Betraying the party

[Mandar]

Often I have debated about doing this. While I do DM, I currently have a PC in a very intense dungeon that has been going on for a few years now. My character, starting out good has slowly turned to neutral and is beginning down that spiral of evil with the offer of (basically) all the power in the world. What is stopping me is the LG Knight in the party who has been my best friend for many years. My group is one that often favors role-playing over combat, so we've had a few (conversational) fights about immoral things my character does. The problem I have is that often the person playing the Knight gets angry OoC because of the evil things going on. Anyone have similar experiences?

Manny~

[*.*.*.*]

Anyone have similar experiences?



It's usually 3/4 of the party that gets pissed at me for anything evul

[druid91]

When I'm evil I do it amusingly. So no.

Example, helping to gather sell a foodstuff that I knew was lethal (Protip: Just because the guy who is basically a humanoid eldritch horror says something is delicious does not mean you should eat it.:smallwink:) and then watching as the reality warping effects of mushrooms from the far realms have on the guy we sold it to.

[myancey]

Yes, I find that players often let things in-game affect them OoC. Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done about it aside from reminding them that it's only a game. Sometimes that'll make it worse.

At this point, just make the decision your character would make. Betrayal sounds like the right answer for your character to me. If you die, it means you can make a character less morally obtrusive. If they die, they can make evil characters more like yours.

[Flame of Anor]

Alternatively, if as you say this is a roleplay-heavy game, then talk to the DM and get him/her to set up a situation where your character can die saving the life of the Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSacrifice), then roll up a new guy.

[Pyro_Azer]

Betraying the party might not be the best idea. If the knights player is getting angry OoC for arguments IC than killing his character WILL causes OoC problems. It is not unknown for players to come to these forums (and others) saying they were kicked from the group they were in because they engaged in PvP. The best idea would probably be to talk to the GM and fellow players and either have your character die (and bring in a new one) or atone or act like he is going to atone just enough to keep the knight off of his back.

[Amnestic]

Gee, it's almost like they're emotionally invested in characters which have taken literally years to craft into what they are today...freakin' weirdos.

Anti-party activities should only occur after a long, in-depth talk and subsequent agreement with the DM, preferably with agreement from all of the players too, because stuff like this thrown out there randomly has the potential to be group-killing if you're not careful.

[Honest Tiefling]

OoC needs to stay OoC. IC needs to stay IC. If you are having an issue with your buddy, talk to him about his OoC reactions. I also suggest speaking with the others in the group about this. You do not need to tell them your PvP intentions, but tell them that you think the IC conflict is going OoC and see what they have to say.

[navar100]

If a PC betrays the party I will never, ever trust that player again for any roleplaying game, metagame or out of character shenanigans or not.

[Draig]

If a PC betrays the party I will never, ever trust that player again for any roleplaying game, metagame or out of character shenanigans or not.

That right there is why i also would advise AGAINST killing the knight. Once a player has killed another PC it almost ALWAYS follows into the next campaign, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and you see where this is going. It then turns from "what is a character i would LIKE to play as?" into "what is a character that could totally kill the other PC's if they turn or do something i dont like."

[wuwuwu]

If he's getting angry OoC, I'd talk to him about it. If it's all IC, then it would be fine for PvP (in most cases). I've had several characters killed by PvP (several of them I desperately didn't want to die and desperately tried to find a way out of, heh), but I hold no grudges against the players.

Even...even the ones who kept trophies :(

[Flame of Anor]

I'm just going to point out that my solution is dramatic and makes sense in character but doesn't alienate the other players.

[Gnome Alone]

I'm just going to point out that my solution is dramatic and makes sense in character but doesn't alienate the other players.

I agree, it is my personal favorite suggestion, but I'm not sure the OP would be into killing off his character just so his friend doesn't get mad.

[Flame of Anor]

I agree, it is my personal favorite suggestion, but I'm not sure the OP would be into killing off his character just so his friend doesn't get mad.

If he betrays the party, he's likely to die anyway, so the question becomes: which does he value more? A slight chance of killing off all the other party members and surviving, or harmony among the players?

[myancey]

If a PC betrays the party I will never, ever trust that player again for any roleplaying game, metagame or out of character shenanigans or not.

So instead you'd rather limit a player's ability to RP a character? That's a little quick to suddenly and irrevocably start mistrusting players.


That right there is why i also would advise AGAINST killing the knight. Once a player has killed another PC it almost ALWAYS follows into the next campaign, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and you see where this is going. It then turns from "what is a character i would LIKE to play as?" into "what is a character that could totally kill the other PC's if they turn or do something i dont like."

