Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?

[OldTrees1]

And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

I would not use absolutes, but I agree that, as a rule of thumb, this is an obstacle to overcome.

If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as ends because they are Person B's ends, that can help.
If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as means to Person A's end of improving/maintaining Person B's well being, that can help.
If Person A adopts some of Person B's ends as means of continuing to receive Person B's support towards some of Person A's ends, that can help.

Those are 3 (there might be more) foundations for a long term relationship (family, partner, friend, ally, etc). While I would classify the 1st and 2nd as forms of love, the 3rd is primarily self serving.

However you will notice that these amoral reasons for cooperation are usually only brought up about evil characters. Evil needs a reason to truly cooperate because the don't see that as an inherent end in itself. Certain evil characters will have reasons to cooperate (maybe even one of these reasons), but the cooperation hinges on there being a reason.

An aside:
Of course there is also the rare evil that is completely selfless and tragically mistaken about morality. They have tragically mistaken beliefs about morality, but are trying to do what they believe is right for the sake of everyone. That kind of evil is primarily selfless rather than self serving. I am fine ignoring these exceptions for now.

[icefractal]

These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.

I think trying to determine it based only on a single factor (like net impact on the world, or single worst action taken) is always going to hit edge cases and not very well match what most people think of as good/evil people.

If I was trying to calculate an "alignment rating" based on actions, it would probably have these all as contributing factors:
* Net impact on the world
* Best action taken
* Worst action taken
* Threshold to commit notably evil acts (like, stabbing someone to save your child's life vs stabbing someone to get a nicer car).
* Frequency of good vs evil acts

And that's even assuming there was a concrete definition of how good / evil a given act was. The point is that it's complicated and philosophers have tried and failed to pin down a universal definition for millennia.

For which reason I wouldn't put alignment in a TTRPG at all, TBH. But even if it weren't there, the basic question would still remain - given that not all characters would work together, to what extent should people elide that for the sake of gameplay vs revising the characters for a better fit?

[Quertus]

And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

Thank you for pointing out why that has several times been exactly my example, as part of my insistence that they absolutely can get along.

That they sometimes can't for certain configurations of individual good and evil characters is completely irrelevant to the fact that some of them can.

[Tanarii]

And that's even assuming there was a concrete definition of how good / evil a given act was. The point is that it's complicated and philosophers have tried and failed to pin down a universal definition for millennia.

Probably why 5e ditched the idea of good or evil acts pretty much completely, and instead went with typical, but not consistent required, associated behavior instead.

Which is why when combined with the rest of the personality system, it's the best and most useful D&D alignment system yet.

[Conradine]

Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

To inflict grievous harm and suffering for pure pleasure is Evil, clear cut.

[NichG]

Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

To inflict grievous harm and suffering for pure pleasure is Evil, clear cut.

You've included both action and motivation here though. Could you draw such a line for an act where grievous harm and suffering are the result but where you don't know why that act was committed? For example, if it could be for pleasure, rage, sense of duty, sense of justice, utilitarian calculation, lack of control due to mental illness, total ignorance of the consequences, or even as a result of being actively deceived, but you can't tell.

For what it's worth, in all cases I'd probably still consider the person dangerous to their community, which is a function that judgement about evil can serve for a society. But I'd expect many moral systems to say 'someone not in control of their own actions can't be morally responsible for those actions'.

[Democratus]

Although it's difficult to draw a clear line in the grey zone, I think some actions are unquestionably Evil, with no need of great knowledge of philosophy or theology.

Actions are not, in and of themselves, evil or good.

Some motivations can be unquestionably Evil.

[Duff]

A lot of the "no" answers seem to assume a person who will tolerate evil is not good, and/or a person who's evil is always being evil.
I don't think either of those apply, neither by D&D alignments nor by real world morality.

In the real world, not tolerating a moderate amount of evil is often impractical -
We vote for the less corrupt politician rather than devote ourselves to getting someone who isn't corrupt into power because that would take over our life
We work for the company that does whatever dodgy stuff they can get away with because we need the job
We don't investigate our team's star athlete for drug cheating, partly because we like winning, but mostly because if we get it wrong, we're in trouble with the law

I don't think any or even all of those would make a generally good person "Not good"
And I don't think a D&D character with that level of tolerance of evil couldn't be of good alignment.

A good person wouldn't work in the office for the corrupt politician, but they could play basketball with them OK in their local league

[Underground]

I'm a bit baffled this thread is NOT about Belkar and NOT about Elan's father. Both cases of evil people who more or less get along with good people.

