Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?

[Jason]

It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, does not ultimately caring about the welfare of others actually make evil? If adventurer A goes out and conducts his morally sanctioned goblin slaughter and spends the proceeds on a life of luxury without another thought to the condition of the world, he’s neutral.

If B goes out and does the same sanctioned murdering in the name of the quest giver, then builds a hospital with the proceeds, he’s good.

I doubt B is in an irreconcilable position with A.

And for fun, adventurer C is smarter than all of them and corners the magic item market, giving him wealth untold. Despite not being a stellar person, he devotes a tiny trickle of his wealth to things like charity, but this is still massive doing more good with a flick of his quill than adventurer A could do in a lifetime...what’s C?

[OldTrees1]

It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

When those times happen, they resolve it and continue on. There are several ways to resolve it and these rare conflicts might be insignificant to the overall moral character of both people involved. Additionally, since these conflicts are rare and have several resolutions, they are not necessarily an obstacle to the ongoing relationship.

Also those positions are not irreconcilable. If the Evil Rogue cares about the Good Paladin, then they might care about the Good Paladin getting what they want to some extent. The Evil Rogue does not care about the welfare of these "others" as long as they get what they want (including the Paladin being happy to some extent). Aka the welfare of these "others" is a means to an end for the Evil Rogue.

[Satinavian]

It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.

Yes. When a conflict arises, either one of the sides has to give ground ot both to reach a compromise.

Why should those people be unable to talk about their problems reach a solution and continue to work together ? Most PCs are adults and should behave as such.


I have seen such combinations being successfull over whole campaigns. Just to claim that that can't be somhow is not really convincing.

[Jason]

Yes. When a conflict arises, either one of the sides has to give ground ot both to reach a compromise.

Why should those people be unable to talk about their problems reach a solution and continue to work together ? Most PCs are adults and should behave as such.


I have seen such combinations being successfull over whole campaigns. Just to claim that that can't be somhow is not really convincing.

The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

[Satinavian]

No, the compromise will be something solving the problem at hand without either having to change fundamentally how they feel about it.

[Mastikator]

When those times happen, they resolve it and continue on. There are several ways to resolve it and these rare conflicts might be insignificant to the overall moral character of both people involved. Additionally, since these conflicts are rare and have several resolutions, they are not necessarily an obstacle to the ongoing relationship.

Also those positions are not irreconcilable. If the Evil Rogue cares about the Good Paladin, then they might care about the Good Paladin getting what they want to some extent. The Evil Rogue does not care about the welfare of these "others" as long as they get what they want (including the Paladin being happy to some extent). Aka the welfare of these "others" is a means to an end for the Evil Rogue.

I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

[awa]

their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.

[Mastikator]

their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

[MoiMagnus]

The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

Once again, we're back at "it depends what's your definition of Evil/Good".
Peoples earlier in the thread have argued that an Evil character stopping to do evil things but not feeling any regret or need for redemption from their past deeds will still be Evil.

In this case, the Good character might be content with the Evil one not doing evil stuff any more. And assuming that the Evil's character is never caught back by his past with peoples directly asking for reparation, this can last until the end of their respective life.

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

I'd say it depends on the poison. A poison giving a quick an painless death would even be of a good (or at least less evil) alignment, while a poison giving a painful and horrible death would be of an evil alignment (similarly on how chemical weapons are war crimes IRL)

[Mastikator]

I'd say it depends on the poison. A poison giving a quick an painless death would even be of a good (or at least less evil) alignment, while a poison giving a painful and horrible death would be of an evil alignment (similarly on how chemical weapons are war crimes IRL)

Being stabbed is pretty painful too, I say this as a victim of multiple papercuts. (mostly due to my own stupidity)

[Jason]

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

Use of poison was evil in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D as well. Its not just a 3e concept. The idea seems to be that use of poison is the same as using excessive violence or that poison causes additional pain to the victim.