That is why you need a strong DM who would stop crud like that. The group I DM for has one major rule when transitioning campaigns--no carrying grudges. We have 2 DMs. If I kill the player/other DM in my campaign--I shouldn't have to worry about retribution in the form of a sudden, targeted death in the campaign I'm playing in.

On top of that--this knight guy just sounds like a prima donna. D&D is going to have things you don't like. But a fellow player should not limit what another player can or cannot do by getting mad OoC. That's childish.

Also, the DM in this campaign is allowing Mandar's character to go down this path--making it a perfectly legitimate RP pathway.


I agree, it is my personal favorite suggestion, but I'm not sure the OP would be into killing off his character just so his friend doesn't get mad.

And he shouldn't. Again, this players' anger is limiting the OP's ability to RP. That's just wrong.

[zoobob9]

Recently our Barbarian scared the only lead we had away, with no possibility of us catching up. The other two of us have been seriously thinking of killing him for it. I actually slapped him OoC.

[myancey]

Recently our Barbarian scared the only lead we had away, with no possibility of us catching up. The other two of us have been seriously thinking of killing him for it. I actually slapped him OoC.

You should. PvP is not always a bad thing--it can actually make the game much more interesting provided your DM handles it appropriately.

I played in a drow campaign once, set in Menzoberranzan. The entire point of the game was killing fellow players, making alliances, and rising to great power. It was a crazy fun game--and I used more poison in that one campaign than any other campaign combined. (You'd be surprised how often players die when you smear Black Lotus poison on the doorknob leading to your private chambers.)

PvP done appropriately shows a mature group. It means that you can differentiate between the roles of the character and player.

Just make sure it's what your DM wants. Sometimes campaigns shouldn't have PvP. Always work with your DM on it. If it's sanctioned, you've that to throw in the face of those who'd get mad OoC.

[Pyro_Azer]

PvP done appropriately shows a mature group. It means that you can differentiate between the roles of the character and player.



The Knight players reactions make it appear (to me at least) that this is not a completely mature group and that PvP would not be handled appropriately. Also, even for mature groups PvP is not always a good idea.

[myancey]

The Knight players reactions make it appear (to me at least) that this is not a completely mature group and that PvP would not be handled appropriately.

Then maybe betraying the party is a good last straw--the knight might quit on the spot. If he's the weak link in party maturity...he should probably man up or get out.

Plus, you are only rewarding this "child" by not continuing your actions when he gets angry. No one should have this much hold over the alignment actions of the party except--maybe, just maybe--the DM. And as I stated earlier--the DM is obviously alright with the OP heading down an evil path because he's allowing it in the first place. I'd reward the OP with good RP skills. I wouldn't want him betraying the rest of the group--but if things were this bad in my group I'd be all for it--teaching lessons and all.

Really, the OP has a few possibilities:

1)He does not betray the party--and things will stay the same.
2)He betrays the party--he dies, the party lives, and the OP can create a new, good aligned character.
3)He betrays the party--he lives, the party dies, and they can either make baddies or goodies as they and the DM like. DM should enforce a no-grudge rule in this case.
4)He betrays the party--he lives, the party lives, and because he's in the moral minority, he can retire the character as having 'gone off somewhere' and make a new, less abrasive character. DM enforces a no-grudge policy and party continues on.
5)He betrays the party--he dies, the party dies, and everyone gets to start fresh. No-grudge policy included.


Also, even for mature groups PvP is not always a good idea.

I did make a stipulation in an earlier post saying just that. For PvP to be done right, the DM needs a heavy hand in it. He enforces the "no grudges" policy, oversees the PvP actions, and prevents the metagaming that stereotypically occurs when a player knows another player is about to kill him.

[navar100]

So instead you'd rather limit a player's ability to RP a character? That's a little quick to suddenly and irrevocably start mistrusting players.

"That's just what my character would do." "I'm just roleplaying." These are never acceptable excuses for being a donkey-cavity. You chose to be a donkey-cavity. Once I know you are capable of betraying the party, then I can never trust you won't do it again the next campaign. It is a metagame problem you caused.

[myancey]

"That's just what my character would do." "I'm just roleplaying." These are never acceptable excuses for being a donkey-cavity. You chose to be a donkey-cavity. Once I know you are capable of betraying the party, then I can never trust you won't do it again the next campaign. It is a metagame problem you caused.

