Secret Good Guy?

[QuintonBeck]

I just had a funny idea and I thought I'd see if anyone else has thought of something similar or seen something like it. In an evil campaign, play a good character who hides his goodness from his buddies. Let's be honest, it seems about once a week we see people asking how to hide their evilness from an otherwise good party, has the reverse ever happened? The idea of a paladin doing it is to me the funniest but their pesky code wouldn't allow that to happen, but have you seen anything similar? Some righteous do-gooder secretly sneaking off from his puppy kicking friends to help an old lady cross the street or donate to the local parsonage?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

An evil character can put up with and even participate in doing good along with this party, and still be evil in his own way. A good character who runs with an evil party and participates in murder, robbery, assisting the dictator in covering up genocide, etc. isn't likely to be able to go along with everything without a peep or protest.
"We don't really need to kill these guys, do we?"
"I'm starting to think you don't really belong in this group, maybe you'd like to join them at the end of my blade!"

[Vin Robinson]

There's always Zaknafein syndrome. You are a good guy surrounded by evil, so what else can you do except take the opportunity to kill other evil you come across within your bounds?

[Taveena]

Well, it'd be like an evil character in a good party. You secretly sabotage their efforts to commit evil and do good acts when they're not looking.

[gomipile]

So you want something like an undercover cop, right? If so, there's tons of source material you can draw upon for what lines the character could/would cross, and how to hide some of that from the evil characters he/she is embedded with.

[Killer Angel]

An evil character can put up with and even participate in doing good along with this party, and still be evil in his own way. A good character who runs with an evil party and participates in murder, robbery, assisting the dictator in covering up genocide, etc. isn't likely to be able to go along with everything without a peep or protest.


Unless the character knows its soul will be dirty, but accept the task (undercover op.) and its "boss" got an atonement ready...

[angry_bear]

I've done something similar before. I was playing a neutral good rogue who worked as a spy, and was trying to undermine the group since they served a rival country. I'd talk them (Two chaotic evil, one lawful evil) out of doing things like raising a village or randomly killing an NPC who crossed them in favour of their long term goals. It's easier if you're more neutral than good, so as to avoid exposure, but it can be done.

[Invader]

Its been mentioned in another thread that being evil has certain stipulations that make it easier to get away with pretending to be good to hide your true alignment.

I think its a lot easier for an evil character to justify away his good acts than it is for a good character to justify away his evil ones.

[QuintonBeck]

I was thinking more in the way Taveena mentioned, a saboteur for good within the realm of evil.
Undercover cop/how far will he go seems much to intense for my original concept, while certainly an interesting idea in it's own right that seems to be hedging more towards a path of damnation paved with good intentions sort of road.
It's interesting I think that it does seem much harder for a good character to maintain that moniker than it is for an evil character to lose theirs. If a good character were to kill an innocent or stand by knowingly while one was killed they'd be dropped to evil or neutral respectively in a heartbeat whereas if an evil character participated in saving an entire village or did nothing to stop a good act from occurring they're still fine to ride the rails of evil. I'd say it seems unfair but it honestly does make sense though I'm not sure why.
So a follow up question, why, if evil and good are opposite ends on the alignment chart, is it that evil can do good without worry but good is much more at risk to slip away?

[hamishspence]

It's interesting I think that it does seem much harder for a good character to maintain that moniker than it is for an evil character to lose theirs. If a good character were to kill an innocent or stand by knowingly while one was killed they'd be dropped to evil or neutral respectively in a heartbeat whereas if an evil character participated in saving an entire village or did nothing to stop a good act from occurring they're still fine to ride the rails of evil. I'd say it seems unfair but it honestly does make sense though I'm not sure why.
So a follow up question, why, if evil and good are opposite ends on the alignment chart, is it that evil can do good without worry but good is much more at risk to slip away?

It may be that the universe is just slanted a bit- in return for the fact that Evil does not play well with one another (lots of infighting, backstabbing, and LE vs CE warfare which generally does not have a LG vs CG counterpart).

Thus- Evil is more numerous, because it's easier- Good is harder but more efficient at working together.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Actually had this happen in a campaign I ran, alright the PC wasn't good but neutral. What he did do however was approach a Chaotic Good NPC Artificer the evil party had "manipulated" into helping them. He proposed they betray the party at a critical moment and destroy them along with the MacGuffin.

