Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?

[Segev]

As an example of something I do think would be Lawful itself being a problem, rather than Lawful Stupid: CG person sees LN(G) friend keeping meticulous notes of all the secrets the party has uncovered to use as blackmail of some morally-questionable leadership, rather than just committing things to memory. Having such records (which can be stolen!) is a serious risk, taken only because LN(G) friend values neat and orderly work--there are good reasons to do it but from a CG perspective it's totally unnecessary, a tiny benefit ("you're keeping a BLACKMAIL JOURNAL??") with large risk attached. Definitely displeasure material, possibly even disgust.

Maybe, though I don't know that that really falls in the law/chaos side of things. Meticulousness is not really "order" even if it is often correlated. I think a CN scientist who keeps meticulous notes is perfectly viable. The chaos of his nature would manifest in his choices of things to study, in how he plans to use his studies, etc. Whether he's willing to adhere to rules that are rooted in something other than "what gets me useful results?" considerations.

A chaotic person might have a more personal style of how his notes are kept, but they will be kept in a method that he can definitely trace.

That's an interesting one. It invites a new question: Can we meaningfully talk about the cooperativeness of various alignments, when non-alignment considerations (like friendship, family, lovers, etc.) are such a big deal that they'll often override alignment differences? That could be an issue muddling things a lot.

I'd also call this not exactly Lawful Stupid behavior from the LN(G) person. They're being led down a dark path by intentional outside manipulation. Someone else pushing a person toward moral quandary is a very good, rather than foolish, reason for engaging in questionable behavior.

This is an interesting question. One thing I like in Tomb of Annihilation is that there are cases where evil and good people work side by side and get along fine...because they don't wear their alignments on their sleeves.

I think too often in alignment discussions, we have alignment creating caricatures of characters rather than describing fleshed-out and interesting characters.

[Bartmanhomer]

Because I am more of an anarchist than a law person, so I knew we could tolerate the law people. Basically if the rules have meaning (because someone we care about cares about them) then the rules become more tolerable even if they don't make sense otherwise.

Thank you for pointing out I could/should elaborate on one of the 4 sides.

Chaotic Neutral right here. Join the club.

[OldTrees1]

Chaotic Neutral right here. Join the club.

Order (I have my rules) Anarchist (Laws have no authority unless they coincide with moral rules) Good myself. But I think we get along splendidly. So Lawful and Chaotic can get along just fine.

[Bartmanhomer]

Order (I have my rules) Anarchist (Laws have no authority unless they coincide with moral rules) Good myself. But I think we get along splendidly. So Lawful and Chaotic can get along just fine.

I'm in between Good and Evil. So I'm Chaotic Neutral by default.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm definitely in the Lawful Good direction, or at least I try to be. Success isn't guaranteed. But I do try to be understanding of those who don't pursue that. Both because that's just the respectful thing to do, and because it's easier to genuinely communicate a values difference, and thus get people on board, when you relate to someone.

[Bartmanhomer]

Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters can get along.

Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral characters vary if they can get along or not.

Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil characters can't get along.

[OldTrees1]

Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters can get along.

Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral characters vary if they can get along or not.

Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil characters can't get along.

Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil characters can totally get along.

Lawful Evil: My friendship does not come without its drawbacks, but even those drawbacks have their uses. People are more willing to bend the knee to my rule if their alternative is to run away to be slaughtered by that monster. That additional leverage, in addition to the personal perks of friendship, are worth the occasional annoying surprise. Please excuse me, I need to attend to the ovens.

Chaotic Evil: Heh, they are a bit stuck up but they know they can't defeat me. So they will not try to impose upon my freedom to do whatever I wish out here. That is one less obstacles to my whims. They also help me disrupt city states foolish enough to attempt to challenge me. Oh and they bring cookies when they come visit. Hmm, what kind of cake should I bring to their daughter's birthday party?