But its not a metagame problem. It's a legitimate piece of RP that the DM is sanctioning. Yes, I can understand your point if the player consistently tries to screw over the party--or if he acts evil even though he's 'lawful good'..but to call someone a "donkey-cavity" for simply RPing in their alignment is just bad form.

Also, while quotes like "that's what my character would do" and "i'm just roleplaying" are overused and abused...it doesn't mean that we should automatically shun them from the table. A good-aligned character could use these, according to your opinion, without any issues. But the moment an evil party member uses them you're ready and willing to permanently throw them to the wolves? Really?

[Pyro_Azer]

Really, the OP has a few possibilities:

1)He does not betray the party--and things will stay the same.
2)He betrays the party--he dies, the party lives, and the OP can create a new, good aligned character.
3)He betrays the party--he lives, the party dies, and they can either make baddies or goodies as they and the DM like. DM should enforce a no-grudge rule in this case.
4)He betrays the party--he lives, the party lives, and because he's in the moral minority, he can retire the character as having 'gone off somewhere' and make a new, less abrasive character. DM enforces a no-grudge policy and party continues on.
5)He betrays the party--he dies, the party dies, and everyone gets to start fresh. No-grudge policy included.




Unfortunately I think the following will happen:

Option 6. The rogue dies along with one or two others. Perhaps this is the knight, but if we were to go by threat analysis any casters will probably go first (this doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but we will go with the knight surviving and/or the knight dying along with others dying as well). This leads to two things: 1) The knight player will be mad at him for betraying the party. 2) Other members of the party will be mad at him for killing them when the obvious contention is between the him and the knight. It also has the possibility of derailing the GM's campaign.

I do not think that this will "teach the knight a lesson" but rather cause more players to be angry with the OP that had no problem with his immoral actions. Once again I feel that i must mention (I do not agree with doing this BTW) people have been kicked out of groups for this sort of stuff. Should he talk to the GM? Yes. Should he talk to the rest of the party? Also yes. It's not worth all of the arguing and grief that could come from asking the GM, finding out he is fine with it, betraying the party, and the finding out that every single other person in the group is not OK with it. Even if THIS GM enforces a no-grudge policy, that does not stop angry players from getting paybacks and messing up some other GM's campaign.

[myancey]

Unfortunately I think the following will happen:

Option 6. The rogue dies along with one or two others. Perhaps this is the knight, but if we were to go by threat analysis any casters will probably go first (this doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but we will go with the knight surviving and/or the knight dying along with others dying as well). This leads to two things: 1) The knight player will be mad at him for betraying the party. 2) Other members of the party will be mad at him for killing them when the obvious contention is between the him and the knight. It also has the possibility of derailing the GM's campaign.

I do not think that this will "teach the knight a lesson" but rather cause more players to be angry with the OP that had no problem with his immoral actions. Once again I feel that i must mention (I do not agree with doing this BTW) people have been kicked out of groups for this sort of stuff. Should he talk to the GM? Yes. Should he talk to the rest of the party? Also yes. It's not worth all of the arguing and grief that could come from asking the GM, finding out he is fine with it, betraying the party, and the finding out that every single other person in the group is not OK with it. Even if THIS GM enforces a no-grudge policy, that does not stop angry players from getting paybacks and messing up some other GM's campaign.

Fair to say. Either way, he still needs confront the group about it. His method is his own to choose. I would just do it--because no one but the DM has the right to hamper my character's actions. And talking to the party sort of spoils the surprise and lets them know OoC what is about to happen.

Also, to avoid your point 6--make good plans. Telling the party of their impending demise is certainly not step 1.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm gonna have to say that OOC attitudes trump IC motivations; the character is just that, a character, but players are human beings, therefore their intrinsic worth is exponentially greater, and your relationship with them needs to be kept intact more than your relationship to your character, period, no matter what. That being said, talking to the Knight's player is going to do you the most good. I'm not saying abandon your character's concept or motivations, but having more communication as players is going to make characters like the one you're playing in the group you're playing with possible. If there is no player cohesion, then the party can't stand much, but if you, as a group of people, are on good terms and interested in character concepts with teeth and consequences of actions, then you can afford to do otherwise contention-stirring things. So it depends on the foundation your group has as players, the strength of that relationship, then go from there. But, IMO, it's never worth offending someone who's not as mature as you are to stay IC, it's better to bring that person up to your level. It's harder, but it's always better.

[King Atticus]

Also, while quotes like "that's what my character would do" and "i'm just roleplaying" are overused and abused...it doesn't mean that we should automatically shun them from the table. A good-aligned character could use these, according to your opinion, without any issues. But the moment an evil party member uses them you're ready and willing to permanently throw them to the wolves? Really?