The NPC then revealed he was already planning the very same thing. The look on the rest of the player's face when that betrayal occurred was priceless.

[QuintonBeck]

It may be that the universe is just slanted a bit- in return for the fact that Evil does not play well with one another (lots of infighting, backstabbing, and LE vs CE warfare which generally does not have a LG vs CG counterpart).

Thus- Evil is more numerous, because it's easier- Good is harder but more efficient at working together.

I like that idea, though I'd say CG/LG conflict comes into play but not in nearly as violent a manner as CE/LE conflict and instead in more a philosophical disagreement.

Still, it doesn't really answer why Evil is an easier alignment to keep. If good can be lost by one evil action so too then shouldn't evil be lost accordingly? A good character loses faith in the world and lets it get destroyed, in those last final moments he became evil, an evil character prevents the destruction of the world and he's still evil because he did it for selfish reasons. But it's the actions that count, not the intentions right? So like it or not, he saved the world and that was a good act, he protected innocents, why don't we see players get alignment shifted from Evil to Good in these cases? It's always the other way around.

[LogosDragon]

I like that idea, though I'd say CG/LG conflict comes into play but not in nearly as violent a manner as CE/LE conflict and instead in more a philosophical disagreement.

Still, it doesn't really answer why Evil is an easier alignment to keep. If good can be lost by one evil action so too then shouldn't evil be lost accordingly? A good character loses faith in the world and lets it get destroyed, in those last final moments he became evil, an evil character prevents the destruction of the world and he's still evil because he did it for selfish reasons. But it's the actions that count, not the intentions right? So like it or not, he saved the world and that was a good act, he protected innocents, why don't we see players get alignment shifted from Evil to Good in these cases? It's always the other way around.

First of all; in both of your listed examples (losing faith in world and letting it be destroyed, saving world for selfish reasons) that character is actually performing strictly neutral acts.

Second, you've misinterpreted something. A character might lose Exalted status for commiting a single evil act, but a Good character won't go straight to Neutral or Evil. It depends on severity, sure, but circumstances go a long way, and barring wiping out a civilization to boost your own power and rule the world, it takes a lot more than one act to fall to Evil.

Now, to answer your other question; the reason is because there's no Moral Middle Grounds for Evil. A character who performs or stands by for the occasional Evil act for causes of strong Good is strictly Neutral, especially if he's sneakily doing Good acts as well; he might even be Good if he has a plan involving re-habilitating those hurt, or at higher levels, killed, by the Evil characters. Evil, on the other hand, is all based on motives AND if you go through with your final motive in the end. Are you risking your life to save the innocents of a town so you can later sacrifice them to revive your God, only to realize you can't go through with it? Welcome to Good/High-End Neutral! Rescuing a diplomat in order to gain access to confidential files? Minor Evil act with Good act as well... Welcome to low-end Neutral! But those are both in regards to the Good being balanced, not the Evil.

Evil can't be balanced out by good for one major reason: If Good acts are performed to be made use of for Evil later, the Evil not only counteracts the Good, but removes the Goodness from the previous act, such as in the example of saving innocents for sacrificing later. If Evil acts are performed towards a Good cause, this can't happen, because the Good only compares to the Evil without removing it; for example, by sacrificing the souls of a hundred mortals to make a powerful sword to slay a creature that would kill millions of people, you have saved those millions of lives, but the sacrificed people are no less dead.

[gomipile]

Evil can't be balanced out by good for one major reason: If Good acts are performed to be made use of for Evil later, the Evil not only counteracts the Good, but removes the Goodness from the previous act, such as in the example of saving innocents for sacrificing later. If Evil acts are performed towards a Good cause, this can't happen, because the Good only compares to the Evil without removing it; for example, by sacrificing the souls of a hundred mortals to make a powerful sword to slay a creature that would kill millions of people, you have saved those millions of lives, but the sacrificed people are no less dead.

So, you are implying that every law enforcement officer who is undercover in a criminal organization is evil.

[hamishspence]

Rules for D&D morality only apply to D&D worlds.

A D&D Good character, who infiltrated a criminal organization- one that requires the character to commit seriously Evil acts to enter (maybe an Assassins Guild)? is on track toward Neutral and maybe even Evil, very fast.

[gomipile]

Could you at least have a "Firefly agent style" Lawful Evil character who does [Evil] things to uphold the law of the land, which happens to be a [Good] regime?

