Alignment ≠ Morality

Alignment sucks, and it sucks because it's being used erroneously to describe an someone's morality; a nine-point grid cannot accurately categorize most - if not all - moralities. Alignment should instead be used to describe an individual's cosmic loyalty - their literal alignment with the various forces of the universe.

The most unique and interesting aspect of DnD as a setting is the idea that Good and Evil are quantitative forces as real as Entropy, Order, and the elements.
The 4 primary and infinite forces of the universe created 9 extraplanar factions of concepts-made-flesh who wage an eternal war against eachother, but they are unable to find victory due to their immortal and conceptual nature, yet must alway fight the war because that is the very concept they are made of. The only way they can find victory against eachother is through proxy-wars among mortals and other unaligned parties, and this is what they do.

The thing is, just because you serve the best interests of a particular alignment, doesn't mean you have to act in a way that alignment would condone.
An inquisitor who uses torture and tyranny to keep a kingdom faithful to the gods of Neutral Good is acting in a Lawful Evil way, but his alignment is Chaotic Good.
A courtier spinning a web of lies and deceit to be a city's hidden ruler is acting in a Chaotic Neutral way, yet she is trying to keep the city aligned to Lawful Neutral, so that is her alignment.
A blood-soaked warrior fights for Lawful Evil refuses to accept dishonour by killing children or using poison; he cares about his allies, and acts very similar to the way a Lawful Good paladin would, yet his alignment is Lawful Evil.

In short, the only way you can keep alignments fresh and palatable is if you make it completely separate from a character's morality and ethics.

I see it the other way around. In your examples, those people are the alignment that they present as, but in the larger scheme of things they create an effect that is different from their alignment, given their context. Reacting hydrogen with oxygen makes water, but that doesn't mean that hydrogen and oxygen are themselves water

>in the larger scheme of things they create an effect that is different from their alignment
Just to clarify, you're claiming that, for example, the inquisitor is really benefitting Lawful Evil?
I'd have to disagree. He may act Evil, but his actions lead to a net victory to the forces of Good. Otherwise, you might as well say that an American soldier who kills Nazis but likes bratwurst is actually benefitting the Nazis in the long run - and that's simply laughable.

does anyone have a higher quality of that picture?

Yes, in that specific example, because he's is embodying and using Lawful Evil methods and corrupting what it means to be Neutral Good in the first place. Are Neutral Good gods that rely on tyranny to keep people faithful to them and the ideals of "niceness" really Neutral Good anymore, or evil wearing a mask?

But what I more mean to say is that you are not what you create, you are what you are. A man who is being evil in order to create good is still evil- it's literally explicit, the definition of the word "being" is "to be" which is equivalent to "is".

He could support the causes of Good and want to see the world become Good, but he IS Evil.

>Alignment sucks, and it sucks because it's being used erroneously to describe an someone's morality
It doesn't, or rather it partially does. The moral scale is the good-evil scale, and everyone who isn't a total moron agrees there's such a thing as good and such a thing as evil. The only flaw in this system is the assumption that there's such a thing as a 'neutral' act, but the system itself elaborates on this: neutral acts are self-serving, evil acts actively harm others. The law-chaos axis is unrelated to morality and more related to how you go about achieving your goals.

Come at me, moral relativists.

>and more related to how you go about achieving your goals.
No, law and chaos are goals themselves.

I agree with your m8o
Chaotic characters who find themselves where they want to be will suddenly switch to Lawful and vice-versa, because Chaos and Law are vehicles for change and permanency, which always requires a secondary concept to even be changed or become permanent. Therefore they cannot actually stand on their own.

Neutral Good gods can rely on tyranny, because in this case Good is a measurable force in the universe, and that means that the morality of it doesn't matter. If the forces of Neutral Good benefit from the tyranny, then the tyranny becomes a Neutral Good act. This is why the genociding Evil-alligned races like goblins down to the women and children is considered something good that paladins should do.

To our limited mortal understanding of ethics, we would say that tyranny and genocide is evil act, but keep in mind that we're talking about beings whose very essence is their alignment and physically cannot comprehend acting in another way. It's not even that the ends justify the means: to them, there are no means. Only ends.

Ibid. You're still thinking of allignment as something moral instead of physical. To the Exemplars who toy with mortals for their proxy wars, all that matters is that something is done, not the way it is done or if it is self-serving or not.

>asserts "there's such a thing as good and such a thing as evil" without any actual arguments
>posts with funnyjunk filename

>Come at me, moral relativists.