[Mastikator]

Use of poison was evil in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D as well. Its not just a 3e concept. The idea seems to be that use of poison is the same as using excessive violence or that poison causes additional pain to the victim.

That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

[Batcathat]

That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

[Jason]

Once again, we're back at "it depends what's your definition of Evil/Good".
Peoples earlier in the thread have argued that an Evil character stopping to do evil things but not feeling any regret or need for redemption from their past deeds will still be Evil.

In this case, the Good character might be content with the Evil one not doing evil stuff any more. And assuming that the Evil's character is never caught back by his past with peoples directly asking for reparation, this can last until the end of their respective life.

In the D&D sense alignment is primarily descriptive. If you don't do evil acts then you're not evil. "Alignment inertia" from particularly heinous acts or lots of petty evil acts might keep you technically still evil for awhile, but if you stop doing evil acts or actively pursue good actions you will eventually shift to neutral on the good-evil axis. Good works much the same way.

Regret is a real-world consideration, and a DM would probably take it into account an absence of regret as well for when alignment shifts out of evil, but actions are the primary determinant of alignment.

[Mastikator]

I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

[Democratus]

Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

Wow. This is straight out of Villain Monologues 101!

"Your concepts of good and evil are meaningless. Just vocabulary you use to justify your actions!"

[Satinavian]

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

D&D is full of arbitrary declarations of things to be good or evil.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. In most editions the poison user of the party is evil, pings as such to detect alignment spells, gets the treatment from Holy word and smite etc.

And this is pretty much a typical example of an evil PC. Most evil PCs are evil in some particular way and if the rest of the group does not care about this particular thing, then there is no conflict. That may be poison use, undead use, demons for summon monster or any of a very long list of pretty arbitrary "Evil" actions. And usually there is no remorse whatsoever.

[hamishspence]

In the D&D sense alignment is primarily descriptive. If you don't do evil acts then you're not evil. "Alignment inertia" from particularly heinous acts or lots of petty evil acts might keep you technically still evil for awhile, but if you stop doing evil acts or actively pursue good actions you will eventually shift to neutral on the good-evil axis.

"The kind of personality that is willing to do evil acts" is more important than the acts themselves.

Anyone who has recently come under the influence of a Morality Undone spell , for example, detects as evil and is vulnerable to spells that affect evil characters, and so forth, despite not having done anything (yet).

This is because their personality has been changed by the spell.

[OldTrees1]

The compromise will either be "I will stop hurting others" or "I will stop carrying that you're hurting others" at which point alignment shifts happen and we're no longer talking about good and evil characters.

This contradicts your position that "good does not need to stop all evil within their sphere of influence".

The compromise would be "I will not hurt that person at this time" or "I will tolerate that you are hurting that person at this time". OR it might be instead "I will accept the minor setback to my goals caused by your moral sacrifice because that contributes to one of my other goals".

As you can see, the compromise to resolve the conflict could easily be a limited compromise that is insignificant to the overall moral character of either individual. "On the road we will follow this compromise, but when we get to town you will go to the food bank and I will fulfill some of my other goals. We will meet back at the inn the next day."

I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

I suggest you think about the loved ones (including lesser loves like friends and allies) of Evil characters more often. Caring about a select few people is a common trait in the most vile characters. Neutral and Good characters also commonly have that trait. And caring about someone often includes adopting some of their ends as means towards keeping them happy. And I will agree it is a good place to start a redemption conversation, but it is not enough to indicate anything about the current moral character of the individual.

Especially given the subthread context about how the Good and Evil character don't do everything together. There are unspecified evil goals the evil character does when alone. Those were left unspecified because they were not germaine to Jason's argument.

[awa]

Even if it is more painful I could easily imagine a good character disagreeing with but working alongside a man who used say mustard gas to defeat the army of darkness and would do so again if the situation was the same.

Heck the evil pc might even see the suffering as a plus, a maimed solider is worse for morale and logistics than a dead one. But the evil pc only brings out the "big guns" when their is a sufficiently significant threat in which case both good and evil they need to work together anyway. In-between armies of darkness the evil pc isn't doing evil things hes just not doing enough good things to change his alignment.

