Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?

[kyoryu]

It's extremely difficult to get along with evil people because they're selfish and will betray your trust if they have that opportunity. It's what evil is. Deep down all evil people care about is themselves and sometimes they don't even care about that.

This is why good people, people who care about others, have constant problems with evil. Best case scenario the good people can convince the evil ones to change for the better. Worst case you lock the evil people up before they harm others.

That's why Good can get along with Evil so long as their interests are aligned.

[Guizonde]

for what it's worth, there's an alignment test that goes around, and a few friends and i did it out of boredom. it did reflect pretty closely what we thought we were. i'm pretty solidly chaotic good irl (don't care about laws at all, have given my shirt off my back to a needier person out of altruism), my best friend is loyal evil, being pretty selfish and willing to screw over people to make a few euros by reading the fine print. people thought we were married we are so close and work well together. another couple of best friends in my merry band are both loyal good and loyal evil. very "by the book" kinds of people with different goals, and we get along fine, if my constant outside the box thinking and rule-breaking make their teeth itch sometimes, just as much as it frustrates me that they want to do things "the proper way" rather than the most expedient solution. this proves that there is a basis in real life for good and evil being friends.

in my roleplaying experience, we've played across the charts. in 3.5 i played a radiant servant of pelor (neutral good alignment mandatory) and was on my way to sainthood. the party wizard was loyal evil bordering on neutral evil. he helped me on my road to sainthood out of loyalty and friendship, and i had his back when whatever evil faction or race inevitably tried to kill him. we both disapproved of each other's tendencies (roaming healer and mafioso, respectively), but when there was a job, we worked wonderfully together. outside of the job, we'd go about our merry business individually, and meet up at the tavern to break bread together. think of it this way: it's kind of like having someone else that disagrees with you. you can either be entrenched in your positions and be unpleasant, or you can agree to disagree. i'd like to call that the "adamant" versus "acceptant" dychotomy. you can have friendly serial killers, and despicable do-gooders. the sniper in team fortress is quite friendly despite enjoying murder, and iron man is pretty unpleasant despite litterally saving the world.

[Jason]

Can you explain a bit more please.

Certainly.
Alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Being evil in alignment means that you engage in mostly evil actions, and if you continue to engage in mostly evil actions you will maintain an evil alignment.

Good-aligned characters are interested in limiting suffering and, in short, preventing evil actions. Turning a blind eye to the evil actions of their companions just because they are their companions is an alignment violation. Do it often enough and you won't be good-aligned anymore.

With a common goal, allowing some petty low-level evil from your companions in exchange for preventing much greater evil can be acceptable in the short term. On a long-term basis this won't fly. If the party continues to adventure together than either the evil characters will have to give up performing evil actions, and therefore change their alignment away from evil; or the Good-aligned characters will have to decide that they don't care about others committing evil acts after all, and therefore change their alignment away from good.

Belkar is a prime example of this. In order to stop a greater evil Roy let him join the team as the token evil teammate, but because Belkar was constantly prevented from performing evil actions and eventually decided to "fake character development" in order to remain with the team he has in fact shifted his alignment away from evil. It would not surprise me at all to find that a detect evil cast on him now would not read Belkar as evil. Maintaining chaotic-evil behavior around a bunch of Lawful and Neutral Good types proved to be impossible.
Consistantly acting as if you aren't evil will eventually make you not-evil. That's the way alignment works.

[Conradine]

Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

[MoiMagnus]

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

While quite reasonable, this is far from obviously the case for D&D alignment.
Since alignment rules are so vague, and rules for alignment change pretty much absent in later editions, one could easily argue that alignment doesn't care about the past as long as you've changed enough to not repeat the evil action given the same circumstances.
[In other words, you don't need to atone or pay retribution for your evil acts to come back to the neutral alignment, you just need to stop doing evil acts on a regular basis]

[Jason]

Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

Debatable. Such an act probably is enough to prevent you ever being regarded as good-aligned, but a single extremely evil act followed by a lifetime of good acts will shift you at least to neutral, dont you think?
Then again, good believes big time in redemption. You might be able to make it to good-aligned after all, with suitable repentance.