Why call them Good and Evil anymore then

Just to clarify, it's less the Gods that are relying on tyranny, and more the Exemplars (and the planes themselves, even).

Gods represent moral outlook, and like mortals, they can represent any possible moral outlook (not just the 9 the Outsiders/Exemplars represent). Their views are much more nuanced, and this is why mortals tend to worship gods more than cosmic forces. A good exmample of this is Wee Jas, who's allignment is somewhere between LN, TN, and LE

You don't have too, but it's convenient and it feels right. We say that a messy room is more chaotic than an organized room (even if they both have the same entropy) just like we say that an honourable Fiendish warrior is more evil than a cold-hearted avenging Angel (even though this may not be the case).

By all means, though, feel free to divorce yourself from the idea that good and "Good" are the same thing. They're not, just like how order and "Order" aren't.

>By all means, though, feel free to divorce yourself from the idea that good and "Good" are the same thing. They're not, just like how order and "Order" aren't.

I feel it's actually important to distinguish good from Good, etc. Good and Evil are better written "altruistic" and "selfish", Lawful as "ordered". Chaotic works just fine as long as you remember the context; if you call it "disordered" it both implies that order is the default state, and that a chaotic person cannot be organized or plan.

>Implying moral relativism can't be rejected a priori due to being an untenable outlook that universally leads to hypocrisy in those who practice it
>Implying there's such a thing as a moral relativist who lives like morality is actually relative
Camus is the closest thing to a consistent moral relativist. You know, the guy who claimed "why not commit suicide?" is the only question in all of philosophy worth asking?

The fun part about moral relativism is that it ends up being meaningless in the long run. If morality is relative, everything used to judge morality is also relative; good and bad are relative terms, after all.

You end up at a point where moral relativism itself becomes a subjective concept, and from there you can just say "my ethics are right because I say so," and that's a very convenient way to live.

You can do that, but you'll have a hell of a time trying to convince anyone else.

Oh boy another moron who doesn't like the implications of the system on his real world beliefs and wants to write good on his character sheet while performing evil acts.

Look you feckless idiot, the system IS morality. It doesn't care about the ends, but the means. The means in which you achieve a goal infuse your soul with the various aspects of alignment. So chaotic acts twist and disorder your soul, making it align with the planes of chaos even more. And when you die, that's where you'll end up, even if you believed you were going to a more ordered place because you're supposed goal was make your city more lawful.

The Greater Good does not exist, except as the means by which Evil twists people into acts which destroy the goodness of their hearts.

That inquisitor who tortures and uses tyranny to make people fall in line? Going to hell to serve the Devil because he makes such a perfect servant. The good gods will look upon the evil of his soul when it is judged and cast it out of their Heavens. Of course the Inquisitor will go about his life believing he is serving his god in a righteous and just manner, making sure his flock is perfect.

Basically you're just another moron who thinks intentions and goals are the means by which alignment is adjudicated, instead of the decades old way of it being the actions one takes in achieving those goals. Doing evil to achieve good is still fucking evil and taints that good. Murdering a thousand innocents to save a million is still an evil act, even if it is one that must be done. So suck it up, perform the evil act, stain your soul with evil, and get back out there and save some more people.

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, & Evil will always be objective and useful than lawful, chaotic, good, & evil.

>An inquisitor who uses torture and tyranny to keep a kingdom faithful to the gods of Neutral Good is acting in a lawful evil way, but his alignment is Chaotic Good.
>A courtier spinning a web of lies and deceit to be a city's hidden ruler is acting in a chaotic neutral way, yet she is trying to keep the city aligned to Lawful Neutral, so that is her alignment.
FTFY

Put simply, everyone is grey. People make good and bad actions.
It's really impossible to be just one thing.

Descriptive moral relativism is a perfectly consistent outlook. It's only if you get prescriptive that it fails.

I actually quite fine with the alignment system as it is, but I know that a whole bunch of Veeky Forums hates it with a passion and I understand why. But that's besides the point.

Of course the greater good doesn't exist. Neither do dragons and wizards. But what if they did? What if good and evil were objective forces in the universe?

Well, for starters, it would fix a lot of the problems the alignment system has with nuanced morality. Lets take the example of the inquisitor. What if he was a firm but benevolent tyrant, ala Brave New World? What if his society is made significantly better by his brutal removal of civil rights? Or how about The Punisher? Is he Chaotic Good because he kills evil as a vigilante, or is he Lawful Evil/Neutral because he brutally and mercilessly enforces justice?
For both of these situations, you could rule one way or the other and the world would go on, but it just wouldn't be satisfying. It'd be an uncomfortable fit.