[KineticDiplomat]

In reality few people are so deeply devoted to their “alignment” regarding chaos/law that their relative circumstances can’t make them tolerate or even quite like the other side. Hell, people being people their tolerance/preference for chaos/law will be wildly variable with the situation, social norms at a given moment, and rationalizing don’t produce a slew of results for the same person.

Your dedicated free spirit artist, lover of that which is good and just, wildly distrustful of authority and law because that’s what he is. Chaotic good, right? Certainly in his street gallery, but he probably has a very different opinion on whether the law should keep his rent low through a rent control - even if his landlord’s kid has big medical bills. Neutral lawful? But wait, he meets a pretty, witty, girl who happens to be a corporate lawyer who actively works to reduce liability for environmental damage - and falls head over heels, and to reconcile his identity with his new love interest decides that the law can really be a vehicle for great change and appreciates its usefulness for the cause. And she’s pretty cool, so presumably the indigenous peoples of wherever are just be excessively litigious, right? Is he being a bit lawful evil when he decides all this on a date where he enjoys a Michelin star dinner on her dime? And do you think he’ll be back to chaotic good in his art gallery tomorrow?

People all along the spectrum can get along just fine, because they are for the most part quite willing to adjust their positions in word and deed when they find it coincides with their desires.

[Bartmanhomer]

Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil characters can totally get along.

Lawful Evil: My friendship does not come without its drawbacks, but even those drawbacks have their uses. People are more willing to bend the knee to my rule if their alternative is to run away to be slaughtered by that monster. That additional leverage, in addition to the personal perks of friendship, are worth the occasional annoying surprise. Please excuse me, I need to attend to the ovens.

Chaotic Evil: Heh, they are a bit stuck up but they know they can't defeat me. So they will not try to impose upon my freedom to do whatever I wish out here. That is one less obstacles to my whims. They also help me disrupt city states foolish enough to attempt to challenge me. Oh and they bring cookies when they come visit. Hmm, what kind of cake should I bring to their daughter's birthday party?

What about the devils and demons? They hate each other.

[OldTrees1]

What about the devils and demons? They hate each other.

Well, warfare generally causes that. However, even then, exceptions can exist.

At the root of it, demons and devils have similar motivations. Both seek safety and souls.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, warfare generally causes that. However, even then, exceptions can exist.

At the root of it, demons and devils have similar motivations. Both seek safety and souls.

Your right exception can exist in some cases.

[hamishspence]

In Forgotten Realms, Malkizid, an exiled archdevil with both devils and yugoloths at his command, managed to ally with the demon-blooded fey'ri elves. As a result, there were groups of demons, devils, and yugoloths, working together under the fey'ri and Malkizid.

This was more "teeth-clenched teamwork" than friendship though.

[Tanarii]

In reality few people are so deeply devoted to their “alignment” regarding chaos/law that their relative circumstances can’t make them tolerate or even quite like the other side. Hell, people being people their tolerance/preference for chaos/law will be wildly variable with the situation, social norms at a given moment, and rationalizing don’t produce a slew of results for the same person.

In reality, alignment doesn't exist. It's a fictional concept. And in the fictional concept, the ultimate conflict is between Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil.

This has been the case since before Good and Evil even existed in the fictional concept.

It also makes describing yourself in fictional concept terms the equivalent of saying "I'm more Wolverine than Superman or Batman"

[hamishspence]

We know from BoED that Archons can far better tolerate the Chaos of Eladrins, than the Evil of Devils.

So, in that respect, the "Forces of Good" are much more unified, than a "Law vs Chaos is the most important fight" perspective would indicate.

[Segev]

In reality few people are so deeply devoted to their “alignment” regarding chaos/law that their relative circumstances can’t make them tolerate or even quite like the other side. Hell, people being people their tolerance/preference for chaos/law will be wildly variable with the situation, social norms at a given moment, and rationalizing don’t produce a slew of results for the same person.