[Batcathat]

Maybe, but in that case Sneak Attacks should count as evil in the same way, as should coup de grace. But they don't. So the concept is morally bankrupt. It's arbitrary. Just ignore that rule, it has nothing to do with morality besides using the same vocabulary. It's not relevant to the discussion

Oh, sure. I'm not saying that it's in any way applied consistently, but then again morality systems - whether fictional or not - rarely are, in my experience. The idea of poison being a "dishonorable" or "cowardly" weapon is the most reasonable explanation I can think of to classify it as evil.

[awa]

also the meta reason that we want bad guys to use poison but dont want pcs to do the same

[NichG]

It is possible to concoct a set of circumstances where evil and good characters can work together for some time, but eventually there will be a conflict of methods that will have to be resolved by one side or the other giving ground.
"I care about the welfare of others over my own" and "I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want" are ultimately irreconcilable positions.

That particular pair of motives is easily resolved:

Evil: I don't care about the welfare of others as long as I get what I want.
Good: I care about the welfare of others, including yours. I'll help you pursue what you want, but I'll sacrifice of my self in order to clean up after your actions so that the welfare of others isn't adversely affected along the way.

It's harder if Evil actively and specifically wants to damage the welfare of others, because then there's actual opposition in goals. But something where one person cares about something and the other is apathetic about it is called a good collaboration or division of labor.

[MoiMagnus]

I suspect this ties into the idea of poison being a "dishonorable" way of killing someone, in the same vein as stabbing someone in the back being considered more "dishonorable"/"evil" than stabbing them in the front.

Isn't that chaoticness rather than evilness? That looks pretty LE to me to murder peoples but only in "honourable ways".

[Mastikator]

Wow. This is straight out of Villain Monologues 101!

"Your concepts of good and evil are meaningless. Just vocabulary you use to justify your actions!"

Most perceptive. I sense greatness in you, join me and we will bring order to the galaxy!

---

D&D is full of arbitrary declarations of things to be good or evil.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. In most editions the poison user of the party is evil, pings as such to detect alignment spells, gets the treatment from Holy word and smite etc.

And this is pretty much a typical example of an evil PC. Most evil PCs are evil in some particular way and if the rest of the group does not care about this particular thing, then there is no conflict. That may be poison use, undead use, demons for summon monster or any of a very long list of pretty arbitrary "Evil" actions. And usually there is no remorse whatsoever.

I'm not sure I'm ready to accept tradition as an excuse for declaring something as evil. I'll grant you that some poisons probably are cruel and therefore probably evil. If you won't grant me that some poisons reduce suffering and therefore less evil than straight up murder then we have no common ground on the definition on good and evil.
(I'm imagining a situation where poison is used as a non-lethal method of neutralizing a foe you do not wish to kill. That is morally superior to murdering them with swords/arrows. I'm not open to changing my mind on this)

---

Oh, sure. I'm not saying that it's in any way applied consistently, but then again morality systems - whether fictional or not - rarely are, in my experience. The idea of poison being a "dishonorable" or "cowardly" weapon is the most reasonable explanation I can think of to classify it as evil.

I can accept the notion that poisons are dishonorable, as long as we agree that morality and honor are not exactly the same. I'll concede that there is significant overlap between "honor" and "good"

[Batcathat]

I can accept the notion that poisons are dishonorable, as long as we agree that morality and honor are not exactly the same. I'll concede that there is significant overlap between "honor" and "good"

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I wasn't actually arguing in favor of poison being dishonorable or evil, just suggesting that might be have been the reason for how it's treated in D&D. I don't really care much for the notion of "honorable" behavior myself and every time I see a hero unwilling to stab their enemy in the back or some other sensible tactic because it would "make us as bad as them" I want to slap them.

So yes, I agree that in the real world there is a lot of overlap between "honor" and "good" in that both are entirely subjective lables. In D&D "good" at least is an objective force, maybe "honorable" is as well?