But, the idea that alignment is what you serve not how you serve it fixes these issues. Both the Inquisitor and The Punisher would be Good, while also having unique and accurate moralities. It'd also let you play both characters in D&D without having to change all the rules on alignment magic and how it interacts.

In short, I don't really care if you feel like the system works. You do you. For anyone who's displeased with the system as it stands, I present a viable alternative that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyone you'd have to say that too, you wouldn't be able to convince in the first place.

To take a real world example, modern western society would be much better if more people were willing to say "my culture is better than yours because we don't stone women or hang gays, and I don't need to explain why to you."

Alignment in d&d makes a lot more sense when you assume good=generous/altruistic and evil=selfish/greedy.

This also applies to combat and murderhobos- a Paladin could kill, even potentially cruelly, to protect others while an evil character would kill for their own benefit. Neutral is, well, neutral. It's in their best interest to protect their home and friends for both "altruistic" (I must help my friends) and "selfish"(I must protect myself and my belongings) reasons.

This also means Evil party members don't necessarily equal full retard party members.

Oh look its dis thread again

Except for all the ways in which the system explicitly says you're doing it wrong. Quite simply, the system is strongly based on actions and not your goals or intentions. And in the game the Greater Good does not exist either, it's just Good. And how you get to being Good is by doing good actions while not doing evil ones.

You want to throw all this out so that you can pretend you're evil characters are actually good. It would "fix" the system by utterly gutting the criteria it's built on so that any sophist can come along and so long as they have some winding convoluted tale of how their actions somehow serve the greater good despite the vast amount of evil they are doing, it's perfectly fine.

It's a way to allow evil people and their actions to be allowed to call themselves good, just like they do in real life. You want the alignment system to be turned into a farce that covers for the idiotic claims of evil motherfuckers. And your attempts at painting the Inquisitor and Punisher as good reveals your lack of understanding of the actual alignment system. Neither are good, and never will be. Killing evil is a good act, sort of, but to redeem is an even greater act of good. The punisher only enacts his own sense of justice, and not that of Good or Law. Forcing people onto the path of goodness is anathema towards what it represents. Good must be chosen, not forced.

>You want to throw all this out so that you can pretend you're evil characters are actually good. It would "fix" the system by utterly gutting the criteria it's built on so that any sophist can come along and so long as they have some winding convoluted tale of how their actions somehow serve the greater good despite the vast amount of evil they are doing, it's perfectly fine.
Yes. That is literally, exactly what I want. I want the factions of each Alignment to be assholes in equal measure, and for two people on opposite sides of the great cosmic war to (more often than not) have more in common with eachother than with whoever they might be fighting for. I want 99% of the mortal population dragged into the proxy wars of the Outsiders and have this be only marginally related to each mortal's individual morality. I think it'd be neat.

>It's a way to allow evil people and their actions to be allowed to call themselves good
It's a way to allow evil people and their actions to be viable. Because they are. Literally one third of the cosmos is evil, it should be treated as such.

>Killing evil is a good act, sort of
>sort of
See what I mean? You want to say that The Punisher is evil, yet you admit that killing evil is good (just not good enough). It's an uncomfortable fit, because the 3-by-3 alignment chart wasn't designed to accommodate a brutal/merciless but good vigilante, among other things. This is rather important, because we need to know what happens when you target The Punisher with a Detect Good Spell.
The solution, obviously, is to let morality be designated by something more appropriate than 9 options, and let the extensive game mechanics of DnD that relate to alignment refer to the Alignment you serve rather than your individual morality.

Your idea is shit and frankly just makes everything the same dull grey. And Im getting the feeling you're one of those annoying grimdark lovers who like to make everything shittty.

>It's a way to allow evil people and their actions to be viable.
Interesting word choice here concerning good and how you want evil actions to be considered a viable choice for good people. I'm starting to think you don't actually understand the difference between good and evil. And if you're just talking about evil characters being playable, they already are, they just don't get the neat little psychological mask of calling themselves good on their character sheet.

>Killing evil
That "sort of" is a huge reduction of a bunch of qualifying statements and nuance about the act of killing and what it means to be good. Killing evil people is only good in the sense that it reduces evil in the world, by removal of someone who performs evil acts. That is all. Redemption is the better action in that it increases good, while reducing evil. What happens when you use Detect Good on the Punisher? Nothing, he isn't good. He tortures, he maims, he indulges in sadism and suffering to punish those he goes after. He kills "evil" but does so in a manner that is evil. This makes him neutral, at best.