Your dedicated free spirit artist, lover of that which is good and just, wildly distrustful of authority and law because that’s what he is. Chaotic good, right? Certainly in his street gallery, but he probably has a very different opinion on whether the law should keep his rent low through a rent control - even if his landlord’s kid has big medical bills. Neutral lawful? But wait, he meets a pretty, witty, girl who happens to be a corporate lawyer who actively works to reduce liability for environmental damage - and falls head over heels, and to reconcile his identity with his new love interest decides that the law can really be a vehicle for great change and appreciates its usefulness for the cause. And she’s pretty cool, so presumably the indigenous peoples of wherever are just be excessively litigious, right? Is he being a bit lawful evil when he decides all this on a date where he enjoys a Michelin star dinner on her dime? And do you think he’ll be back to chaotic good in his art gallery tomorrow?

People all along the spectrum can get along just fine, because they are for the most part quite willing to adjust their positions in word and deed when they find it coincides with their desires.

Technically, if he's making these decisions as long-term world-view changes, I would say he's more neutral with chaotic and good tendencies, since he isn't really committed to the principles when it becomes inconvenient for him.

I would say the CG artist and LE lawyer could have a loving relationship, but both would have to be willing to turn a blind eye to what the other does outside of that relationship. ...well, sort-of. There's nothing the LE lawyer would mind about her boyfriend or husband being an artist. As long as she's willing to not be the dominant law that is bowed to in the relationship, she might prefer that he take a firmer hand in the home, but she's going to be perfectly capable of accepting that he's not her's to command because he lovingly does his best to please her anyway. Where she might get annoyed is if his free-wheeling spirit makes him sloppy in ways that create problems for both of them.

On the other hand, the CG distruster of authority can trust his girlfriend or wife to an unreasonable degree due to how much he loves her. And the fact that she loves him back may make that more warranted, in their personal lives and relationship, than it would otherwise seem. Even if she IS the sort to take charge (maybe in principle, or maybe only if he doesn't, depending on both their personalities), he might not mind it because he trusts HER even if he thinks "authority" is questionable at best. Where problems arise here is that he's going to be slipping, alignment-wise, if he starts making excuses for her abusing lawfare to take down and harm innocents who are in the way of her or her employers' power and wealth. And the more he sticks to his guns on right-v-wrong, the more he's going to be having a hard time stomaching what she does, which will in turn make him a nag at the very least and put a strain on their relationship.

It is their Good and Evil conflict that makes them the most incompatible, simply because it will require her to make serious sacrifices in her methods if she's not going to horrifically offend his conscience. It would be much easier for him to tolerate her using lawful means to promote neutral to good outcomes, to let her find lawful and clever solutions to problems before he resorts to his own "cut the knot" solutions, than it is for him to stand by while the love of his life tortures and kills (by proxy or through deliberately-enforced negligence) innocents.

Any Good-Evil friendship, romance, or other positive and close-knit "they get along" relationship will always involve Good circumscribing Evil's actions. Evil can insist on and push Good to accept more neutral outcomes, to be a little more selfish or demand a little more compensation for their good deeds, but it's generally a lot easier for Evil to tolerate being made to do good things for good outcomes as long as Evil still is getting what it wants than it is for Good to tolerate knowing evil things are being done and doing nothing to stop it.

As an example, Evil probably isn't offended if his Good girlfriend wants to spend her Sunday afternoons playing with orphans and spending her personal money on buying them toys or necessities they lack. He might not even mind going with her, sometimes; the orphans are cute and often grateful, and seeing her happy makes him happy. He might balk at her wanting to diminish their overall household wealth and comfort to aid the orphans, but if she wanted, say, to adopt one or two, that might not even bother him.

Good, on the other hand, is going to be pretty horrified if Evil decides that the fastest way to get what he wants is to take one of those orphans and sacrifice him. Or starts stealing from the orphanage's treasury to buy her presents. If hurting the orphans was ever an expedient way to get what he wants, Evil would have to circumscribe that behavior if he didn't want his Good girlfriend to be mad at him and possibly leave him over it. And while that might annoy him, weighing how much he values his relationship with her against whatever it is he'd get by hurting the orphans (and perhaps how much he's willing to risk her trust by doing it and trying to hide it from her) is not, in and of itself, anything that offends his conscience. Evil must often weigh costs and benefits. There's no moral compulsion to cause harm; it's not like he's offended that the orphans ARE NOT being hurt. (Or, if he is offended, it's likely because the orphans caused him affront, and his girlfriend is very likely to be willing to find a way for them to make amends that doesn't offend her own sensibilities in that case.)