I agree with this completely. Why is it that evil characters always have to pander to good characters? If the DM is ok with the OP's dissent into bad-guyhood than there is no logical reason that he should have to give up his character just because he's stepping on toes. The goodie-goodie characters have way too much pull on other characters. I have no problem at all with a good aligned character preaching to or trying to redeem the team baddies but to pull it outside the context of the game and force them to stop being what is a perfectly valid character type is just petty garbage.

Plus if you want to take out another player in a group you don't do it directly. You get time away from the group and hire assassins or merc's to take them out (maybe with the DM discretely). Not only can this take out your problem player, if it's worked correctly you could get XP for the encounter in which he gets killed. :smallbiggrin:


I'm gonna have to say that OOC attitudes trump IC motivations; the character is just that, a character, but players are human beings, therefore their intrinsic worth is exponentially greater, and your relationship with them needs to be kept intact more than your relationship to your character, period, no matter what. That being said, talking to the Knight's player is going to do you the most good. I'm not saying abandon your character's concept or motivations, but having more communication as players is going to make characters like the one you're playing in the group you're playing with possible. If there is no player cohesion, then the party can't stand much, but if you, as a group of people, are on good terms and interested in character concepts with teeth and consequences of actions, then you can afford to do otherwise contention-stirring things. So it depends on the foundation your group has as players, the strength of that relationship, then go from there. But, IMO, it's never worth offending someone who's not as mature as you are to stay IC, it's better to bring that person up to your level. It's harder, but it's always better.

If the knight is willing to ruin a years long "best friend" relationship over a game not only should he never play any game of any sort ever again, he should learn that real world friendships are more valuable than this type of silliness. Talk to him and if he still doesn't get it, that is no longer a you problem.

[myancey]

If the knight is willing to ruin a years long "best friend" relationship over a game not only should he never play any game of any sort ever again, he should learn that real world friendships are more valuable than this type of silliness. Talk to him and if he still doesn't get it, that is no longer a you problem.

I think you win the thread. I agree with you, of course, because my players are adults who value the game in its entirety. Adults who know how to keep their anger in check.

Nothing in this game warrants OoC anger...maybe getting a little annoyed because your brother AoE'd you when you were fighting tons of bad guys as the meat shield...but not outright anger. In fact, never outright anger.

[Talentless]

I think you win the thread. I agree with you, of course, because my players are adults who value the game in its entirety. Adults who know how to keep their anger in check.

Nothing in this game warrants OoC anger...maybe getting a little annoyed because your brother AoE'd you when you were fighting tons of bad guys as the meat shield...but not outright anger. In fact, never outright anger.

I'd say Rocks fall everybody dies might warrant outright anger depending on how it was handled.

Personally though, i haven't encountered any really arbitrary TPKs, but i imagine i would be upset with the DM if i ever do. I can understand that sometimes there isn't much a DM can do because of how players either derailed the plot, or did something that put them in a bad position that can't be worked out of, but Rocks Fall is the most ham handed solution.

/edit, to weigh in on the OP's question/debate, I'd say go for it. Unlike many other party betrayals i've heard/encountered, yours does have a pretty impressive RP reason. You started good, then slid down into evil, making your betrayal of the party a good plot point that you could work out with the DM.

[Amnestic]

If the knight is willing to ruin a years long "best friend" relationship over a game not only should he never play any game of any sort ever again, he should learn that real world friendships are more valuable than this type of silliness. Talk to him and if he still doesn't get it, that is no longer a you problem.

Hang on. You say the Knight should never play a game again if he's willing to ruin the friendship over a game - but isn't the OP willing to do just that by going ahead with his plans even if the Knight doesn't want him to, knowing that it will negatively affect the friendship? He's in exactly the same boat, and he is arguably more culpable since he is the active party who is instigating the event even knowing it can cause a problem.


I think you win the thread. I agree with you, of course, because my players are adults who value the game in its entirety.

Your condescending tone and inability to recognise that the Knight may wish to play a different game without PvP shenanigans is childish, not adult.

Also, define "Game in its entirety", since I'm pretty sure I could ask five people what it means and get ten different answers.

[King Atticus]

Hang on. You say the Knight should never play a game again if he's willing to ruin the friendship over a game - but isn't the OP willing to do just that by going ahead with his plans even if the Knight doesn't want him to, knowing that it will negatively affect the friendship? He's in exactly the same boat, and he is arguably more culpable since he is the active party who is instigating the event even knowing it can cause a problem.

