Rude move or good role playing?

[Spo]

Some Waterdeep Spoilers ahead.

Wrapping up the campaign and we ended last session with dragon gone and us in the vault trying to figure out to move the gold out of there. DM implied that we may have another encounter coming bc one PC is a drow that has been working with the drow faction.

My thoughts are that the drow gang is going to attack us while we are down in the vault. Our group is mostly good except for the neutral drow and my neutral evil goblin fighter.

My character would easily double cross the team for a larger cut of the loot (he joined mid-campaign after the death of another PC - dang intellect devourer) and thinking of switching sides if my prediction is correct.

Would first approach the DM with the above for his thoughts and wouldn’t do it if he felt it would fracture the table (wanting to stay with these players for awhile).

Like my character but not in love with him so an interesting death would be satisfying. And I already have a couple of other characters in mind if the traitor dies.

What’s the playgrounds thoughts about this?

[Sigreid]

It can be both.

If these characters will continue on, don't. If all characters are about to be retired anyway, who cares?

[Bjarkmundur]

Going against the party is something some groups take very personally. To avoid all bad blood i recommend talking to your DM, and if the moment comes have him take control of your character. That way it's clear that it's a story element and that is the character doing the betraying and not YOU (the player).

[Dessunri]

Definitely talk to your DM and maybe even the other players. And as some have said, if the party is supposed to continue on, like into Dungeon of the Mad Mage, then maybe don't do it because that's a looooooong dungeon crawl to have people distrust you. If, however, it all ends here then maybe lean into it. While it could be viewed as a **** move it could also be amazing roleplay. One more option is to talk to your DM and have your character try to switch sides only to be cut down by the Drow who have come to take your hard earned loot

[ad_hoc]

The first question to ask is: Is this fun for everyone?

The answer to that is likely no.

[Bjarkmundur]

Sounds like fun though. The best villains are the one with the strongest connection to the protagonists.

[Bigmouth]

Going against the party is something some groups take very personally. To avoid all bad blood i recommend talking to your DM, and if the moment comes have him take control of your character. That way it's clear that it's a story element and that is the character doing the betraying and not YOU (the player).

This is a gem. I've been at tables where the evil/selfish character totally derails the game. It's not pretty, even if most people get over it, some folks just don't. If in those instances of party betrayal, we'd employed this tactic I think several games could have been saved.

[MoiMagnus]

Some Waterdeep Spoilers ahead.

Wrapping up the campaign and we ended last session with dragon gone and us in the vault trying to figure out to move the gold out of there. DM implied that we may have another encounter coming bc one PC is a drow that has been working with the drow faction.

My thoughts are that the drow gang is going to attack us while we are down in the vault. Our group is mostly good except for the neutral drow and my neutral evil goblin fighter.

My character would easily double cross the team for a larger cut of the loot (he joined mid-campaign after the death of another PC - dang intellect devourer) and thinking of switching sides if my prediction is correct.

Would first approach the DM with the above for his thoughts and wouldn’t do it if he felt it would fracture the table (wanting to stay with these players for awhile).

Like my character but not in love with him so an interesting death would be satisfying. And I already have a couple of other characters in mind if the traitor dies.

What’s the playgrounds thoughts about this?

Probably rude.
It mostly depends on the table and kind of campaign:

In any campaign where there is secret informations around (and possibly divergent objectives), my characters tends to be slightly paranoiac, until they understand the motivations behind every other characters. In those campaign, I would not have any problem with this betrayal (though I would start getting annoyed if the same thing happens at every campaign I play with you).

In any "fully cooperative" campaign, I accept the convention, give a blind trust to the team (even if there is no real RP reason for my character to do so), and do not take the time to defend against a potential betrayal. In those campaign, I would probably feel betrayed by the player, who broke the convention.

[Bobthewizard]

I wouldn't betray the other players at all. Ever.

That said, you could have your character betray the other characters. In order to accomplish both, I would have the character leave. Talk to your DM about your idea. He can narrate that your character disappeared. You make a new character and the DM controls your old one as an NPC, who then comes back, maybe leading the drow to the players.

This would accomplish the story of your character betraying the team without the other players feeling betrayed by you.

[Sigreid]

There is always the possibility of doing the betrayal, but doing it in such a comically inept way there is no way you are going to get away with it/succeed. So it's clear you're playing it for laughs and the only character that will suffer is yours.