The way I see it, in reallife we call a person that has clearly more good than evil traits good, a person which has a sort of balance nice/neutral/nasty, and a person which clearly has more evil than good traits evil. With certain acts, such as murder, are making you evil by default.

So yes good and evil can get along, if the circumstances are right.

This is about reallife though.

[Tanarii]

The way I see it, in reallife we call a person that has clearly more good than evil traits good, a person which has a sort of balance nice/neutral/nasty, and a person which clearly has more evil than good traits evil. With certain acts, such as murder, are making you evil by default.

It's important to remember alignment doesn't exist IRL, so even putting aside forum rules, there isn't much point in comparing to it.

[Quertus]

You've included both action and motivation here though. Could you draw such a line for an act where grievous harm and suffering are the result but where you don't know why that act was committed? For example, if it could be for pleasure, rage, sense of duty, sense of justice, utilitarian calculation, lack of control due to mental illness, total ignorance of the consequences, or even as a result of being actively deceived, but you can't tell.

For what it's worth, in all cases I'd probably still consider the person dangerous to their community, which is a function that judgement about evil can serve for a society. But I'd expect many moral systems to say 'someone not in control of their own actions can't be morally responsible for those actions'.

Careful - I think (actively fighting) soldiers, bank foreclosures, judges, telemarketers, and numerous other "accepted" practices inflict "grievous harm and suffering" with their intended actions, let alone all the "grievous harm and suffering" that can be caused by accident (even by a programmer like me!). Calling them all "dangerous to their community" seems a bit of a stretch.

[NichG]

Careful - I think (actively fighting) soldiers, bank foreclosures, judges, telemarketers, and numerous other "accepted" practices inflict "grievous harm and suffering" with their intended actions, let alone all the "grievous harm and suffering" that can be caused by accident (even by a programmer like me!). Calling them all "dangerous to their community" seems a bit of a stretch.

I can forgive a murderer, but there can be no peace with telemarketers.

[Tanarii]

I can forgive a murderer, but there can be no peace with telemarketers.

I worked as a telemarketer for one day, before I quit in disgust.

This one act has condemned me to burn forever in a lake of fire, as I have Fallen from Grace.

[Duff]

I worked as a telemarketer for one day, before I quit in disgust.

This one act has condemned me to burn forever in a lake of fire, as I have Fallen from Grace.

Same. My only defence is I was Really bad at it and was fired the same day my first child was born. So at least I had time to visit the hospital

[ezekielraiden]

Can they, as in, is it possible? Yes.

Can they, as in, is it likely or even plausible? Probably not.

[Segev]

A good character is unlikely to get along with an evil party because good cannot regularly stand by and tolerate evil methods, let alone motivations. If their interests line up, he still is likely to work with them only in extremis. Unless the evil party needs/wants the good one’s aid enough to moderate their methods, there’s likely to be too much friction for the good person to tolerate.

On the other hand, an evil character can get along with a good party if his evil is mostly about pragmatism and lack of empathy (particularly for strangers or enemies). He can tolerate good methods far better than a good person can tolerate evil methods. Good methods rarely actively offend evil people, just frustrate them. Frustration can still lead to leaving, but common or mutually-beneficial goals can overcome frustration much more easily than they can disgust or horror.

[hamishspence]

Some forms of evil might be difficult for the Good character to spot unless they are highly knowledgeable.

Soul harming, for example, is capital-E Evil, since, according to BOVD "Only the foulest of villains could actually want to cause pain to another creature's eternal aspect."

But that doesn't mean that the average Good character will be able to tell that their fellow party member is, for example, using the Reaping Spell metamagic feat (if a spellcaster), or the Harvester of Souls feat (if a martial character).

[ezekielraiden]

A good character is unlikely to get along with an evil party because good cannot regularly stand by and tolerate evil methods, let alone motivations. If their interests line up, he still is likely to work with them only in extremis. Unless the evil party needs/wants the good one’s aid enough to moderate their methods, there’s likely to be too much friction for the good person to tolerate.

On the other hand, an evil character can get along with a good party if his evil is mostly about pragmatism and lack of empathy (particularly for strangers or enemies). He can tolerate good methods far better than a good person can tolerate evil methods. Good methods rarely actively offend evil people, just frustrate them. Frustration can still lead to leaving, but common or mutually-beneficial goals can overcome frustration much more easily than they can disgust or horror.

I'd say this is somewhat complicated.