[hamishspence]

The rules certainly allow it.

Especially if you're following a system with a fairly wide definition of Evil like Eberron (good odds that when you meet a group of 10 commoners, 3 will be Evil).

Becoming "Operative-ish" is apparently the most common form of corruption in Eberron's LG "Church of the Silver Flame".

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In Eberron, the alignment of a priest does not have to match that of his deity. As a result, corruption is a major concern in the Church of the Silver Flame. However, corruption can take many forms, and each can have a vastly different impact on a campaign.

The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

[JaronK]

Sample good character in an evil party: someone who directs the party's mayhem towards other evil. So, constantly convince the party that the best loot can be found in that bandit's cave instead of the orphanage. Usually in D&D, that's actually pretty true. Maybe also convince the evil party to do acts that look good so they can get the love of the people and thus move towards ruling the world... which results in the evil party actually doing good.

It won't help if the group is puppy kicking evil.

JaronK

[Blackjackg]

As far as I'm concerned, pretending to be evil to accomplish good goals is well within the purview of Chaotic Good, as long as the character reasonably believes he's preventing greater evil by doing it. That may take a bit of mental gymnastics to settle why you're doing more good by helping them than by coup-de-gracing them while they sleep, but that's between you, your character and your GM.

[Red Fel]

Could you at least have a "Firefly agent style" Lawful Evil character who does [Evil] things to uphold the law of the land, which happens to be a [Good] regime?

This is surprisingly easy to do, particularly with an LE character. I've done it myself. Make the LE character honor-obligated to work with or serve the party. It doesn't mean he has to like it, and it doesn't mean he has to be nice, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean he has to honor their requests to the letter. When they need to be defended, do it with prejudice. When an enemy needs "convincing," do the things the protagonists won't do.

Inverting it for a good guy with bad guys is tricky, but still possible, depending on your goal.

If your goal is to gradually turn them good, it's actually surprisingly easy. Most players aren't as good at playing evil as they think they are, and will fall into the old habits of heroism and such pretty easily. As JaronK points out, simply redirecting their hostility against evil targets is a pretty easy thing to do - remember, evil doesn't always play nice with evil. And when they've slain the bandits and beaten back the orc horde, and when the village turns out to thank them and lavish them with gratitude and hospitality, it will be that much harder for them to turn around and massacre the whole town in an orgy of bloodshed and despair.

Probably.

If your goal is to infiltrate their ranks, keeping tabs on their operations and hoping to find and defeat their commander, that's much, much more difficult. Organizations like that require trust and proof of ability. Your character would have to do a lot of evil deeds to win enough respect to gain an audience with the boss. And after a certain point, no amount of good intentions can justify the amount of evil you do - your character will suffer alignment hits, and hard. Hamish correctly points out how easy it is to lose one's way under those circumstances.

But here's an odd question: Is hiding your goodness necessary?

Let's assume you're not hanging out with anybody whose Code of Conduct includes the phrase "suffer not the good guys to live." Let's assume they're standard, run-of-the-mill evil, but otherwise they're not bad friends. ("Just because you're a 'bad guy' doesn't mean you're a bad guy.") Maybe you even get along with them.

Who cares if they're evil and you're not? You're all psychopathic kleptomaniac murderhobos. You all travel the lands, killing things and taking their stuff. The only difference is that you're sitting in the tavern, buying rounds and spreading cheer, while they're in the alley behind the tavern, dealing in poisons and plotting a coup. Doesn't mean you can't get along. Doesn't mean you can't have a common goal.

[Barstro]

So, you are implying that every law enforcement officer who is undercover in a criminal organization is evil.

There is a difference between one member of a larger law enforcement agency working his/her way into the organization to take down the top vs. a single person who happens to be running with a pack of criminals.*

I question the ability of a classic "good" character to run with evil. But there can certainly be characters who are less evil that act to sabotage the rest of the group. It really comes down to semantics and IMHO the character's belief. If he considers himself doing good by preventing worse evil, then his alignment shouldn't change. But I'm almost certain I've seen postings here that contradict my opinion and show that DnD rules have alignment follow actions, not purpose.

*A way around this is if the PC and DM can come to an understanding that this world is basically at war, and everyone who the "good" PC kills along the way are considered fallen soldiers by the society as long as that PC is successful in destroying the evil group from the inside.