[kyoryu]

Debatable. Such an act probably is enough to prevent you ever being regarded as good-aligned, but a single extremely evil act followed by a lifetime of good acts will shift you at least to neutral, dont you think?
Then again, good believes big time in redemption. You might be able to make it to good-aligned after all, with suitable repentance.

Yeah, I'd say that it would require:

1) Forgoing further evil acts
2) Atonement and recompense to the level that can be achieved

That would get you to neutral. To hit Good, you'd still need to do enough self-sacrificing things to get from Neutral to Good anyway.

[Mastikator]

Of course, because the Evil enjoys much more flexibility than the Good.

To be Good, you must constantly strive, fight temptation and do your best.
To be Neutral you must at least behave decent.

But to be Evil, it's enough to do something horrible once and never seek redemption.
Then you can behave affable , polite and even kind as much you want, as long you want.

A single raped and strangled cheerleader buried in the deep woods is enough to be Evil for a whole life.

A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good. If they have the power to bring the rapist to justice and choose not to then there better be a very good reason. A neutral person may tolerate or even get along with them, a stupid neutral may even trust them.

[Xervous]

A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good. If they have the power to bring the rapist to justice and choose not to then there better be a very good reason. A neutral person may tolerate or even get along with them, a stupid neutral may even trust them.

And what if they don’t know? The person in question is still Evil in absence of the Good individual’s understanding. I don’t see alignment responsibility being levied on the good individual for things outside of their control/awareness.

[Vahnavoi]

A person doesn't have to make moral declarations at all.

Yes... and this has zero relevance to what I've said. It has barely any relevance to the thread, because doing this is generally a bad way to get along with people. Moral beliefs of other people have social worth, people want to know those beliefs and they can go as far as demand outward demonstration of those beliefs. If you don't speak out when someone asks your stance on thievery or murder, it will be a bit suspicuous after the Nth time you've neglected to comment. Also, other people are more than willing to consider actions as declarations, so no getting away by just playing mute. The other cultists may become leery if you refuse to sacrifice sufficient amounts of baby virgin goats to your dark lord.

---

I don't think he was talking about the same post-hoc rationalization as you do.

The relevant passage is this:

I don't know if I'd call it hypocrisy if someone acts a certain way, is called upon to explain that action, and then acts inconsistently with the evoked explanation in the future.

Explaining your actions one way, then acting in a way that calls that explanation into question, is a classic example of hypocrisy. If you remove the moral angle, then it's a case of you being wrong of your motivations. Neither paints a flattering of the person in question. Trying to write it off as "fundamental failure of post-hoc reasoning" doesn't make it better. This kind of flakiness is frequently looked upon badly in societies, that's why we have a damning word for it.

[Mastikator]

And what if they don’t know? The person in question is still Evil in absence of the Good individual’s understanding. I don’t see alignment responsibility being levied on the good individual for things outside of their control/awareness.

Me neither.

[Satinavian]

Certainly.
Alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Being evil in alignment means that you engage in mostly evil actions, and if you continue to engage in mostly evil actions you will maintain an evil alignment.

You don't have to do mostly evil actions. Many popular villains have one particular vice which leads to corresponding actions. And that doesn't even have to be relevant that often.

Good-aligned characters are interested in limiting suffering and, in short, preventing evil actions. Turning a blind eye to the evil actions of their companions just because they are their companions is an alignment violation. Do it often enough and you won't be good-aligned anymore.

People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others. In general party members don't have authority over other party members.

[Vahnavoi]

People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others.

Only true of specific ethical outlooks that D&D would consider non-Lawful. Like, this isn't even a Good versus Evil thing - Evil people, especially Lawful Evil people, can and do hold people responsible for actions of others, sometimes including themselves.

Like, the lead cultists knows the dark lord will hold them responsible if sufficient number of baby virgin goats is not sacrificed, and you can bet lead cultist will not look kindly on you if you let your sibling cultist slack off in sacrificial duties.