E.g. in a party of rat-bastard Evil types, I don't think a Paladin is going to stay long...one way or another. But in a party of disciplined soldiers who simply are pitiless and (so-called) "efficient," I can see it working, especially if there's an actual respect between them despite their different methods. Likewise, a cackling madboy necromancer is probably not going to fit in well with a party that would feel right at home in Friendship is Magic, but a troubled young woman that has a cruel or sadistic streak due to abuse suffered as a child could be taken under their wing, shown what it's like to have a real family, that sort of thing.

It's very contextual. I do agree, however, that the spectrums are somewhat "lopsided." E.g. I imagine that a sizable majority of Evil characters can tolerate the most intensely goody-two-shoes behavior of their allies as long as it's not deeply idiotic--more or less, only outrightly stupid Good is a problem for Evil. Conversely, there's surely a variety of non-stupid Evil behaviors that most, if not all, Good characters could not tolerate. Intense-but-not-stupid Good is generally tolerable regardless of alignment, while intense-but-not-stupid Evil is going to be intolerable even to some other Evil people, just for more purely personal-utility reasons rather than principled reasons per se.

So, maybe 10% of all possible Good behaviors (both intelligent and stupid) are intolerable to most Evil folks, while maybe 35% of all Evil behaviors are intolerable to many folks regardless of alignment for various reasons, and a further 10% (total 45%) are intolerable to Good. Or whatever. The complexity comes from these relative proportions, how likely it is for problematic behavior to arise, etc. There's also the question of where we focus our attention: should we focus on the person choosing whether to tolerate the behavior of another, or should we focus on the behaviors brought to the table and how cooperation-compatible they are? It seems to me that the latter is the more appropriate analysis, since the question is about group formation and its potential for cohesion, rather than presuming a group already exists and asking whether it can remain together.

[Mastikator]

And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.

Nah most parties are motivated by the same thing evil characters are: wealth, power, status, adventure, bloodthirst, knowledge, etc. A good character may be self sacrificing but the neutrals want to be paid so even neutrals and good will be at *conflict. The evil's extra conflict with good characters is things like their willingness to use torture on prisoners, killing innocents, siding with "the bad guy" when offered.


*conflict does not mean impasse, conflicts can be resolved with compromise, or sometimes force.

[Tanarii]

Probably needs its own thread, but for once I'd like to see a discussion about if Lawful and Chaotic character can get along. IMO that'd be far more interesting.

Although just as prone to people being personal assumptions to the discussion, I'm sure.

[Batcathat]

Probably needs its own thread, but for once I'd like to see a discussion about if Lawful and Chaotic character can get along. IMO that'd be far more interesting.

That is an interesting question. Spontaneously I feel like they'd have a tougher time getting along but I'm not sure I can motivate that gut feeling logically. I'll have to think about it.

And yeah, another question is whether to make a separate thread for that or derail this one.

[ezekielraiden]

Probably needs its own thread, but for once I'd like to see a discussion about if Lawful and Chaotic character can get along. IMO that'd be far more interesting.

Although just as prone to people being personal assumptions to the discussion, I'm sure.

Yeah, definitely prone to that.

I think there's a similar sort of pattern to what I noted above, but not quite as lopsided. That is, Lawful includes both things like having firefighter crews and public-funded school systems, and dictatorial oppression and state censorship. (Admittedly these aren't behaviors, but still.) Chaotic includes things like freedom of expression and bodily autonomy, but it also includes burning down your neighbor's house in retaliation and barroom brawls over an insult. Both sides have things the other would openly object to that aren't Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid.

A Lawful party is likely to have more hangups cooperating with a single Chaotic individual than a Chaotic party would have cooperating with a single Lawful individual. However, both Good and Lawful are the alignments that you can "induce" someone to change their behavior through invoking some kind of abstract principle, such as a duty, ethic, philosophy, etc. Lawful and Good involve internalizing some external standard, some kind of self-discipline. Evil and Chaos involve much more purely self-originated motives; if you want to induce an Evil or Chaotic person to behave the way you want them to, you have to find whatever it is they care about and then tie it to behaving the way you want them to behave. With Good and Law, all you need to know is whatever external principle they internalize, and then you're pretty much home free.

What I'd say is:
Evil and Chaos are more able to "get over" any behavior they find "offensive" from Good and Law respectively. However, it is also easier for Evil and Chaos to extract cooperation from Good and Law via whatever self-discipline is relevant.