I can see your point but I do tend to disagree. I am working off the assumption that if the group got together and decided that they couldn't have the bad guy in the group anymore and kicked him to the curb that the OP wouldn't start an OoC fight and be all petty about it. I draw this conclusion because of the fact that he opened himself up to public judgement to see if the community as a whole thought he was in the wrong. There is room for different alignments in a group (barring the classes that specifically remove benefits based on associations) and if the DM lets them play the whole spectrum then it is not wrong to do it.

That would be like saying that having a discussion or debate in which you don't completely agree with everything your friend says is wrong. It's ok not to always agree, it's not ok to be a tool about it.

[Thyrian]

Hang on. You say the Knight should never play a game again if he's willing to ruin the friendship over a game - but isn't the OP willing to do just that by going ahead with his plans even if the Knight doesn't want him to, knowing that it will negatively affect the friendship? He's in exactly the same boat, and he is arguably more culpable since he is the active party who is instigating the event even knowing it can cause a problem.



Your condescending tone and inability to recognise that the Knight may wish to play a different game without PvP shenanigans is childish, not adult.

Also, define "Game in its entirety", since I'm pretty sure I could ask five people what it means and get ten different answers.

If party member A is role playing well and the transition in actions from good to evil are justified in-game. Party member B in game should definitely be angry at Party member A.

However in a game of Monopoly when my friend fines me $5000 I do not regard it as a betrayal of friendship even though we had an 'alliance' going in the game.

Actions in game shouldn't stretch back to real life, and while I disagree on the "never ever" front, perhaps a small break from the good guy would be needed to separate his anger. My PC was killed by his best friend PC a few months ago. We then went out and had ice-cream while we discussed new potential characters.... If the knight wants to play a game without PvP shenanigans he can go play a game with a 'friendly fire'-disabled option.

If he wants to have the tense but fun moral choice of 'friend vs ethics' and at exactly what point do ethics mean more to you and what does that entail in your creed, he can play in this campaign a bit longer.

[myancey]

Hang on. You say the Knight should never play a game again if he's willing to ruin the friendship over a game - but isn't the OP willing to do just that by going ahead with his plans even if the Knight doesn't want him to, knowing that it will negatively affect the friendship? He's in exactly the same boat, and he is arguably more culpable since he is the active party who is instigating the event even knowing it can cause a problem.

Except that the OP is simply trying to play his character. The root issue here is the anger problem of the knight. It's not the same thing at all. The OP is well within his rights to play the character of his choosing. All the negative crud is on the knight--his anger, and the potential loss of friendship. If the OP performs an action within the normal realm of his character, it shouldn't create a loss of friendship. The knight would be the one to make it so.

Also, if you really want to start throwing around culpability--we could say the DM is responsible because he let the OP head down an evil path with his character. But no, it wasn't the DM or the OP. It's the knight and his anger issue. It's a game--that is what Atticus is trying to get at. And if he can't handle his anger over a game, he shouldn't play.




Your condescending tone and inability to recognise that the Knight may wish to play a different game without PvP shenanigans is childish, not adult.

Also, define "Game in its entirety", since I'm pretty sure I could ask five people what it means and get ten different answers.


First off, please don't assume I'm attempting to be condescending--mostly because I'm not. I was simply stating that a normal group should never come to outright anger on in-game issues. That, sir, is the definition of childish.

And I was defining "game in its entirety" as in--they respect the various elements of 3.5 D&D as written, specifically in regards to alignment. I have players who may dislike the concept of d&d alignment as being too simplistic, but they are adult enough that a party of good and evil characters can exist without OoC anger. The OoC anger is the real issue here. The issue that the OP posted on. He is obviously tired of knight guy's anger problem.

Also, if the knight wants to play a game outside what the DM has obviously sanctioned--he should go find a different group. Maybe one that only allows good alignments.

[Pyro_Azer]

I agree with this completely. Why is it that evil characters always have to pander to good characters? If the DM is ok with the OP's dissent into bad-guyhood than there is no logical reason that he should have to give up his character just because he's stepping on toes. The goodie-goodie characters have way too much pull on other characters. I have no problem at all with a good aligned character preaching to or trying to redeem the team baddies but to pull it outside the context of the game and force them to stop being what is a perfectly valid character type is just petty garbage.

