PDA

View Full Version : I need to stop making PC's that betray the party...



DontEatRawHagis
2013-12-08, 09:29 AM
In the past few campaigns I've done the DM has specifically put our characters into conflict with each other. We rotate out DM's from time to time and the new DM is a player who I pissed off in the last game.

To make a long story short, I was asked to create and explosive charge for him to take an enemy base down. Instead I gave him duds, which meant that the BBEGs could have won.

Granted he didn't realize the character I was playing was mentally insane, but still... I'm going to have to be in his campaign for the next X number of months.

In a past campaign I actually was assigned to assassinate his girlfriend. The result was him jumping off a ten story building and punching me in the face.

So we are playing Pathfinder and I need a good character concept that won't sell out the party or have issue with them. My issues arise because the group I'm in is heavy into planning things out five steps ahead. To the point where I don't know if they realize that the DM is writing notes behind the screen for the worst possible result of their actions.

Soap Box: DMs out there in internet land, please please do not do this to your players. It is alright if its once in a while, but if you do it every time your players are going to kill you. Make it interesting yes, but don't make your players feel like your the enemy.

Sith_Happens
2013-12-08, 09:57 AM
The result was him jumping off a ten story building and punching me in the face.

Just popping in to tip my hat off to him for this.

Carry on.

Radar
2013-12-08, 10:42 AM
Well... you do need to keep that backstabbing in check, or it will turn into a chronic condition.

I guess the most important thing is to decide, why your PC works with the party. Find a motivation to help them out, or at the very least a reason their success is vital for your schemes. Work out other character traits and quirks by checking, if they would jeoperdise the party or not (hint: being scatterbrained ends poorly, when you are a resident explosives expert).

BossMuro
2013-12-08, 10:44 AM
My first thought is that it would be cool to do a reverse betrayal. Make someone who seems like a perfect candidate for turning against the party, like a rogue-for-hire. You could even give him a backstory, that only the GM knows, of him being a straight-up infiltrator for one of the parties enemies. With luck, the DM will include you in his plan to ruin the party.

And then, when the opportunity comes up to betray the party, you don't. You warn them about the ambush, spirit the assasination target to safety, whatever the opposite is of what you were supposed to do. Maybe you even tell the other players about it in secret so that everyone already knows you're a mole.

Why? Could be any reason. Maybe you just like the other party members, maybe you think you've got better opportunities with them rather than against them. Maybe you just don't like following orders.

Just an idea, and not even necessarily a very usable or fleshed-out one, but I've pulled it before and it can be pretty satisfying when it goes well.

Spore
2013-12-08, 01:42 PM
Paladin or Dragon Order Cavalier comes to mind. Both devote themselves to a cause. The latter looses all powers when he turns himself against the group. His features are beneficial to the group and makes them really really shine and like your character. You could play a cleric of n extremely lawful deity that would never accept the betrayal of friends or generally play anything as Dwarf.

For combat styles, do not go for the characters that shiv someone or manipulate but for non lethal damage, go for buffs and indirect damage (making you relatively weak without companionship). Make something with terrible bluff checks and high sense motives. You should try and embrace the LG or LN core values.

Thiyr
2013-12-08, 01:58 PM
My first thought is that it would be cool to do a reverse betrayal. Make someone who seems like a perfect candidate for turning against the party, like a rogue-for-hire. You could even give him a backstory, that only the GM knows, of him being a straight-up infiltrator for one of the parties enemies. With luck, the DM will include you in his plan to ruin the party.

And then, when the opportunity comes up to betray the party, you don't. You warn them about the ambush, spirit the assasination target to safety, whatever the opposite is of what you were supposed to do. Maybe you even tell the other players about it in secret so that everyone already knows you're a mole.

Why? Could be any reason. Maybe you just like the other party members, maybe you think you've got better opportunities with them rather than against them. Maybe you just don't like following orders.

Just an idea, and not even necessarily a very usable or fleshed-out one, but I've pulled it before and it can be pretty satisfying when it goes well.

That was my first thought. Esp if the DM is trying to go behind the party's back/betray them. Come up with a character that, by rights, should betray the party. And then, when the moment comes, and you're given your cue, you betray the DM (http://www.tf2sounds.com/1618).

Thrudd
2013-12-08, 03:18 PM
In the past few campaigns I've done the DM has specifically put our characters into conflict with each other. We rotate out DM's from time to time and the new DM is a player who I pissed off in the last game.

To make a long story short, I was asked to create and explosive charge for him to take an enemy base down. Instead I gave him duds, which meant that the BBEGs could have won.

Granted he didn't realize the character I was playing was mentally insane, but still... I'm going to have to be in his campaign for the next X number of months.

In a past campaign I actually was assigned to assassinate his girlfriend. The result was him jumping off a ten story building and punching me in the face.

So we are playing Pathfinder and I need a good character concept that won't sell out the party or have issue with them. My issues arise because the group I'm in is heavy into planning things out five steps ahead. To the point where I don't know if they realize that the DM is writing notes behind the screen for the worst possible result of their actions.

