[1ed-3ed]Would a relationship/marriage work between an evil person and a good person?

[newbDM]

Being someone who is occasionally told by people that I have an attraction to "dominant" and such women, this topic occasionally comes up in my mind. Especially when I am browsing Deviantart.com for NPC portraits.

Could a relationship/marriage/etc work between an evil aligned person and a good aligned person, as defined by the D&D 1ed-3.xed systems? Or do such relationships always end up in a cliche sad ending way, and/or are they always a cliche one-sided thing where it is usually the good person ending up as a Love Martyr plot?


On a related note, since the difference between Law and Chaos should be equal to that of Good and Evil, does that mean something? Should there be en equal emphases on this conflict by DMs (including myself)?

[averagejoe]

Being someone who is occasionally told by people that I have an attraction to "dominant" and such women, this topic occasionally comes up in my mind. Especially when I am browsing Deviantart.com for NPC portraits.

Could a relationship/marriage/etc work between an evil aligned person and a good aligned person, as defined by the D&D 1ed-3.xed systems? Or do such relationships always end up in a cliche sad ending way, and/or are they always a cliche one-sided thing where it is usually the good person ending up as a Love Martyr plot?

Frankly, yes, it is possible, so long as it was the right two people. And, probably, if no major moral dilemmas ever came up. (I'm not sure what dominant/submissive has to do with it, though. Neither one is evil or good.)

On a related note, since the difference between Law and Chaos should be equal to that of Good and Evil, does that mean something? Should there be en equal emphases on this conflict by DMs (including myself)?

By RAW they really don't have equal footing; there hardly even seems to be a clear definition of them. I agree that they should be on the same footing, roughly, but one needs to figure something out for oneself if one wants this to be the case. I don't think it should be as focused on because, frankly, it's a less important conflict. It tends to be more of an internal conflict anyways.

[Ellisande]

Add me to the list of people who doesn't grasp what dominant/submissive has to do with good/evil. That said:

Could a relationship/marriage/etc work between an evil aligned person and a good aligned person, as defined by the D&D 1ed-3.xed systems? Or do such relationships always end up in a cliche sad ending way, and/or are they always a cliche one-sided thing where it is usually the good person ending up as a Love Martyr plot?

I wouldn't say such a relationship necessarily ends badly. Not all "evil" is identical. Over-the-top evil would complicate things by necessity, but there's no reason that, in a mundane relationship, either partner would ever even know their partner's alignment. That is to say, an evil person can, as I see it, behave in ways that are perfectly compatible with a neutral or good lifestyle--it is their reasons for doing so that will be different. So no, I don't think they end badly be necessity.

On the other hand, within the context of a DnD game (particularly a dramatically-oriented one), moral decisions and potential conflicts will arise more often... and it seems to me that successful inter-alignment relationships would be extremely rare among adventurers and the like, compared to those that end in drama and pathos.

On a related note, since the difference between Law and Chaos should be equal to that of Good and Evil, does that mean something? Should there be en equal emphases on this conflict by DMs (including myself)?

Interestingly, I think that a difference on the Law/Chaos side of the spectrum would be a far bigger hurdle for a relationship to overcome; I think that Law/Chaos reflects personality in a more... conspicuous way than Good/Evil.

But as to your question, should this have more focus in the game as a whole, or be the equal of Good/Evil? It seems to me that the only thing that matters here is the story that the GM wants to tell. If he wants to tell a story about Good/Evil, then no, it shouldn't. If he wants a extremely nuanced story, full of cross-cutting ideological fractures, it probably should. If he wants to tell a story about Order and Chaos, then yes, it should definitely. There's no wrong way to do it, if you're all enjoying how it goes.

[Tengu_temp]

Depends on how evil is the evil person.

[woodenbandman]

Law and Chaos aren't equal to Good and Evil because someone can be REALLY lawful or REALLY chaotic, and honestly, most people won't change their opinion past a certain point. But the more evil or good someone is, the worse the opinion of them is... forever.

[Theodoriph]

It happens in real life, so there's no reason it wouldn't happen in D&D.

There are a few basic ways this can work:


1. Total or Partial Ignorance (aka "Huh?")

The kind and benevolent queen sees her husband as a kind, loving, caring man and is ignorant of the cruelty he displays towards the people he rules.

2. Tolerance (aka Nobody's Perfect")

While the kind and benevolent queen has heard rumours of the cruelty displayed towards the people the King rules, he has always treated her with kindness and respect and is a wonderful father to their child.

(Although depending on the social structure of the campaign and how much importance is placed on human rights, the King's behaviour may not be evil)

3. Degree of Evil (aka "I can live with that")

The fishmonger steals, misrepresents his product, is cruel to outsiders, but he is able to provide a comfortable lifestyle to his wife, he's great in the sack...and...he takes out the garbage on time. While his good wife nags and tries to turn him into a better man, the degree of his evilness isn't substantial enough to prevent a happy marriage.






In D&D, with regards to evil, too much of an emphasis is placed on actually killing and hurting people physically. But evil is much more and occurs in milders forms. For the former, having a spouse of an opposite alignment on the good-evil scale would be more difficult...for the latter, it's likely quite common.