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, since the grand daddy of modern fantasy cut his teeth in WWI, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that several means were probably considered far more evil in fantastic re-telling than perhaps in actual medieval views.

Poison, in particular, would stand out for the obvious gas related reasons. Especially as fantasy “you seize up and die blade coating poison” wasn’t really a thing, whereas “you get really sick and might die in a few days” would be far more common, rendering it far less practical than the RPG version.

[Quertus]

No, the compromise will be something solving the problem at hand without either having to change fundamentally how they feel about it.

Can people who don't understand compromise get along long term? Probably not.

I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality. Neutral characters and good characters can very easily get along. Turning away from evil doesn't happen overnight, and should not be readily trusted due to evil deception, but it happens when evil characters stop doing evil stuff.

Edit- That is not to say that the evil character isn't guilty of having committed evil deeds in the past, and may potentially desire to make up for or receive justice for their deeds.

I'm playing… the girlfriend from "the waterboy". I'll happily kill anyone who in any way disadvantages anyone I care about.

I'm in the party, I care about the party. Someone is in your way; I ask, "want me to kill them for you?". You say "no", I don't kill them.

And so I'm… somehow *not* psychotic evil, just because I care about your happiness?

their is an added complexity that different books much less different editions have different opinions on what constitutes good and evil. For an extreme example a pair of rogues who kill murderous tyrants and slavers but one uses sneak attack and the other sneak attack +plus poison.

In some versions that would enough to be the difference between good and evil right there.

I think we can safely do without the DnD 3e concept of poison being automatically evil. Those two rogues are equivalent, if stabbing wasn't evil then stabbing + poison isn't evil either.

That standard is not applied to metal swords then? Because I bet being impaled by a sword hurts REALLY bad. If you're going in for the kill then why would it matter if you're implanting a sharp metal or a poison into someone's body by force? Either way you're killing them. Killing is maximum violence. The notion that poison causes additional pain is entirely dependent on the poison, it may just as well reduce their pain before death. Making it a small mercy. Axiomatically declaring it evil is missing the trees for the forest. Look at the act, not the category of the act. Poison is no more or less evil than swords.

Is this a thread about evil, or [evil]?

Poison has pretty much always been [evil].

Many of my characters voice similar sentiments - dead is dead, and poison is often a much more *merciful* death.

So, if anyone cares, I just write "evil" on my character sheet, and don't have to worry about someone trying to change my alignment, and I can get back to role-playing my character.

[KineticDiplomat]

All of this leads to a sort of addendum answer to the original question:

Good and evil characters in a game will find it much harder to get along in the game world than they would in the real world. Partially because of our proclivity for keeping situations simple enough to game and tell, but probably in a large part because the moral situations are free of any and all consequence.

If a player party decides to challenge the Evil Warlord of Evils in the name of Good, there is a tacit expectation with many systems that this will result in a series of level appropriate encounters and their eventual triumph. If they decide to act in an altruistic or option restricting manner, they know it’ll all work out in the end. They will not suffer social opprobrium, or find that their version of Good isn’t wanted here. The GM will not have the Warlord of Evil decide to erase sixty hours of adventuring with an off handed flick and require you to roll new sheets, shrugging his shoulders and saying that’s why there’s not many Team Good Guys attacking Evil Man. And when you fight “honorably”, you might have a moldy tougher time, but won’t lose.

The reverse is also true of course: “Evil” parties don’t get curb stomped by a posse. And burning down that orphanage may prove you’re evil, but isn’t likely to have any consequences besides putting you against the do gooders you were already scripted to fight.

NPCs of course exist as the foil.

So it’s a world without consequence. All moral decisions exist solely and completely in the realm of people’s views on a matter unarbitrated by any connection to reality or effect - making it far less likely they’ll get along. The internet is of course an excellent example of how vehemently people with no actual skin in the game will fight over the smallest issues, let alone something as lofty as righteousness. You have the same effect on RPG-land.