Soap Box: DMs out there in internet land, please please do not do this to your players. It is alright if its once in a while, but if you do it every time your players are going to kill you. Make it interesting yes, but don't make your players feel like your the enemy.

How can the DM force you to make a character that will betray the group? It sounds like this had to be a two way street. The DM has no control over your characters' personality or what actions you take. He can't make you play an evil betrayer character, an insane character, etc. If you have PvP in every game, the problem is at least half in the players' hands. Just don't make characters like that. Get together as a group and plan out your character concepts so they are all friends. Get everyone to play good characters so you can focus on the adventure and don't have to sleep with one eye open. If nobody plays a chaotic evil assassin, there's somewhat less of a chance of another player wanting to assassinate you. At least one player has to be complicit in the DM's schemes of PvP drama, just don't be that player.
Bottom line - if you don't want to betray the party, don't betray the party! It doesn't matter what your class or alignment is, you decide what your character does, nobody else.

DontEatRawHagis
2013-12-08, 11:17 PM
How can the DM force you to make a character that will betray the group? It sounds like this had to be a two way street. The DM has no control over your characters' personality or what actions you take. He can't make you play an evil betrayer character, an insane character, etc.

If you have PvP in every game, the problem is at least half in the players' hands. Just don't make characters like that. Get together as a group and plan out your character concepts so they are all friends. Get everyone to play good characters so you can focus on the adventure and don't have to sleep with one eye open. If nobody plays a chaotic evil assassin, there's somewhat less of a chance of another player wanting to assassinate you. At least one player has to be complicit in the DM's schemes of PvP drama, just don't be that player.

Bottom line - if you don't want to betray the party, don't betray the party! It doesn't matter what your class or alignment is, you decide what your character does, nobody else.

Sorry if the Soap Box confused things. I was soap boxing against the DM using information that the players come up with in their planning for an encounter to screw them over at every turn.

The DM had little to do with my characters betraying the party. Aside from giving me missions and information that my character would run with. That's why I want to create a more loyal and trusting character. :)

stupiddDice
2013-12-09, 12:48 AM
It might help if the party made their characters together and the DM gave you a clear goal from the beginning. That way every one has a characters that can't work together and you could all have character's with a common goal.

Brookshw
2013-12-09, 05:56 AM
Sorry if the Soap Box confused things. I was soap boxing against the DM using information that the players come up with in their planning for an encounter to screw them over at every turn.

The DM had little to do with my characters betraying the party. Aside from giving me missions and information that my character would run with. That's why I want to create a more loyal and trusting character. :)

And a tip of my hat to you sir!

Thrudd
2013-12-09, 06:33 AM
Sorry if the Soap Box confused things. I was soap boxing against the DM using information that the players come up with in their planning for an encounter to screw them over at every turn.

The DM had little to do with my characters betraying the party. Aside from giving me missions and information that my character would run with. That's why I want to create a more loyal and trusting character. :)

Sorry, I didn't get that at all from your original post. It is sort of disingenuous for a DM to alter the adventure with metagame knowledge specifically in order to prevent players' plans from working. What does creating a more loyal character have to do with that, though? Or we're talking about two completely separate issues.

The DM issue comes down to play style, ultimately. If the DM has a specific outcome that he has decided needs to happen, a story which he wants to play out, then he will do what you are describing to make sure that the players don't derail his plot with their actions. If you have a foolproof plan to kill the BBEG before he is supposed to die in the story, he will need to make sure your plan fails somehow. I personally don't like this type of game, but it is the way most adventure modules were written for 3e D&D and later. I rather prefer to DM as an impartial referee of the game world, and let the players wits and the dice determine the outcomes. If they outwit my plans for the BBEG and defeat it, good for them. There's always more where that came from. It is unfair for the DM to use metagame knowledge against the players, since he ultimately controls everything in the game universe and decides all outcomes.

Delta
2013-12-10, 06:17 AM
It is sort of disingenuous for a DM to alter the adventure with metagame knowledge specifically in order to prevent players' plans from working.

The problem is that you're walking a very fine line here, a GM is only human and doesn't have the professional experience of the NPCs he's running, sometimes you overlook something that a professional inside the setting wouldn't have and I think it's only appropriate to adjust for that.

Of course I also try to give my players the same advantage, if I feel they're forgetting something that their character totally would remember, I try and drop them a hint.

Brookshw
2013-12-10, 06:45 AM
Sorry, I didn't get that at all from your original post. ---snip---Or we're talking about two completely separate issues.
We are I believe, the premises and arguments laid out in the op did not lead to a logical conclusion regarding the soap box comment. I had assumed them to be separate though others perhaps didn't.


The DM issue comes down to play style, ultimately. If the DM has a specific outcome that he has decided needs to happen, a story which he wants to play out, then he will do what you are describing to make sure that the players don't derail his plot with their actions. If you have a foolproof plan to kill the BBEG before he is supposed to die in the story, he will need to make sure your plan fails somehow. ---snip---It is unfair for the DM to use metagame knowledge against the players, since he ultimately controls everything in the game universe and decides all outcomes.