Evil will restrain his methods and weigh the cost-benefit of his perfidious desires against the pleasure of Good's company and good graces; it's not a calculus that has alignment enter into it from his perspective. Good, on the other hand, will be unable to stomach Evil failing to restrain himself; she cannot tolerate the harm to others. That said, she CAN be made to accept that he needs more than "warm fuzzies" to be happy with activities. She can recognize that he only spends time with the orphans to please her, even if he enjoys it a little, himself. She can be gracious enough to let him negotiate for his own services, rather than demanding he volunteer, as long as he's willing to do it and isn't going to hurt anybody needlessly in the process. She can even be thoughtful of him and negotiate harder than she otherwise would so that, when she comes to him with, "Dear, I took a quest to go save a village of puppy-folk from your brother's tyrannical armies," she can also show him she thought of what he'd want out of it and that she got him a shiny magical tome out of the deal (whereas she'd probably have asked for nothing more than enough to cover quest expenses, herself, if that much).

[ezekielraiden]

As a general rule, I find that Good has the most "bright lines" (to use a US Constitutional law term). That is, standards that are clear and "objective" in the sense of being based on the facts of the matter and leaving little room for contextual interpretation. You commit a murder, it crosses a line. You steal from people in need, that crosses a line. Etc.

Law has fewer, but still many, because it is (in general) about making and defining lines, both bright and fine. However, because it is about making such lines, it may not end up actually making very many bright ones, so (ironically) this one can vary rather a lot compared to the other alignments. In general, though, it's pretty loaded with them.

Chaos has very few bright lines, but some still plausibly exist. It leans much more heavily into fine-line, situation-specific, context-driven decisions. Mind control is a common example of a bright line, as is slavery. Outside of those extremes though, Chaos tends to reject hard and fast rules, which can make it difficult to work with, as they may (to borrow from Star Wars) "alter the deal" if they think it appropriate.

Evil has the fewest bright lines. It may have none whatsoever, I'm not sure. As Segev said, everything becomes a calculus of some kind. This, in one sense, makes it the most tolerant alignment, because it implies that there is no behavior you cannot induce from them with the right incentive. In another sense, however, this makes Evil the least tolerant alignment, as there is (by definition) no "common ground" element* to which one can appeal as a call for unity. In a very real sense, every Evil person "stands alone." I don't mean that in the sense of having no relationships or allies, but rather that in a restricted (but very practical) sense, each Evil person is distinct from every other, each making that behavioral calculation for herself.

I guess what that means is that on an individual level, Evil is arguably the most tolerant alignment, because all you have to do is work out what this specific Evil person desires, and then make that desire compatible with your own goals (whatever they may be). But as a group, Evil quickly becomes the least tolerant alignment, because you have so many competing specific-to-each-Evil-person goals. It makes me think of frequency analysis in physics: Evil in isolation is easy to blend with other things, but risks a strong destructive interference effect. Chaos has a moderate destructive interference effect, while Law and Good both tend to have constructive interference, where the more people of like alignment you have together, the better they cohere to one another. Or if you prefer a more human analogy: It's easier to negotiate with Good-as-a-bloc than with Evil-as-a-bloc, but it's easier to negotiate with single-Evil-in-isolation than it is to negotiate with single-Good-in-isolation. You can speak to "Good as a whole" fairly easily and get useful results. You really can't speak to "Evil as a whole" and expect to make much headway.

*I am excluding "seeking what they desire most" here, because that's required to even have rationally-directed behavior at all. It's less canvas and more paintbrush (or other implement): all the canvases in the world won't let you paint pictures without brushes(/etc.) Even Good seeks what it desires most, it just has a different, and far more "shared," set of preferences than Evil has.