[Dualswinger]

The only way I’ve ever seen betrayal done well from a pc is that it’s set up with the intent to fail.

Make sure that your DM is aware that you’re planning a deception, and that you accept that your character will probably meet a grisly fate.

Even if the characters don’t think so, players come to the table with the expectation that you’re working as a team, and a real betrayal of that dynamic will leave players feeling hurt.

[Sigreid]

The only way I’ve ever seen betrayal done well from a pc is that it’s set up with the intent to fail.

Make sure that your DM is aware that you’re planning a deception, and that you accept that your character will probably meet a grisly fate.

Even if the characters don’t think so, players come to the table with the expectation that you’re working as a team, and a real betrayal of that dynamic will leave players feeling hurt.

Well, there is the game Paranoia where trying to accomplish insane missions with a party that is completely untrustworthy is the primary premise. Haha

[Arcangel4774]

The way ive seen it done best is with is to have clues leading up to it. Say traitor player "accidnetally" drops some paraphanalia of bad guy group. Or is overheard muttering to himself. Maybe even is witnessed planning the betrayel.

This is even better if in character its obvious your scheming,but out of character you have an overly chearful facade.

[Kane0]

Would first approach the DM with the above for his thoughts and wouldn’t do it if he felt it would fracture the table (wanting to stay with these players for awhile).

Like my character but not in love with him so an interesting death would be satisfying. And I already have a couple of other characters in mind if the traitor dies.

What’s the playgrounds thoughts about this?

Yeah, do that.

[Tanarii]

Well, there is the game Paranoia where trying to accomplish insane missions with a party that is completely untrustworthy is the primary premise. Haha
Given the reputation paranoia has, of every game turning into a zap happy Bloodbath, I'm not sure we really want to hold it up as an example of success 😏

[Sigreid]

Given the reputation paranoia has, of every game turning into a zap happy Bloodbath, I'm not sure we really want to hold it up as an example of success 😏

That is, actually the point of the game. And it was held up as an example where character betrayal is not just acceptable, it's a huge part of the fun. But for it to be part of the fun everyone has to agree that that possibility is fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

That said, you could have your character betray the other characters. In order to accomplish both, I would have the character leave. Talk to your DM about your idea. He can narrate that your character disappeared. You make a new character and the DM controls your old one as an NPC, who then comes back, maybe leading the drow to the players.

This would accomplish the story of your character betraying the team without the other players feeling betrayed by you.
This is a very nice idea to achieve the narrative objective.

But honestly? The OP's basic premise is a d--- move unless, from session zero onwward, the "we don't trust each other" premise is a part of your whole group's play style. (And if it is, then have fun with it).

[DevilMcam]

There is an old saying that goes :
"If you have to ask about it, then you already know the answer"

If as a player you think this may be rude there will be another player at the table thinking the same.

[FilthyLucre]

My two cents? As a permanent DM I actually out right ban intra-party violence/betrayal. So, the problem I would have as your DM is that I would never have allowed you to play a character who would have a logical reason to betray the party in the first place.

So, as another poster put it, betrayal could be both a **** move but also realistic role playing.

[FilthyLucre]

This is a very nice idea to achieve the narrative objective.

But honestly? The OP's basic premise is a d--- move unless, from session zero onwward, the "we don't trust each other" premise is a part of your whole group's play style. (And if it is, then have fun with it).

Me and you, man - we're so in sync.

[GlenSmash!]

Good Role Playing is what's true to your character and helps everyone at the table have fun.

If it only does the former I think a good role player will take up the challenge to improve their idea.

[Krobar]

In our games, whenever a PC is going to either betray the party or get revenge on the party for whatever reason, it becomes a NPC. Case in point, without going into detail because of how long it would take to type it on my phone, my LE assassin recently got sold out by a couple of PCs. The players were properly playing their characters, so no hard feelings player-wise. My PC left the party, I gave him over to the DM and told him what the longterm plan was. Now I have a totally different PC, and at some point down the road this new recurring villain will begin doing certain things. Like disguising himself as one of the PCs in question and killing members of the thieves guild right before or after the party gets to a major city.

This way, there are no hard feelings among players, and it's still fun.

[Laserlight]

There are some tables where a PC betraying the party would be fine. If you're not sure that your table is this type, it isn't. (And if you were sure, you wouldn't be asking us).

[Keravath]

Just a couple of comments.