His means are evil while his goals are"good".

What I'm trying to do is to put "Good" and "Evil" in the same context as Left Wing and Right Wing. I want to do this because half the rules already assumes that this is the case, and the other half are the shittier rules that are easier to change.

>Redemption is the better action in that it increases good, while reducing evil.
I agree, but I'd say that more important that increasing good is reducing evil. The way I see Good - or rather, the way I see how a Good Outsider sees Good - trading the life of someone Good for someone Evil is always a worthwhile trade. After all, a living Evil being has the potential to do much worse than kill just one Good being.

>His means are evil while his goals are "good"
But the thing is, you can't prove which is more important: ends or means. And you're never gonna be able to prove that question because nobody can prove that question. The trick is to never put yourself in a situation where you need to answer that question. The Punisher isn't CG or LE; he's just The Punisher. If you're the kind of person who disagrees with his methods, that doesn't mean you're both not fighting for the forces of Good.

Evil can go about killing evil, that doesn't mean that they are on the side of good. It just means they like killing each other. After all, one of the big wars in D&D lore is the Blood War, the ages long killing of devil and demon over who is the better evil.

And the Punisher isn't on the side of good, despite his pretensions to such otherwise.

Human morality is a funny muddled mix of good and evil, and that why its so damn hard to live in a way that's congruent with Good. Evil is easy to live, it just means being a selfish violent little asshole who only cares about his own, whether that's family, friends or his race. Most people have a neat little psychological mask they have that says you're a good person despite your actions. That sure, you murdered those children, but it was for a greater good where a bunch of people are going to live now. You're a good person despite an act that is seen as evil by a thousand different cultures.

The alignment system in D&D makes it such that the mask cant be used. That the player of the character knows at all times that that character is destined for the infernal realms upon their death. That no matter how the character would justify their actions to themselves, that they are destined to be tortured, raped, and eventually remade into a horrifying infernal entity composed of pure malevolence.

The idea you keep advocating is turning that mask into a game feature. That so long as a character can rationalize their evil, they can call themselves good.

No. That's stupid and utterly shit.

And trying to turn alignment into some shitty version of politics as understood by an ignorant college kid, is the worst idea possible.

Good and evil being objective forces in the universe doesn't stop them being aspects of morality. And both your Inquisitor and Punisher characters fit perfectly well into the system: they're Evil but delusional - you know, typical villains, IRL or otherwise.

>equal dickisness
Why don't you simply pick Law and Chaos then, user? Both of these come in good, evil and neutral flavors and most mere mortals would likely fare best in some kind of compromise. Why try to redefine Good and Evil into meaningless labels?

You are a smart man with good morals. I like you.
You are a psychopath trying to make people believe you are good, even while being evil. Eat a bullet. For the Greater Good!

>Evil can go about killing evil, that doesn't mean that they are on the side of good.
Sure, evil can kill evil, but Evil-with-a-capital-E cannot. Regular evil is a moral position, while Evil is a sentient force of the cosmos representing one third of all sentient beings. To use the earlier example of soldiers, one american might murder another american, but if they're both in the same army, they're gonna be killing their enemy first.

>After all, one of the big wars in D&D lore is the Blood War, the ages long killing of devil and demon over who is the better evil
Except that's wrong. The blood war is an eternal, unwinnable, monolithic war from the creation of the universe between the forces of Law and the forces of Chaos. I.E. exactly what I've been describing this whole thread, but with the Good-Evil axis added in.

>it's easy to be evil
Evil isn't the same as selfishness. Neutral is selfishness. Evil is malice. It's incredibly difficult to live entirely without altruism, just like it's incredibly difficult to live entirely without malice. This is why most people are neutral, both in real life and in D&D.

>afterlife
I don't particularly care about that, since what happens to Petitioners is so unimportant to 99% of D&D games, but whatever. What's to say that you won't still go to the afterlife to be tortured if you were an asshole, even if you were an asshole to benefit Good? Good certainly doesn't care about what happens to you after you die because Outsiders only contribute to the unwinnable cosmic war, not the winnable proxy wars. Especially since most outsiders don't actually come from Petitioners.

Of course. An Angel is probably gonna give money to a beggar, and a Modron is probably gonna keep its bookcase well organized. But if you see it as cosmic forces (as Outsiders do), it's far more important for the Angel to destroy evil than it is to give money to the beggar. For Good, being good an afterthought to destroying Evil.