[Segev]

As a general rule, I find that Good has the most "bright lines" (to use a US Constitutional law term). That is, standards that are clear and "objective" in the sense of being based on the facts of the matter and leaving little room for contextual interpretation. You commit a murder, it crosses a line. You steal from people in need, that crosses a line. Etc.

Law has fewer, but still many, because it is (in general) about making and defining lines, both bright and fine. However, because it is about making such lines, it may not end up actually making very many bright ones, so (ironically) this one can vary rather a lot compared to the other alignments. In general, though, it's pretty loaded with them.

Chaos has very few bright lines, but some still plausibly exist. It leans much more heavily into fine-line, situation-specific, context-driven decisions. Mind control is a common example of a bright line, as is slavery. Outside of those extremes though, Chaos tends to reject hard and fast rules, which can make it difficult to work with, as they may (to borrow from Star Wars) "alter the deal" if they think it appropriate.

Evil has the fewest bright lines. It may have none whatsoever, I'm not sure. As Segev said, everything becomes a calculus of some kind. This, in one sense, makes it the most tolerant alignment, because it implies that there is no behavior you cannot induce from them with the right incentive. In another sense, however, this makes Evil the least tolerant alignment, as there is (by definition) no "common ground" element* to which one can appeal as a call for unity. In a very real sense, every Evil person "stands alone." I don't mean that in the sense of having no relationships or allies, but rather that in a restricted (but very practical) sense, each Evil person is distinct from every other, each making that behavioral calculation for herself.

I guess what that means is that on an individual level, Evil is arguably the most tolerant alignment, because all you have to do is work out what this specific Evil person desires, and then make that desire compatible with your own goals (whatever they may be). But as a group, Evil quickly becomes the least tolerant alignment, because you have so many competing specific-to-each-Evil-person goals. It makes me think of frequency analysis in physics: Evil in isolation is easy to blend with other things, but risks a strong destructive interference effect. Chaos has a moderate destructive interference effect, while Law and Good both tend to have constructive interference, where the more people of like alignment you have together, the better they cohere to one another. Or if you prefer a more human analogy: It's easier to negotiate with Good-as-a-bloc than with Evil-as-a-bloc, but it's easier to negotiate with single-Evil-in-isolation than it is to negotiate with single-Good-in-isolation. You can speak to "Good as a whole" fairly easily and get useful results. You really can't speak to "Evil as a whole" and expect to make much headway.

*I am excluding "seeking what they desire most" here, because that's required to even have rationally-directed behavior at all. It's less canvas and more paintbrush (or other implement): all the canvases in the world won't let you paint pictures without brushes(/etc.) Even Good seeks what it desires most, it just has a different, and far more "shared," set of preferences than Evil has.

Excellent points, though I will point out one thing about evil-as-an-individual: it DOES include the evil folks who actually ahve goals that are past the "bright lines" of good people. THat is, the evil man who is motivated by a desire to kill an innocent because he hates them. Or one who is motivated by desire for a specific thing to which they have no right. The evil brother of the good king who wants to have the throne and can only get it by offing the current ruler isn't going to be negotiated with for making him an ally of a good guy. Well, not long-term.

Evil that has motives that are not inherently evil, but is willing to use evil means, can absolutely work well with good. Evil that actively has evil GOALS generally can't, at least not for the long-term. Eventually, the evil goal is the bright line that good cannot tolerate, and the evil character must either give it up, or must cross that line.

[kyoryu]

Alignments are not caricatures.

Good people can commit evil acts - given the proper circumstances.
Evil people do commit good acts, they're just also very willing to do evil when it benefits them.
Neutral people can do either, and most people perform neutral acts most of the time.
Lawful people can recognize the value of individual freedom and autonomy, while even the most Chaotic person can work within a structure if they have to.

Alignments are not caricatures.

[Beleriphon]

This. I mean to answer it trivially - yes, some good characters can get along with some evil characters. Some of them can't. But that's not really saying anything.