So, Evil and Chaos have an easier time tolerating Good and Law, but Good and Law are more easily persuaded to change their behavior, in the abstract, so long as you can avoid contradicting their rules. Individual cases will always vary across the spectrum, of course, but intelligent and at least vaguely pro-social Chaotic or Evil individuals will probably look for ways to keep their Good/Lawful associates "happy" (or at least avoid upsetting them) while still accomplishing as much of their own Evil/Chaotic goals as possible. Should too many of those goals become inaccessible as a result, well, the partnership will probably end. But an intelligent Evil/Chaotic person doesn't sever such relationships willy-nilly.

[OldTrees1]

Probably needs its own thread, but for once I'd like to see a discussion about if Lawful and Chaotic character can get along. IMO that'd be far more interesting.

Although just as prone to people being personal assumptions to the discussion, I'm sure.

Well there are 2 Law vs Chaos axes that are commonly used.

There is Law vs Anarchy and Order vs Chaos.
In Law vs Anarchy you can easily have the lawful and anarchist get along. As long as the anarchist is not breaking any laws that require the lawful person to report them, then the two can get along without conflict. The lawful person might disagree with the anarchist when they jaywalk, but that does not prevent them from getting along and going to see movies together.

In Order vs Chaos you can easily have an orderly and spontaneous person get along. They might even appreciate the other's impact on their life. The orderly person acts as a reliable rock in the spontaneous person's life. And the spontaneous person brings just enough spice into the orderly person's life

So, yes. Law and Chaos can get along better than Evil and Evil can.

[Tanarii]

In Law vs Anarchy you can easily have the lawful and anarchist get along. As long as the anarchist is not breaking any laws that require the lawful person to report them, then the two can get along without conflict. The lawful person might disagree with the anarchist when they jaywalk, but that does not prevent them from getting along and going to see movies together.

I notice this is entirely from the Law perspective, and not at all from the anarchists. Why do you (apparently) think an anarchistic person will tolerate a law one?

(Question intended to provoke thought. It just jumped out at me as an apparently assumed thing, and I'm not sure if I'd agree or disagree that the anarchist is more likely to have problems with the law folk, than the law folk with the anarchist.)

[NichG]

That is an interesting question. Spontaneously I feel like they'd have a tougher time getting along but I'm not sure I can motivate that gut feeling logically. I'll have to think about it.

And yeah, another question is whether to make a separate thread for that or derail this one.

I think what it comes down to is that both for Good and Evil, as well as for Law and Chaos, if we imagine a pair of 'true believers in the ideal' they won't get along. But in Good vs Evil, its really easy to imagine someone who is Evil but not committed to Evil because Good has a purity aesthetic - that is, someone who is mostly good but does one reprehensible act is generally seen as evil, whereas someone who is mostly evil but does one major act of altruism is at best seen as neutral. So at a gut level, its easy to construct situations where the Good person is incidentally good rather than committed to Good as a cause, or the Evil person is incidentally evil rather than committed to Evil as a cause - and therefore, what alignment they happen to possess doesn't prescribe that they can't get along, because its a reflection of tendencies rather than allegiance.

With Law vs Chaos, I think its easier to see true believers on both sides. It's harder for me at least to imagine someone being 'incidentally Lawful' as a result of the sum of their actions without actually believing in some kind of cause or laws or code of behavior. It's not impossible, but my mind mostly conjures images of things like 'comfortably numb' office workers/salarymen who just go with the way they were told their life should be, because they can't imagine something outside of that (either from fear of risk, lack of creativity, laziness, etc). Since that's primarily a derogatory image, I tend to lean away from it as being a fair representation of the alignment, even if it would count. At the same time, I could see someone being incidentally chaotic, but its also really easy for me to envision true believers in Chaos - idealists holding freedom as the highest virtue, anarchists, etc. So I have to work a bit harder to come up with a fair Lawful and Chaotic pair of examples who can get along.

I don't think its impossible though. If I allow myself the salaryman stereotype, I can easily envision someone like that who is curious and envious of their artistic friend who has somehow managed to survive despite doing everything society says is irresponsible and self-destructive, while at the same time not really being able to embrace that life or give up their tendencies towards order. And that's a pretty stereotypical sitcom pairing (Felix and Oscar in the Odd Couple being the oldest example I'm personally familiar with, though I'd bet it goes back before that), as well as pretty common as an anime trope (especially in Isekai, where you've got protagonists who lean on their civilized and orderly natures to succeed and reform highly chaotic fantasy worlds, not by fighting against that chaos but by working with it while not becoming it, and instead being what it needs to be stable or successful).