Evil doesn't mean you're cruel to everyone, spouse included. And it's amazing what flaws people are willing to live with or ignore if someone treats them well.


Edit:

I know I ignored the plight of the evil person dealing with being married to a good person, but I didn't really see that as much of a problem. Most evil people wouldn't care if their spouse is a good person. They might be annoyed with the charitable donations to the orphanage, or they might shake their head at their spouse's behaviour ... but it's likely not going to cause any major problems in a relationship.

Unless you have an odd situation where X loves torturing killing kittens and Y loves taking homeless kittens in. Then they might divorce due to irreconcilable differences.

However, if X kills those kittens via divine intervention and Y really dislikes it when X does that, that might also cause problems. But that's not really a good-evil issue.

[Narmoth]

There was this guy in that country, who had a wife. Then he also had a daughter. And she was his 2nd wife....

Yeah, the evil character could hide his evil acts and pose as good

[The Neoclassic]

Add me to the list of people who doesn't grasp what dominant/submissive has to do with good/evil.

Add me also.

Not all "evil" is identical. Over-the-top evil would complicate things by necessity, but there's no reason that, in a mundane relationship, either partner would ever even know their partner's alignment. That is to say, an evil person can, as I see it, behave in ways that are perfectly compatible with a neutral or good lifestyle--it is their reasons for doing so that will be different. So no, I don't think they end badly be necessity.

Agreed.

The fishmonger steals, misrepresents his product, is cruel to outsiders, but he is able to provide a comfortable lifestyle to his wife, he's great in the sack...and...he takes out the garbage on time. While his good wife nags and tries to turn him into a better man, the degree of his evilness isn't substantial enough to prevent a happy marriage.

Excellent. This is very in line with my understanding of evil, in that you can be a good person in some ways (such as to his wife here) but being a notably evil person to others overrides that.

Interestingly, I think that a difference on the Law/Chaos side of the spectrum would be a far bigger hurdle for a relationship to overcome; I think that Law/Chaos reflects personality in a more... conspicuous way than Good/Evil.

As a LN person who has dated CN people, I can agree that a law/chaos difference can indeed be a serious drag on a relationship. Very different methods of doings things and approaches to situations, which can easily lead to tension and disagreement.

In conclusion, I think that nearly any alignment combination could work for marriage; it's all in the individuals' personalities and compatibility. In the D&D world, alignment is only one of dozens of factors (like in the real world) of whether a marriage will work or not.

[Dervag]

Yeah. It depends heavily on the degree of evil.

If we're talking about a stereotypical "kills puppies for giggles" depraved monster villain, one who is really evil, their good-aligned Significant Other would have to be brainwashed to have anything to do with them.

If we're talking about a person who can realistically conceal the evil they do (a thief), and has qualities that a person might love regardless of that evil, sure. It could work.

To make it work you need characters with at least two or three dimensions, though. One-dimensional characters who are nothing but walking talking advertisements for their alignments won't be able to make the relationship work.

[Valentyne]

One of the better or more realistic examples of it I have seen was a player who was LE and married a LG gal to give himself the public facade of goodness to hide his evil acts behind. "he would never do such a thing! why look what a good and loving husband he is.."

[Assassin89]

I'm sure that in some cases it would be eligible for divorce due to alignment differences if one party found out. Otherwise it could be possible if the LG character believes that love will redeem a LE character.

[hamishspence]

Savage Species points out that evil characters may compartmentalise- they may confine their evil to certain areas.

A torturer who spends all day doing this, and all evening being a loving and kind spouse and parent, is still Evil.

on the first bit: BoVD overdid D/S as evil- subsequent books have suggested that you can be LN- the Scourge Maiden prestige class in Shining South can be LN and heroic.

[AslanCross]

I'm of the opinion that alignments aren't as strong in some people as they are in others. In PCs or BBEGs, alignment is probably pretty strong.

In commoners, probably not as much. You might have a NG wife who either tolerates or is unaware of her LE merchant husband's cheating on the scales.

[hamishspence]

FC2: "most people are only weakly aligned, rarely committing acts strong enough to register as Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil"

though the list in BoVD does include things like cheating and lying, especially for personal gain, that would not be atypical of a "normal person"

[Telonius]

A dwarf who carries out a genocidal war against Orc raiders might have a wife back home behind the front lines who's the kindest soul you ever met, who just wishes those Orcs would leave them alone so her husband didn't feel the need to kill them.

[Swordguy]

Had a GM once who turned my paladin's wife evil after killing off our kid (she went all genocidal-y against the gnolls that did it)...and then had me pally fall for not killing or leaving her because he was still in love with her.

AD&D, but with many things, the "may not associate with evil folks" clause complicates matters immensely.

[hamishspence]

There is the "for the purposes of redemption" option. while introduced in BoED, Dragon Magazine Paladin Guide suggests it should apply to paladin as well "a paladin may associate with evil beings on a limited basis for the purposes of redeeming them"

[Fireballing_Fun]

On a related note, since the difference between Law and Chaos should be equal to that of Good and Evil, does that mean something? Should there be en equal emphases on this conflict by DMs (including myself)?

