Talk:Aesgareth/@comment-44645641-20191211194215/@comment-8506165-20200217124630

Is an Evil character required to eat babies because "that's an evil thing to do"? Or is a Good character expected to turn down any and all rewards for the good things they do because "that's the most righteous thing to do"? No, Good/Evil just point to a character's general disposition, there's plenty of evil characters who have lines they personally won't cross, and plenty of good characters who are perfectly happy to get a little bit of personal gain out of their heroic deeds and aren't motivated solely by altruism. It's the same thing with the Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good paladins might break their own word or the laws of the land if keeping to them would be unrighteous. Chaotic Good characters are perfectly capable of making promises they intend to keep - I believe Drizzt is Chaotic Good and he'll keep his word when he agrees to help you go fight Bodhi. Same goes for Lawful Evil/Chaotic Evil characters. While they might generally be Lawful or Chaotic in their behaviours they may sometimes go against that.

Also while the game files might have Aesgareth down as Tanar'ri, he's described as being a cambion, making him a type of half-fiend, which fits with him hanging out with a load of tieflings. Means he's not a creature of pure chaos and evil as the tanar'ri are, so he's not as "always chaotic" as they are. Though even a pure tanar'ri might keep their word to a mortal if it amused them to do so, or didn't particularly inconvenience them. By definition they're not very predictable.