I think sometimes people focus too much only on whether the party gets along on a personal level though. You can't really ignore evil in the long run and not be somewhat complicit yourself, unless it's evil in name only.

Like imagine:
"So I know this guy, and he's a serial killer."
"I haven't tipped off the police though, there are bigger fish to fry."
"And besides, he's never tried to kill me or anyone I know personally."
"I don't help him with the murders, of course!"
"I mean, I do share an apartment with him, and we're co-owners in a business, and I helped him with his YouTube channel, but that's it."

I think that's a little too overt.

LEts spin a more fantasy RPG version. Two mercenary working for the same company, lets say Condetierri type early modern styled mercenaries. One of them i evil, the other good. They work together, they rely on each other to survive, they might even be friendly.

The setting makes no qualms one way or another from stealing from locals, or taking captives to use as what amount as slaves. That is to say neither is illegal as such, but most normal people would consider them wrong.

Our evil guy has a captive teenage boy he keeps as personal servant, he treats the poor boy poorly, beats him, and steals whatever he can from the local population to keep his servant fed. His captain certainly wont pay for the kid's food, and Mr Evil's pay isn't enough to cover his costs and theirs. If he doesn't get quite enough loot, his "servant" doesn't eat.

Mr Good doesn't have a "personal servant" and often slips Mr Evil's captive some extra rations when times are tight. Mr Good wont steal from the locals, and often makes an effort to dissaude or or stop Mr Evil from either starting, or stopping him from taking more than he already has. What would it take to make Mr Good completely turn on Mr Evil? That's up to you, but probably not that much more than Mr Evil already does.

Mr Good wont report this behaviour because Mr Evil is still a very effective mercenary. Mr Evil puts up with Mr Good trying to oversee what he does because he knows he can rely on Mr Good in a fight; they're both on the same team after all. What would it take to make Mr Evil turn on Mr Good? Probably not too much, he's in things for himself after all.

[Mastikator]

I think that's a little too overt.

LEts spin a more fantasy RPG version. Two mercenary working for the same company, lets say Condetierri type early modern styled mercenaries. One of them i evil, the other good. They work together, they rely on each other to survive, they might even be friendly.

The setting makes no qualms one way or another from stealing from locals, or taking captives to use as what amount as slaves. That is to say neither is illegal as such, but most normal people would consider them wrong.

Our evil guy has a captive teenage boy he keeps as personal servant, he treats the poor boy poorly, beats him, and steals whatever he can from the local population to keep his servant fed. His captain certainly wont pay for the kid's food, and Mr Evil's pay isn't enough to cover his costs and theirs. If he doesn't get quite enough loot, his "servant" doesn't eat.

Mr Good doesn't have a "personal servant" and often slips Mr Evil's captive some extra rations when times are tight. Mr Good wont steal from the locals, and often makes an effort to dissaude or or stop Mr Evil from either starting, or stopping him from taking more than he already has. What would it take to make Mr Good completely turn on Mr Evil? That's up to you, but probably not that much more than Mr Evil already does.

Mr Good wont report this behaviour because Mr Evil is still a very effective mercenary. Mr Evil puts up with Mr Good trying to oversee what he does because he knows he can rely on Mr Good in a fight; they're both on the same team after all. What would it take to make Mr Evil turn on Mr Good? Probably not too much, he's in things for himself after all.

I think icefractal missed the other scenario then: when the good one is good in name only. The closer to neutral they are the easier it will be for them to get along. I think this disagreement stems from a fundamental disagreement about where the line for evil and good goes.

[Tanarii]

We know from BoED that Archons can far better tolerate the Chaos of Eladrins, than the Evil of Devils.

So, in that respect, the "Forces of Good" are much more unified, than a "Law vs Chaos is the most important fight" perspective would indicate.

One very poorly written splat from one edition doesn't override the lore of 6 editions. Including it's own edition baseline lore. (I'm not sure about 4e so it's not counted.)