Plus if you want to take out another player in a group you don't do it directly. You get time away from the group and hire assassins or merc's to take them out (maybe with the DM discretely). Not only can this take out your problem player, if it's worked correctly you could get XP for the encounter in which he gets killed. :smallbiggrin:


Why is it OK for one player to force the playstyle of the rest?

Why is it OK for one player to potentially ruin the fun for the rest?

Why is it that everyone assumes that because the angry reactions are stupid, that they won't happen? I feel I must re-iterate people have been kicked out of groups for this. Is doing that stupid? Yes. Is doing that immature? Yes. Does the player still not have a group? Yes.

If the player kills the knight he will have to kill the entire party. Even methods such as sending assassins can be traced. This tends to perturb people, especially if they put a lot of time effort and energy into their characters. It would take little effort for the OP to do something non-violent such as pretending to atone. We certainly do not need to pigeonhole his choices into not role playing correctly or killing the party. Fine to talk about the OP vs. the Knight, but the OP's decision will affect the entire group. If no one has a problem? Very good then, stab away. But we are ignoring the fact that the other players in the party might have a problem with this.

Edit: Holy storm of replies! At this stage it is no longer about the OP vs. the Knight. Every other party member is affected by this decision. There are other ways to act IC that do not involve killing the party.

[myancey]

Why is it OK for one player to force the playstyle of the rest?

Why is it OK for one player to potentially ruin the fun for the rest?

Why is it that everyone assumes that because the angry reactions are stupid, that they won't happen? I feel I must re-iterate people have been kicked out of groups for this. Is doing that stupid? Yes. Is doing that immature? Yes. Does the player still not have a group? Yes.

If the player kills the knight he will have to kill the entire party. Even methods such as sending assassins can be traced. This tends to perturb people, especially if they put a lot of time effort and energy into their characters. It would take little effort for the OP to do something non-violent such as pretending to atone. We certainly do not need to pigeonhole his choices into not role playing correctly or killing the party. Fine to talk about the OP vs. the Knight, but the OP's decision will affect the entire group. If no one has a problem? Very good then, stab away. But we are ignoring the fact that the other players in the party might have a problem with this.

That is the OP's decision to make. But if a group kicks a player because he staged a wicked ambush, etc...then they aren't really good group material.

We spoke earlier on the thread about mature players. Doing an in-character assassination attempt isn't immature. It isn't the place for every game--I wouldn't let my group do it if I sanctioned the campaign as good-aligned...but it doesn't mean its wrong.

The players enter into agreement when they play D&D. The DM can do whatever the heck he wants...the players have the option of playing or quitting. Now most groups go beyond this and try to incorporate the needs and wants of players and DMs.

But end point--if the DM is good with something happening...it can happen. It's just a game, and players can get over it.

[Amnestic]

Responses:

Except that the OP is simply trying to play his character.

Bull-poop. You choose to take your character in a certain direction. "My character would do that" is not an valid excuse.


The root issue here is the anger problem of the knight.

To you maybe. What's the root of his anger though? The fact that one character is deliberately being evil (and, as it turns out, plotting the possible disruption of the entire game). Ruining games that people are invested in is naturally going to cause a little tension.


The OP is well within his rights to play the character of his choosing.

And the group is well within their right to kick his ass out for being disruptive and going against the game's direction simply for his own enjoyment at the sacrifice of others.


It's a game--that is what Atticus is trying to get at. And if he can't handle his anger over a game, he shouldn't play.

And if it were a single player game that'd be fine, but there are other people here too, and one must generally make sacrifices for the good of the group fun.



First off, please don't assume I'm attempting to be condescending--mostly because I'm not.

Yes, you are. Your constant use of "my players are adults" was condescending, as it clearly implied that those who disagree with you are not.


then they aren't really good group material.

See what I mean?

[myancey]

Bull-poop. You choose to take your character in a certain direction. "My character would do that" is not an valid excuse.

D&D is all about choosing directions--some creating a path different from another party member. He felt it appropriate to go evil (the DM sanctioning it), and knight-guy is getting all upset by it. If the DM didn't want an evil character in the group--he wouldn't have allowed it to happen.


To you maybe. What's the root of his anger though? The fact that one character is deliberately being evil (and, as it turns out, plotting the possible disruption of the entire game). Ruining games that people are invested in is naturally going to cause a little tension.

Again, the DM allowed it. If he's an evil character, he is deliberately allowed to be evil. And OP's plot is in response to the knight characters' anger. Oh, and the root of his anger is actions done in a game. That says it all.


And the group is well within their right to kick his ass out for being disruptive and going against the game's direction simply for his own enjoyment at the sacrifice of others.