Agreed it's rather unfortunate if the DM railroads to that extent though I would propose that a good DM can facilitate player agency while maintaining a game. Let the players kill the BBEG, oh, turns out he was only the servant of some shadowy force. What I mean to say is that some form of conflict is generally required to have a game in the first place, so leave the DM some agency to put such conflict there. Complete sandbox games are another matter.

Of course knowing my players they'll run through the gauntlet, arrive at a peak conflict point, and rather than fight will probably end up talking to and befriending the baddy. I'm not sure I even HAVE a BBEG in my current campaign anymore other than what may as well be chalked up to nature.

Kiero
2013-12-10, 09:20 AM
Agreed it's rather unfortunate if the DM railroads to that extent though I would propose that a good DM can facilitate player agency while maintaining a game. Let the players kill the BBEG, oh, turns out he was only the servant of some shadowy force. What I mean to say is that some form of conflict is generally required to have a game in the first place, so leave the DM some agency to put such conflict there. Complete sandbox games are another matter.

That's not good GMing, it strips the PCs achievements of any meaning if it turns out all their effort to defeat the BBEG just results in revealing yet another behind the last one.

A good GM should be adapting, not resorting to illusionism to keep their game "on track". There should be consequences of removing the BBEG, which might result in something else from left field that interests the players and is worth pursuing. The BBEG is dead, now one of the nobles back home gingers up their courage and assassinates the king and takes the throne; cue civil war as the other nobles line up behind him or an alternative candidate!

ElenionAncalima
2013-12-10, 09:37 AM
I second the person who mentioned playing an Order of the Dragon Cavalier. Your character would literally be dedicated to the idea of loyalty to his companions.

Of course if you don't want to be restricted by class, the best advice I can give you is simply don't betray your party. It is ultimately your choice to backstab them or not.

Obviously it helps to avoid traits and backstory elements that your DM can exploit. Avoid giving your character any ambitions that mean so much to them that they would betray the party.

Averis Vol
2013-12-10, 11:49 AM
In a past campaign I actually was assigned to assassinate his girlfriend. The result was him jumping off a ten story building and punching me in the face.



Mind if I sig that? It's too awesome for words :smallbiggrin:

Toofey
2013-12-10, 12:27 PM
words words words

If the player made it seem like something the character would legit do in spite of the lead up, and pulled the dramatic shift, I would reward the hell out of this while DMing. And my players would probably never think to do that if they were set up against the other players, so sad.

Pex
2013-12-10, 02:07 PM
It's very easy not to make a PC that betrays the party. Just choose not to. There is not one character class that has an ability of: "You must betray the party." It is the player who chooses to do so.

DontEatRawHagis
2013-12-10, 03:33 PM
Mind if I sig that? It's too awesome for words :smallbiggrin:

Go for it. :)

As for the betraying bit. My characters just seem to gravitate to it. The players tend to stick to true neutral in a lot of cases, other times their views are dictated by the meta gaming they do.

I usually allow my characters to get caught up in what is happening. My last few concepts that betrayed the party were a Soviet era Supervillain(assassin of gf) and Sgt(an escaped mental ward patient that they asked to make explosives).

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-10, 04:09 PM
Sorry if the Soap Box confused things. I was soap boxing against the DM using information that the players come up with in their planning for an encounter to screw them over at every turn.
Actually, if you can pull off the reverse betrayal idea mentioned above, that'd be the perfect counter to this. If the DM thinks that you're going to betray the party, and is using that information to prepare encounters, then doubling back on that is a great way to throw that planning off the rails. :smallbiggrin:

Brookshw
2013-12-10, 04:42 PM
That's not good GMing, it strips the PCs achievements of any meaning if it turns out all their effort to defeat the BBEG just results in revealing yet another behind the last one.

A good GM should be adapting, not resorting to illusionism to keep their game "on track". There should be consequences of removing the BBEG, which might result in something else from left field that interests the players and is worth pursuing. The BBEG is dead, now one of the nobles back home gingers up their courage and assassinates the king and takes the throne; cue civil war as the other nobles line up behind him or an alternative candidate!

Apologies but you've taken what I said in a subjective way and put words in my mouth. What I said was:

Agreed it's rather unfortunate if the DM railroads to that extent though I would propose that a good DM can facilitate player agency while maintaining a game. Let the players kill the BBEG, oh, turns out he was only the servant of some shadowy force. What I mean to say is that some form of conflict is generally required to have a game in the first place, so leave the DM some agency to put such conflict there. Complete sandbox games are another matter.

Bolding for emphasis. The shadowy force could erupt in a bloody battle for control of the organization that spills into the streets while the party tries to quell the violence. Eventually some member of the organization climbs their way up through whatever means and decide to target the PCs to prove that he/she/it deserves the spot at the top and to demonstrate they are not a force to be trifled with. Kill the BBEG through unexpected means and good planning, sounds good to me, but the game is over then and there if a new conflict isn't introduced in most games. What I certainly did not say is that the game should continue in the same trajectory as if the BBEG had never been killed.

Sith_Happens
2013-12-11, 12:52 PM
There is not one character class that has an ability of: "You must betray the party."

Paladin of Slaughter comes pretty close.