A couple of reasons. The main one being that half the rules already treats Good and Evil the same way that it treats Law and Chaos, while the other half does not; the latter is both inferior and much easier to change than the former.
Also, it's fun. The Blood-war was the best part of the best setting in DnD, and I'd love to see it expanded upon.

You're aware I don't actually think like this, right? Obviously the Greater Good is a stupid thing to strive for IRL, but not in D&D. In D&D, Good and Evil are quantifiable, measurable energies of the universe. In setting, it makes more sense to think this way than it does to think the other way.

Which of these charts is better?

...

...

>The Blood-war was the best part of the best setting in DnD
You can have wars between malevolent extra-planar groups without having good and evil.
Hell, the blood war was waged over Law and Chaos.

>The main one being that half the rules [...], while the other half [yadda yadda yadda]
In Basic and OD&D, Detect Evil and Protection from Evil procced from (and only during) ill intent (from any sort of person) or from (any sort of) extra-planar creatures.

It's more than just the Law-Chaos thing. It's also the proxy-war thing, which would make much more sense if all the Alignments got in on the action instead of just two of them.

I'm not that familiar wit hBasic and OD&D, but that doesn't particularly solve the problem of Good and Evil being treated as objective forces.

>but that doesn't particularly solve the problem of Good and Evil being treated as objective forces.
Listen. Just do it like Moorcock. Law and Chaos are the only objective forces, but they're so far out of left-field as to be completely alien to humans.
If you ever need to deal with an 'objective force' other than Law or Chaos, you one of those two (as appropriate) or tweak whatever to not deal with an objective force.

Also; Chaos is many, many times stronger than Law. But, while the Forces of Law don't necessarily like eachother, Law is far less prone to in-fighting.

>Sure, evil can kill evil, but Evil-with-a-capital-E cannot.
This is so wrong it's not even funny. Evil, like demons and devils, absolutely loathe each other. So much so, they wage an eternal war of what's the better evil, the kind that delights in spreading destruction and chaos or the kind that's about the corruption of morals, the spreading of suffering in a logical and ordered manner via tyranny.

>Evil isn't easy
Have you read the ways in which narcissists, sociopaths, and others go about their lives? They find it easy, because they never think about it. Do you understand the Milgram experiment and just how easy it is for so called neutrals to engage in evil behavior? Seriously.

>Playing in a fantasy game with literal heavens and hells whose physical makeup is composed of literal particles of good and evil, doesn't care about the afterlife.
Weve been arguing over the fuckign afterlife this entire fuckign time. That's what your alignment literally dictates. It's what it was designed for. When you die, your soul goes to the afterlife to begin its training into the giant cosmic super war between good and evil, and between law and chaos. When you're alive, you're just a potential recruit being fought over by the various factions.

Petitioners are the most important beings in the entire afterlife. They are what becomes demons and devils (no seriously the abyss was ruled by nondemon infernal entities before the first souls came to the Abyss and were transformed into demons, and the Devil likes to use the most evil beings as future soldiers). The vast majority of angels, demons, and other outsiders come from the uncountable multitudes of souls that arrive. They are transformed into these beings or eventually subsumed into the fabric of the plane to be recycled into future souls.

You've never actually read any of the actual lore.

And angels would donate to a beggar, but also point them towards a better way than begging. Its in the fucking lore.

>and a Modron is probably gonna keep its bookcase well organized.
>well 'Well' is subjective. There's a method to a Modron's madness, but it's still madness.

I completely agree. Therefore, I also think that it is necessary to change at least the names on the alignment grid. "Good" and "Evil" are moral terms.

A possibility would be to call the axes as such:
Good -> Celestial
Evil -> Chthonian
Law -> Axiomatic
Chaos -> Entropic
Metaphysical neutrality -> Harmonic
"I don't care" neutrality -> Independant

A better possibility would be to completely abandon the grid and instead define metaphysical factions, as there are more than represented on the grid and more could easily be added. There would be at least one for each plane of Great Wheel, plus one for each force that could also be considered concurrential to them, for example, depending on the setting, each Element. Basically, it's all about divine politics. If one day your setting is invaded by metaphysical beasts of another dimension, they will definitely represent a new alignment, as you have the possibility to fight for them rather than the classical kinds of angels, archons, devils, demons, slipnokblok, zarablusta, plomplomtek, etc etc.

Yeah, here.