Except he isn't going against the "game's direction" if the DM is fine with OP's actions.


And if it were a single player game that'd be fine, but there are other people here too, and one must generally make sacrifices for the good of the group fun.

Then maybe the knight could make a sacrifice and not be angry all the time? I haven't heard mention from the OP qualms he has with any other party member.


Yes, you are. Your constant use of "my players are adults" was condescending, as it clearly implied that those who disagree with you are not.

Take it how you want, friend, but I was referring to my players as an example of a good group to play with.


See what I mean?

I think you're being a little too touchy. The quote you referenced was a legitimate opinion. But your strategy seems to be labeling an opinion as condescending if it doesn't match your own. Nice.

All of this aside--you and I just have to different view points on the matter. I believe that the DM has to power to control this--and if he's letting it happen then it's legit. To me, the knight is being childish because he's displaying OoC anger over actions in a game.

I respect your opinion, and heartily disagree with it.

[Pyro_Azer]

I think we need the OP to answer several questions before anything productive can come out of this. Questions about his GM's opinion, about the rest of the group's stance about his character, about the knights character and about the maturity level of the group. We simply do not have enough information.

And for the record: myancey, if the OP was just going against the knight I would agree completely with you. However, I believe the rest of the party is involved in this debacle, or will be if the OP betrays the party. However, I am still convinced that a compromise can be reached.

And Amnestic. The group I described did have a lot of fundamental problems. Saying that they are not good group material is not entirely unreasonable. I simply used them to show that some consequences, while stupid, still exist.

[myancey]

I think we need the OP to answer several questions before anything productive can come out of this. Questions about his GM's opinion, about the rest of the group's stance about his character, about the knights character and about the maturity level of the group. We simply do not have enough information.

I agree. There are a lot of assumptions in every argument presented, mine included.


And for the record: myancey, if the OP was just going against the knight I would agree completely with you. However, I believe the rest of the party is involved in this debacle, or will be if the OP betrays the party. However, I am still convinced that a compromise can be reached.

I can understand your point. My argument comes from the experience I've had with groups. I had a group that would get into shenanigans all the time--we still would were it that we all went off to college and settled down in different places. We always had fun doing it--and we always had an eclectic grouping of alignments in our parties.

[Flame of Anor]

If the knight is willing to ruin a years long "best friend" relationship over a game...

Wait, I thought the characters were friends.

[King Atticus]

If the player kills the knight he will have to kill the entire party. Even methods such as sending assassins can be traced. This tends to perturb people, especially if they put a lot of time effort and energy into their characters. It would take little effort for the OP to do something non-violent such as pretending to atone. We certainly do not need to pigeonhole his choices into not role playing correctly or killing the party. Fine to talk about the OP vs. the Knight, but the OP's decision will affect the entire group. If no one has a problem? Very good then, stab away. But we are ignoring the fact that the other players in the party might have a problem with this.

I agree with this 100%. I would never sanction a hit on another player. That part of my post was just a joke. It's more fun for me to meld a group dynamic without resorting to violence. I like the tension that these situations supply specifically because they are a good spark for debates. Killing off the good player would takeall the fun out of being evil for me. Plus I realize the amount of work people put into character design (especially in campaign that lasts for years).

[navar100]

But its not a metagame problem. It's a legitimate piece of RP that the DM is sanctioning. Yes, I can understand your point if the player consistently tries to screw over the party--or if he acts evil even though he's 'lawful good'..but to call someone a "donkey-cavity" for simply RPing in their alignment is just bad form.

Also, while quotes like "that's what my character would do" and "i'm just roleplaying" are overused and abused...it doesn't mean that we should automatically shun them from the table. A good-aligned character could use these, according to your opinion, without any issues. But the moment an evil party member uses them you're ready and willing to permanently throw them to the wolves? Really?

I have no problem with a player playing an evil character. A player in my group is doing so now and has done so for the past few campaigns. Back in college during 2E there was this player who played an evil wizard very well, and we got along just fine even though I was playing a cleric of Justice/Revenge. Just don't betray the party! Do your evil stuff against the bad guys.

[Draig]

Also, to avoid your point 6--make good plans. Telling the party of their impending demise is certainly not step 1.

However, if you would like your character to be a truly memorable traitor/villain/other then they betrayal should most defiantly be prefaced by an epic monologue describing to them their epic demise. Also for comedic flair you could make the entire betrayal be tied back to the fact that on day 2 of your adventure the knight looked at you the wrong way and from that moment you have been slowly and methodically planning his demise. Just a thought.

