Ignoring for a moment the contradiction between "Cosmic Good is actually NG" and "There simply is no 'cosmic good'" - and as an aside, don't tell me what I said, I'm the one who said it and I know what I said - you don't actually offer support for these statements.

Let me explain my position better. When I say "Cosmic Good," I mean, collectively, Outsiders with a G in their alignment columns. That includes NG, but also LG and CG. Beings formed, at least in part, from the cosmic essence of Good. So there is Cosmic Good - the term means those things which are inherently Good, by the nature of their very being.

My position is that Evil is inherently self-serving at the expense of others, while Good prefers not to harm others (aside from Cosmic Evil, defined as per Cosmic Good) where it can be avoided. I think, to some degree, most of us can agree with that position; if you disagree, please say so. Based on that, I posited that Cosmic Good was less prone to infighting than Cosmic Evil.

Now, if you want to address that argument with more than a blanket statement, I should like to hear your response.

Sorry, I hate writing things in english as this language forces me to be more verbose to carry information across than I´m actually used to using my mother tongue, which is german.

Talking about alignments, especially the nine positions alignment grid, hinges on acceptance that all things are equal and no axis can be seen to have more moral and ethical "right" as others.

What you propose is that "Cosmic Good" and "Cosmic Evil" overrule the other alignment axis of "Cosmic Law" and "Cosmic Chaos", which seem to be of a lesser nature and don´t actually count towards how an alignment should be "weighted" and what it would be aligned to.

There is no "Cosmic Good"/"Cosmic Evil" without a "Neutral" component to it then, as only this has no second axis to take into account.

So I don´t know why you think that "LG" should have, at any point, more in common with "CG" than it has with "LE" other than you, personally, weighting the "Good" component to factor in more heavily than the "Lawfull" part of the alignment.

[Luccan]

Maybe. One thing you have to ask is "If mortals are fallible, how fallible are they allowed to be before they change alignment?" If you kill 100 CG men because those are your orders and you're at war, are you still LG or are you LN? I can't think of anything for CG because I'm really bad at defining what that alignment's limits are, but I think you get the idea. Would a war between two Good nations do enough to shift their alignments to Neutral? Because if so, then the answer is only temporarily. If the answer is no, then you have to consider what they're actually putting into this "war" that means they all get say they're still the good guys

[hamishspence]

Good is a better team player in general.

That's why LE vs CE has the Blood War - but there's no Celestial equivalent of the Blood War.

Even at the Neutral range - it's not like the Modrons and the Slaadi are constantly invading one another.


It's not just BoED, either - Manual of the Planes has something similar.


On Arcadia - which is much more biased toward Law than toward Good - Chaotic people are still treated with much more tolerance than Evil people, by the residents (which have Detect abilities).

CG and NG people are allowed to carry on with what they are doing - CN and TN ones are asked to "finish their business and get out" - LE, NE and CE people are attacked on sight.

[Segev]

It's interesting to note that there's no equivalent of the Blood War between LG and LE, nor CG and CE, either.

[Zhentarim]

It's interesting to note that there's no equivalent of the Blood War between LG and LE, nor CG and CE, either.

I could also see CG and CE working together temporarily to stay free, if only to turn on each other that the end. Alignment is weird.

[Inevitability]

Good is a better team player in general.

That's why LE vs CE has the Blood War - but there's no Celestial equivalent of the Blood War.

Going to disagree on inherent differences between Good and Evil being the reason only Evil has a Blood War.

As the second Fiendish Codex so nicely describes, the beginning of the multiverse had only two main alignments: Law and Chaos. The Lawful gods fought the Chaotic demons, but eventually decided said war was a waste of time and created angels for the explicit purpose of fighting demons. Note that it was all gods deciding this, including the LE ones.

Eventually, some of the angels turned into devils, which ended up doing most of the demon-slaying. This explains why the Blood War is still a thing: devils are bound to fight demons. The LE deities are not bound by this, and in fact the same book states they've warred on Asmodeus several times, rather than support him against the demons.

However, on the other end of the alignment spectrum things are less clear. It's pretty obvious that eladrin aren't demons, but their actual origins are never given. This means they can be anything from angels turned chaotic to a new kind of creature altogether. In other words; the angels' duty to fight demons doesn't apply to eladrin.

Incidentally, this also explains the lack of CE/CG or LE/LG Blood Wars.

In other words, the Blood War exists for largely alignment-unrelated reasons, and the forces of Good don't have one because it happens to lack said reasons, rather than because Good is a better team player.

[Florian]

I could also see CG and CE working together temporarily to stay free, if only to turn on each other that the end. Alignment is weird.

Nah, it´s more that WotC/TSR ****ed up and Paizo got it right with Golarion.

[hamishspence]

I prefer to think Gygax messed up and that every edition since Gygax has gotten a bit better, cosmology-wise.

[Gnaeus]

At risk of falling into real-world politics, it is unlikely for the same reasons that democratic states rarely go to war. They value the lives of their soldiers (and dislike civilian casualties). A nation that values life will only engage in conflicts if they think they are likely to win. The side that thinks it will lose will attempt diplomacy to protect life. Since in most conflicts, you have a likely winner, most conflicts between 2 good states will result in some kind of diplomatic settlement. There will still be conflicts, but good states are unlikely to sacrifice lives for losing positions unless their very survival is at risk. Evil states, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of minions as long as it doesn't threaten the leaders survival or hold on power, and will therefore fight with much lower chances of victory. See The Dictators Handbook.