In general party members don't have authority over other party members.

This is a metagame conceit which has no reason to be reflected in-game and is not all that relevant to the thread topic. Come on, you've never seen a real party leader?

[Jason]

You don't have to do mostly evil actions. Many popular villains have one particular vice which leads to corresponding actions. And that doesn't even have to be relevant that often.

True. "Mostly" could mean either lots of little petty evil actions or a few really big evil actions or some mixture of the two. In any case, someone of evil alignment is doing more overall evil than good.

People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others. In general party members don't have authority over other party members.

Refusing to stop good actions can still be considered evil, or at least neutral, but refusing to stop evil actions cannot be considered good.

[Democratus]

A character who gets along with someone they know raped and strangled a cheerleader and isn't even remorseful about it wouldn't really be good.

Patently untrue.

Loving someone, no matter what they have done, and befriending them despite their failings clearly describes a Good person - with a capital "G".

Beatific love is the very definition of Good.

[Satinavian]

Only true of specific ethical outlooks that D&D would consider non-Lawful. Like, this isn't even a Good versus Evil thing - Evil people, especially Lawful Evil people, can and do hold people responsible for actions of others, sometimes including themselves.

It is true as far as the cosmos is concerned. Your alignment depends on your actions, not those of your coworkers, siblings or other associates.

Come on, you've never seen a real party leader?

It happens, but is not the default mode. And even if it happens, it is as likely that the evil PC is the leader as it is that the good one is. Or neither.

[Jason]

Patently untrue.

Loving someone, no matter what they have done, and befriending them despite their failings clearly describes a Good person - with a capital "G".

Beatific love is the very definition of Good.

But a truly good person also tries to prevent harm, and views evil actions as harmful, so they may truly love a person while still acting to prevent them from further harming themselves or others with evil acts.

[Democratus]

But a truly good person also tries to prevent harm, and views evil actions as harmful, so they may truly love a person while still acting to prevent them from further harming themselves or others with evil acts.

Agreed. And as their friend they might act to prevent further harm. But whatever harm they committed in the past wouldn't prevent them from caring about the perpetrator.

[Vahnavoi]

It is true as far as the cosmos is concerned. Your alignment depends on your actions, not those of your coworkers, siblings or other associates.

But whether you "get along" with your coworkers, sibling and other associates tends to depend on them, so group accountability and responsibility are sort of relevant to the question.

Also, again, turning a blind eye to out-of-alignment actions is an action in the context of the alignment system. Negligence impacts both Good - Evil and Law - Chaos axes.

[Jason]

Agreed. And as their friend they might act to prevent further harm. But whatever harm they committed in the past wouldn't prevent them from caring about the perpetrator.

Agreed.
If a lawful good character physically restrains their friend from killing someone, arrests them, and testifies against them at their trial, and then keeps an eye on them to prevent escape attempts until they have served their sentence it can all still be honestly motivated out of love and care for their friend's welfare.

[Vahnavoi]

Protip: when your definition of "getting along" with someone involves putting them in prison or a straitjacket, you may have stretched the concept a bit too far.

[Jason]

Protip: when your definition of "getting along" with someone involves putting them in prison or a straitjacket, you may have stretched the concept a bit too far.

Which is why I said it doesn't really work long-term. Either the good guy has to stop being good or the evil guy has to stop being evil. Sometimes forcibly.

[Satinavian]

Agreed.
If a lawful good character physically restrains their friend from killing someone, arrests them, and testifies against them at their trial, and then keeps an eye on them to prevent escape attempts until they have served their sentence it can all still be honestly motivated out of love and care for their friend's welfare.

Now you are talking about crimes which is completely different from doing evil.

[Pleh]

A pragmatic survivor that puts their own needs first is technically neutral if it is a npc(there is a lot of things that are evil only when you are a player character)

Meh. My point stands. The ability to cooperate is still more dependent on how strongly goals are aligned than how close alignment is.