Edit: also ever since I first started playing and Dm'ing I have believed that a character can be any alignment he choose for himself. I have allowed pc's to search out assassins for other members in the group. Likewise I've had groups where 1 pc was a paladin and another was secretly an assassin. The Pc assassin would sneak off to "run errands", assassinate his given target, and be back in the group before the next battle/day. It was actually an amazing RP experience when the paladin and the rest of the party were called in to investigate the murders that PC assassin was committing. This, of course, led to the assassin and paladin butting heads and the party split between the assassin and paladin. Epic pvp battle ensued, and When the fog cleared the party didn't freak out saying that the evil slide was bull they congratulated each other on making THAT storyline memorable. And that's what it is all about, making a fun memorable game. If you get mad that character 1 slid to evil and betrayed the party then keep the anger IN GAME. I.E. "The knight, upon realizing the players betrayal, flips a table and destroys an inn." If the character is so important that you don't wanna give it up then try adapting yourself to better fit in. If the "evil" character has been playing goodie goodie for this long then the good character can give a little self sacrifice and take his turn at allowing another player to have some character depth.

[Coidzor]

Generally people don't like having a monkey wrench taken to all of their plans and the campaign ended because the betrayer won, and it's generally nothing more than annoying if the betrayal failed because it's one of your fellow players deciding to troll the rest of the group by making them waste time in a conflict that doesn't interest them against someone whose capabilities they usually know well enough to script out how it would play out.

Or you're showing your hand and twirling your mustache and saying "I'm going to try to **** everything up by betraying the party" if you're secretive about your character's capabilities.

So, in most cases, in most groups, it just doesn't seem like the dynamic is such that it's appropriate or capable of being done well.

[Gardener]

Well, as a relatively recent betrayee, I'd say it depends a lot on your group how well it would work. In our group, rather than attempting to kill other PCs, the betrayer saved the life of a major villain we'd been trying to stop for most of the campaign, then escaping with them. The player and the GM ran a couple of private sessions online, then it was decided that the player would make a new character to join the party.

In our group, it was amazing character drama. It was the culmination of a pretty long arc of character development for the betrayer, and gave lots of fodder for the rest of us to progress - from the fighter who just failed to physically restrain the betrayer, to the wizard who feels even more obliged to the patron we failed, to the warlock who was already mistrustful of higher powers.

Oh, did I mention we were betrayed by a paladin who was more or less the party's conscience in favour of a villain who considers sacrificing hundreds or even thousands of people an acceptable cost?

[Sillycomic]

The character in question slowly turned to a life of evil. This leaves several problems up in the air, which depending on the answer I could go either way in this situation.

If the character was at one time good, then the entire group was at one time good. So, the group has had heavy RP, but that RP has been from generally good and lawful characters. I imagine this comes down to simple things like "how much torture will we use on this drow that knows information."

The group has never dealt with, "Well, Bob the rogue has decided the BBEG is more profitable than you soo... SNEAK ATTACK!"

So, with that the group has never had an issue of actually betraying the party before, or any sort of inter-party conflict that could end in someone leaving the party or PVP.

If this is true I can totally see why the person playing the LG knight would be angry over recent situations. There has been an agreement of the game so far, unspoken perhaps but there nontheless.

One character has decided these choices, which haven't come up in YEARS of play, should now come up, but he's afraid to do them because he might actually ruin said game.

Personally I don't care if the GM says it's ok or not. I would never do something that the GM said is ok if I knew it would upset other people in the game. If other people aren't fine with it then you're just creating a problem for yourself that doesn't need to be there.

If I were in your shoes I would do 1 of 2 things.

1. Talk to everyone outside of the game, ask them if PVP or party betrayal would be ok with everyone. It's alot easier to betray the party if the players are OK with it.

If you have any problem with players using this knowledge in a metagaming kind of way, then you have bigger problems than just betraying the party.

I had to do this in my evil campaign. In fact I made a standing rule that no character is allowed to kill another character without that player's approval. You'd be surprised how adult they handle it. I have had a character come in the middle of the night to slit another's throat, and the player laughed and said, "Yeah, I know why you're doing it. That's ok. I think I wanna play a barbarian next."

It was very cool.

2. Instead of betraying your group, just hand your character sheet over to the GM. Explain that your character wants to switch sides and let the GM deal with how things work. Then you can come in with a new character that is actually good and keep playing with the party.

Your old character can still do his new evil things, you get to betray the party without anyone being angry at you, and you get to create a new character to go and chase down your old one in the game.