>The blood war is an eternal, unwinnable, monolithic war from the creation of the universe between the forces of Law and the forces of Chaos.

Fucking wrong.

It's between Devils and Demons, there is no such confict among the Celestials.

That's why they're all just fucking Celestials, and not two seperate kinds of celestial.

I'd probably keep the "Good" and the "Evil" parts of the alignment grid. All the settings are about the eternal battle between Good and Evil.

It's the Law and Chaos part of things that bugs me. To me, anything "Law" is good, while anything "Chaotic" is evil. Yet you can have Tyrants who are the legitimate ruler of a kingdom and Freedom Fighters who have no standing in the succession trying to overthrow them.

I'd probably rename Law and Chaos "Order" and "Change"

"Ordered Good" would basically be "The law is the right way to do things, as it keeps everything running smoothly" while "Ordered Evil" would be "This is the way things were done in my grandfathers time, it was the way it was done in my fathers time, it is the way it will be done in my time and it will be the way things will be done in my sons and grandsons time. To change things would be to spit on tradition"

"Changing Good" on the other hand would be "In years past, we plowed the land ourselves. Today, we have animals to pull the plow. In years to come, we will have automatons to pull the plow. Let's work towards that tomorrow!" while "Changing Evil" would be "Screw what works! Burn the system for the lulz! Shit on the monarchy! Invade the heavens and cast the gods down! Fuck the Police!"

In the middle is "Comfortable." Villagers tend to be comfortable, as chances are, they've seen the good and bad of both Order and Change and know that in the end, everything settles down. It doesn't matter who wears the crown, those turnips don't harvest themselves.

For those who insist on Druidic Neutrality (AKA "Balance"), well, there isn't really an option for that. It would be more of a roleplay thing that they are the most willing to hear both sides out before deciding.

Alternatively, you could just scrap alignment altogether and do what 5e does and have Bonds, Flaws, Personality and Ideals. Types that would lose their class abilities for constantly acting out of alignment would generally have their Ideals and the Ideals of their Patron (Their Church/Deity/Circle/Other Divine Empower-er) align fairly closely. "Falling" would involve blatantly violating the ideals of your Patron, casing them to withdraw their patronage.

The Blood War was never about which fiend was the most evil; it was about Law vs. Chaos. Back during the creation of the world, all the Gods didn't really care about the distinction between Good and Evil, but only about Law and Chaos. Thing is, everyone realizes this except the Demons. Asmodeus is trying to end the Blood War and/or drag Good into the fight. The Celestials, for their part, have been mustering for ages, waiting for the inevitable shift in the Blood War.
Speaking of the Celestials, the Archons and Eladrin aren't fighting, but that doesn't mean that they're not enemies. They're kinda like Oceania and Eurasia allied (for the time being) against Eastasia. Plus, they have to deal with the Angels enforcing peace between them, which puts a dent in their plans.

Narcisism and sociopathy isn't something you can force. Milgram experiment was about loyalty and willingness to follow orders (which are Lawful more than they're Evil), more than it was about sociopathy.

Petitioners are unimportant because the balance between the Alignments stays the same regardless. The forces of chaos, even with their literally infinite numbers, would not be able to completely conquer all of Celestia and Baator.
Like I said in the very first post, the cosmic war is un-winnable, but they can't stop fighting because beings that are the concept of Good Made Flesh must be good, and that means that they must (try to) destroy Evil. But, since this will never happen, they settle for the next best thing: proxy wars among mortals.

When the conflict started, there were no Celestials. The Eladrin (along with the rest of the multiverse) were much less Chaos-aligned at the beginning of the conflict, before Good and Evil realized they were separate.
Also, iirc, there were Good Outsiders like the Wind Dukes of Aaqa fighting other Good Outsiders during the later parts of the conflict (when the Good-Evil distinction was more obvious). I'm not 100% about that tho.

The problem is that Good vs Evil is not the same as Law vs Chaos, either in-universe or IRL. The latter matters because calling a genocidal race of angels Good with capital G will at best cause confusion and more likely drama. In any case it will make DnD grimdark by making everyone evil by any normal standards.

Also, the Blood War is not two nations, worlds or even universes against one another; it's two _infinite planes_ locked in conflict. You could, hypothetically speaking, have one of the layers of Abyss contain the Warp and one of the Nine Hells hold the Materium of the W40K, and it would barely be a footnote in the annals of that conflict. What I'm getting at is that the Blood War has infinite scope, so there's not much point "expanding" it.