[Jason]

Now you are talking about crimes which is completely different from doing evil.

Different in details but not different in general concept.
A lawful neutral character may choose not to act to restrain his friend from committing acts that are evil but not unlawful, but a good character must act to prevent a friend from doing evil whether the action is lawful or not, unless a greater evil is averted by their inaction than the evil being committed.

[Satinavian]

but a good character must act to prevent a friend from doing evil

I disgree and i am pretty sure such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the rules.

[Jason]

I disgree and i am pretty sure such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the rules.

Who said any of this was in the rules?

It's certainly not in the 5th edition rules, where alignment barely receives any description.

Earlier editions had a lot more detail and discussion on what would and wouldn't be considered good or evil behavior. The AD&D DMG had a section that said that good-aligned characters shouldn't be allowed to get away with "looking the other way" while other party members did something evil.

[NichG]

Yes... and this has zero relevance to what I've said. It has barely any relevance to the thread, because doing this is generally a bad way to get along with people. Moral beliefs of other people have social worth, people want to know those beliefs and they can go as far as demand outward demonstration of those beliefs. If you don't speak out when someone asks your stance on thievery or murder, it will be a bit suspicuous after the Nth time you've neglected to comment. Also, other people are more than willing to consider actions as declarations, so no getting away by just playing mute. The other cultists may become leery if you refuse to sacrifice sufficient amounts of baby virgin goats to your dark lord.

That's on those people then; it has nothing to do with alignment.

If you say you're Good because you don't kill people, but you befriend someone who kills people, it's a non-sequitur: you being Good has nothing to do with you declaring for Good not does it have anything to do with your verbal justifications for why you should be considered that way, or whether those justifications accurately describe your actual morals.

Whether it's 'unflattering' or 'badly looked on by societies' doesn't matter to actually maintaining the alignment except perhaps in the case of Lawful.

A wanderer who goes around helping those in need and sacrificing to save others meets a career assassin on the road who doesn't care who they hurt but is only motivated by money. The wanderer pays the assassin to be their bodyguard but makes 'no killing' a condition of the contract.

The assassin is Evil whether they claim that or not. The Wanderer is Good whether they claim that or not. To someone who says 'isn't it hypocritical of you to travel with a murderer when you help people?', the wanderer responds 'I travel with a murderer and I help people; call that whatever you like'.

I don't think the Wanderer is being a hypocrite in this example, or being inconsistent about their morals. The problem is the bystander insisting on a false dichotomy.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

It's a very restrictive view of evilness.

Where do you put the slave owner which is the most honest and trustful person (with peoples of his race), always helpful and generous with stranger (of his race), and fighting for the peace and prosperity of the kingdom, except that he has plentiful of slaves (or other race) that he considers as animals he owns fully and entirely, and exploit them up to their last breath for extra money?

Since slavery is evil as per D&D rules, he would be evil by RAW. But, assuming you're part of the good race, he will not backstab you or try to exploit you personally, and might even sacrifice himself and/or his fortune to protect you in an act of generosity.

But then, maybe you would classify him as neutral, keeping the evil alignment only for actual psychopaths incapable of empathy with anyone other than themselves. In which case yes, any relationship with an evil character is a lost cause.

Slave owners are evil because we as humans, and many fictional societies, have recognized slavery as evil. Doesn't matter how "nice" the slave-owners are, they're participating in an evil act.

If someone enslaved your family member, how noble would that be, despite their "nice" appeal? No matter how nice they treated non-slaves, the situation that they held human beings in bondage against their will is okay with you?

Call evil what it is. And, yeah, a slave-owner, as a businessperson, would cut your throat to protect their "business". History reflects this. Why would they lose thousands or millions of dollars because they "like you"?

No one would, of that mentality, do that. Thinking they would is naive. You think evil doesn't have distinct characteristics.

You are wrong.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

That's why Good can get along with Evil so long as their interests are aligned.

But, their interests (human dignity) are not aligned. Evil thinks only of itself, Good considers the welfare of others.

They only conflict.