[hamishspence]

One very poorly written splat from one edition doesn't override the lore of 6 editions. Including it's own edition baseline lore.

As far as I can tell, none of the other editions have portrayed eladrins and archons battling each other routinely at all, much less with the same ferocity as demons and devils.


It doesn't contradict previous lore - it's consistent with previous lore.

[Tanarii]

As far as I can tell, none of the other editions have portrayed eladrins and archons battling each other routinely at all, much less with the same ferocity as demons and devils.


It doesn't contradict previous lore - it's consistent with previous lore.

Law vs Chaos lore. Including helping evil of the same side if necessary.

[OldTrees1]

One very poorly written splat from one edition doesn't override the lore of 6 editions. Including it's own edition baseline lore. (I'm not sure about 4e so it's not counted.)

Law vs Chaos lore. Including helping evil of the same side if necessary.

I think it was decently established in various editions that the Law vs Chaos conflict was universal but not uniform. It was often depicted as Law teaming up against the Abyss.

I know the 3E lore the deepest and in there it was Law teamed up against the Abyss. Which resulted in the Pact Primeval which LE used to gain an advantage. This then turned into a Hell vs Abyss fight with the collected forces of good worried about a future ceasefire.

PS: Although there are several parts of that splatbook pair that are vehemently contradicted by the rest of the edition. So the dismissal is quite earned.

[Segev]

I think it was decently established in various editions that the Law vs Chaos conflict was universal but not uniform. It was often depicted as Law teaming up against the Abyss.

I know the 3E lore the deepest and in there it was Law teamed up against the Abyss. Which resulted in the Pact Primeval which LE used to gain an advantage. This then turned into a Hell vs Abyss fight with the collected forces of good worried about a future ceasefire.

PS: Although there are several parts of that splatbook pair that are vehemently contradicted by the rest of the edition. So the dismissal is quite earned.

Indeed, what most of the lore seems to support is the notion that LG doesn't feel the need to war with CG and thus doesn't seek out nor team up with LE to fight it. But LG and LE are both quite offended by/threatened by CE and thus will put aside their moral differences to deal with the Abyss. Frankly, I am pretty sure CG gets in on these wars, too, but gets less credit because they don't make a big fuss about formalized treaties (and also likely try to avoid working directly with LE, since they're particularly icky to CG).

[hamishspence]

Frankly, I am pretty sure CG gets in on these wars, too, but gets less credit because they don't make a big fuss about formalized treaties (and also likely try to avoid working directly with LE, since they're particularly icky to CG).

3.5's main example is of the eladrins waging war against the Abyss - in Fiendish Codex 1. Nothing about eladrins allying with the abyss, as would be expected with "Chaos teaming up against Law".

Law vs Chaos lore. Including helping evil of the same side if necessary.

But not "fighting Good of the opposite side". And the main example of "The forces of Law all teaming up" is The Regulators in Epic Handbook - a secret society, not an open alliance.

[Segev]

3.5's main example is of the eladrins waging war against the Abyss - in Fiendish Codex 1. Nothing about eladrins allying with the abyss, as would be expected with "Chaos teaming up against Law".

I don't think I said anything about chaos teaming up against law.

[hamishspence]

I don't think I said anything about chaos teaming up against law.

Tanarii did though:

Law vs Chaos lore. Including helping evil of the same side if necessary.

Implication - demons and eladrins teaming up, is a thing. Except, as far as I can tell - it's not.

[Segev]

Tanarii did though:

Well, you quoted me, hence my reaction.

Implication - demons and eladrins teaming up, is a thing. Except, as far as I can tell - it's not.

I agree; it's not. Evil doesn't "team up" with itself unless they're knit by something other than alignment. Neither does Chaos. I suspect LG could side with CG against the Abyss, but they have that alliance with LE already for that, and it IS easier to coordinate with fellow lawful types even if they're happier with the proclivities of the fellow good types. This is war, and war is messy.

[hamishspence]

The extent to which there is an alliance between LE and LG Outsiders in D&D is massively exaggerated here though.