[ezekielraiden]

I notice this is entirely from the Law perspective, and not at all from the anarchists. Why do you (apparently) think an anarchistic person will tolerate a law one?

(Question intended to provoke thought. It just jumped out at me as an apparently assumed thing, and I'm not sure if I'd agree or disagree that the anarchist is more likely to have problems with the law folk, than the law folk with the anarchist.)

I'm not the person you asked, but in general, one of the most common ideas for Chaos is that, barring some practical reason, each should be allowed to behave as they like if it only affects the person doing it (unlike any of the other alignments, though Evil is closest to it). So a Lawful person doing Lawful things that only herself would be a-okay by Chaotic standards, but (implicitly) a Chaotic person doing Chaotic things that only affect himself might still torque off a Lawful person.

To be more concrete about that: A Lawful person who always keeps her word when she gives it is fine (if stuffy and perhaps silly) in the eyes of her Chaotic buddy, but said Chaotic buddy treating every promise as a guideline is doing something Wrong™ in the eyes of the Lawful person.

[Segev]

I'm not the person you asked, but in general, one of the most common ideas for Chaos is that, barring some practical reason, each should be allowed to behave as they like if it only affects the person doing it (unlike any of the other alignments, though Evil is closest to it). So a Lawful person doing Lawful things that only herself would be a-okay by Chaotic standards, but (implicitly) a Chaotic person doing Chaotic things that only affect himself might still torque off a Lawful person.

To be more concrete about that: A Lawful person who always keeps her word when she gives it is fine (if stuffy and perhaps silly) in the eyes of her Chaotic buddy, but said Chaotic buddy treating every promise as a guideline is doing something Wrong™ in the eyes of the Lawful person.

Conversely, though, the lawful person who keeps every promise he makes, even when conditions reveal his promise was ill-considered and is leading to bad outcomes, the chaotic person is going to be exasperated if not disgusted by this.

e.g. a CG person seeing his LN friend who generally leans G but values his word over what is right, and who will do harm in the name of sticking to his word might not be willing to tolerate that behavior from his LN friend.

A CE person seeing his LN friend who generally leans G being twisted into doing something that the CE person sees his friend destroying himself over would also be disgusted, but would probably do something horrible to whoever holds the LN person to his word in order to get him released or to change the conditions.

[KineticDiplomat]

For the same reason that most professed anarchists tolerate the majority of their society. Either said anarchists are not as true blue chaotic as they put forth, or they go along to get along because of the consequences and interests, or they get put down and so are holding their principles behind bars or as they die. Usually a mix of the first two I’d imagine.

[ezekielraiden]

Conversely, though, the lawful person who keeps every promise he makes, even when conditions reveal his promise was ill-considered and is leading to bad outcomes, the chaotic person is going to be exasperated if not disgusted by this.

I would call this an example of Lawful Stupid, personally. If your word is your bond, giving your word is something you should do carefully. Being irresponsible with making promises is a Lawful behavior conducted without thought.

e.g. a CG person seeing his LN friend who generally leans G but values his word over what is right, and who will do harm in the name of sticking to his word might not be willing to tolerate that behavior from his LN friend.

Sure, though I would say the issue there is the Evil-side-of-Neutral aspect of this LN friend, rather than the Law specifically. That is, sure, "keeping my word" is the principle pushing action, but "willing to harm others in pursuit of my goals" is the actual problem, which is a G/E issue, not an L/C issue. However, I could see a similar issue working differently, e.g. a CN person seeing his LN(G) friend holding to her word even when doing so means damaging her reputation and losing out on money that would be critically needed for a Good-related goal he knows is important to her. That'd be a pretty clearly "disgusted by Lawful" stance without any risk of G/E elements...and I'd still call it Lawful Stupid being the problem, rather than Lawful proper being the problem.

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.

A CE person seeing his LN friend who generally leans G being twisted into doing something that the CE person sees his friend destroying himself over would also be disgusted, but would probably do something horrible to whoever holds the LN person to his word in order to get him released or to change the conditions.

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.

[OldTrees1]

I notice this is entirely from the Law perspective, and not at all from the anarchists. Why do you (apparently) think an anarchistic person will tolerate a law one?

(Question intended to provoke thought. It just jumped out at me as an apparently assumed thing, and I'm not sure if I'd agree or disagree that the anarchist is more likely to have problems with the law folk, than the law folk with the anarchist.)

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 external 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.