That is a very interesting point, and I suppose you are right, there is nothing to say that both lines of the axis are not of equal importance.

But in practice it's easier to understand a Good/Evil divide than a lawful/chaotic divide. Or rather the latter will almost always be overlooked in favour of the former, unless you have made the war between Law and Chaos the central theme of your game!

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't see why not. As long as the evil isn't "Rar I kill puppies for the lulz!" and the good isn't Miko.

Frankly I see Law/Chaos being far less compatible, romantically, than Good/Evil.

[Tengu_temp]

Had a GM once who turned my paladin's wife evil after killing off our kid (she went all genocidal-y against the gnolls that did it)...and then had me pally fall for not killing or leaving her because he was still in love with her.

AD&D, but with many things, the "may not associate with evil folks" clause complicates matters immensely.

I'd say a single act of vengeance is not enough to become evil, especially if she was good beforehand. If thas was my GM, he'd soon have an accident including d4s and various orifices.

[Fishy]

There's nothing evil about D/S, it's just that evil sorceresses look good in black leather. It's a tradition, people.

Also, about half of all of the romantic comedy movies ever made are about the Law/Chaos axis. (In as much as that axis means anything.)

[Fireballing_Fun]

Mind you, what Church do they get married in?

[Fireballing_Fun]

[QUOTE=Swordguy;5883652]Had a GM once who turned my paladin's wife evil after killing off our kid (she went all genocidal-y against the gnolls that did it)...and then had me pally fall for not killing or leaving her because he was still in love with her.
[QUOTE]

I don't consider genocide against Gnolls to be an alignment violation (assuming the Paladin in question was Lawful Good). Gnolls are evil, it a Paladins job to hunt them down and kill them until further notice... such as finding a rare exceptional Gnoll who is good.

[hamishspence]

BoED: "Violence must have just cause- Even if the orcs are evil, declaring war on them is not a good act, if the orcs have been causing no harm"

Same principle applies to gnolls. Races of the Wild points out that its primarily the influence of the Cult of Yeenoghu that makes gnolls evil, and an adventure hook is of a "savage but honorable" gnoll chieftain the heroes need to win the trust of.

[Theodoriph]

BoED: "Violence must have just cause- Even if the orcs are evil, declaring war on them is not a good act, if the orcs have been causing no harm"

Same principle applies to gnolls. Races of the Wild points out that its primarily the influence of the Cult of Yeenoghu that makes gnolls evil, and an adventure hook is of a "savage but honorable" gnoll chieftain the heroes need to win the trust of.

If the orcs worship Gruumsh, they're fair game. The good gods (if you worship one) will approve.

[hamishspence]

also "Violence must be discriminatory: fireballing non-combatants, including the women and children of at least some races is evil, since they are not a threat and comparatively helpless"

Exterminating orc (or gnoll, or drow, or similar) populations to the last infant, is Evil by this perspective.

(also, given you can have non-evil clerics of evil gods if within 1 step, its not a big leap to conclude that ordinary people's devotion to an evil god is not necessarily a death-penalty crime)

[Fireballing_Fun]

Hmmm... the morality of D&D can be problematical, because it is so black and white, and real life isn't.

If a race is defined as evil, then good characters need not have moral qualms about causing it's extinction.

If it suddenly wrong to drown gnoll 'puppies' after you have killed the parents what do you do with a beholder baby? Or that red dragon egg thats about to hatch?

Enrol them in a religious school in the hopes they grow up to be Lawful Good?

I'd say the civilian/combatant distinction would only apply to good and neutral races.

[hamishspence]

given that in many cases, its "usually X alignment" or "often X alignment" doesn't work that way.

Even "always X alignment" occasionally gets broken. According to MM2, Crystal dragons sometimes steal white dragon eggs and attempt to raise them as non-evil. It does sometimes work.

However, not everyone subscribes to BOED's "kill only when absolutely necessary, and try to redeem, if you get the chance" philosophy.

[Paramour Pink]

Although I like what BoED says, fluff wise, it really applies more to the Exalted. Most Good people won't ever hold themselves to that high a standard, probably because most Good gods would never believe in just anyone enough to take their Vows seriousily, or just because it's few people would make Vows to begin with. So I think you *could* be Good and decide to stomp on the heads of baby gnolls. However, that would count as an Evil act. Read the alignment system to get why that is.

[hamishspence]

while I agree on the "good, yet do evil acts" I would also point out that, as a rule, person wouldn't stay Good for long.

(also, Vows aren't compulsary for Exaltedness- merely options- its possible to break a Vow and yet still be Exalted)

Champions of Ruin listed the BOVD evil acts and said "While neutral or even good characters could be driven to these acts, the repeated, systematic uses of many of these is the mark of an evil character"

Torture one bad guy, in a crisis, to save lives? Probably still Good, despite Evilness of the act. Take it up as a career? Probably Evil.