1) Betraying the party is generally not a good idea at most tables since they operate under the implicit assumption that the characters are adventuring together for some underlying reason even if this hasn't been explicitly stated. Some groups develop a sufficiently detailed backstory that explains why all the characters are together and how they are likely to interact but most don't. Just because your character is evil doesn't mean they would betray the party since there was some reason they are adventuring together and some reason why the other characters are trusting a goblin and a drow in their group.

In this case, betraying a party breaks a fundamental assumption that should have been explicitly addressed in a session 0. It doesn't mean you can't do it but it does mean that some of the players may react badly especially if the betrayal has negative consequences for their characters.

2) In your case, you have given an example in which the PLAYER wants to backstab the party. If you look at the situation from your character perspective, unless they are a complete idiot, betraying the party in this circumstance really doesn't make much sense.

- does your character OR the player expect an encounter with drow? I think it is the PLAYER from what you have said.
- does your character OR the player want to betray the party? Your character is traveling with these folks for some reason, they may be neutral evil and might be tempted if a better offer came up. However, they have a bunch of folks that trust him for some reason (being a goblin this might be important), they split loot with him and enable him to adventure in ways he hasn't previously. Is it worth giving that up without a concrete offer on the table?
- The drow in Waterdeep are part of the Bregen D'aerthe faction. Your character probably knows this. They would have no use for some sniveling dirty little goblin. They'd probably agree that the best goblin is a dead one. You would probably know this too ... drow are unlikely to be favorably inclined towards a goblin.
- If the drow are going to show up to try to claim the treasure and there is a lot of it, they will show up with sufficient forces that a pitiful little goblin doesn't contribute anything so when the goblin steps forward saying "Give me loot and I'll help you" ... they run you through saving themselves the treasure and having one less potential opponent. Basically, the drow have absolutely no use for your goblin character and your character would likely know this.

Bottom line appears to be, player wants to come up with some out of character excuse to betray the party for lols. I'd say don't go there.

----

On the other hand, if the character was contacted in advance (though why they would be contacted except by some mysterious goblinoid faction, I have no idea), and was "seduced" into betraying the party in exchange for coin then it could work as a narrative plot element of some sort but it would be unlikely to be drow who would want his help and they are probably more likely to betray the poor goblin afterward than the party would. On the other hand, maybe the goblin has 8 int and is very gullible.

[GreyBlack]

Some Waterdeep Spoilers ahead.

Wrapping up the campaign and we ended last session with dragon gone and us in the vault trying to figure out to move the gold out of there. DM implied that we may have another encounter coming bc one PC is a drow that has been working with the drow faction.

My thoughts are that the drow gang is going to attack us while we are down in the vault. Our group is mostly good except for the neutral drow and my neutral evil goblin fighter.

My character would easily double cross the team for a larger cut of the loot (he joined mid-campaign after the death of another PC - dang intellect devourer) and thinking of switching sides if my prediction is correct.

Would first approach the DM with the above for his thoughts and wouldn’t do it if he felt it would fracture the table (wanting to stay with these players for awhile).

Like my character but not in love with him so an interesting death would be satisfying. And I already have a couple of other characters in mind if the traitor dies.

What’s the playgrounds thoughts about this?

Don't bring it up just to the DM. Bring it up to the other players too, so no one is caught off guard and everyone knows what's coming.

[SaigonTimeMD]

There is an old saying that goes :
"If you have to ask about it, then you already know the answer"

If as a player you think this may be rude there will be another player at the table thinking the same.

Seconding this; if you think it even might be rude, then it probably is.

That being said, it sounds like you need to nail down your feelings about continuing (or not) with the character before you even get to the betrayal part. If you feel like you've reached the end of the road with your rogue, I'd say (A) have the Drow reject his offer of betrayal and kill him for it, or (B) let the DM take over the character for you if the offer's accepted so the PCs get to kill him without your direct involvement or he escapes and becomes a recurring character. Either way, it takes your character out of your hands, so there's some plausible deniability when it comes to their actions. Alternatively, it could be a huge turning point for your character if you feel they're getting stale or you're losing interest. You could go with the betrayal angle, but have the rogue attack one of the Drow when they let their guard down; assuming the party survives, this could both build trust between your rogue and the rest of them AND create additional party friction over even the potential of betrayal - either one sets them up for the possibility of a real betrayal down the line because now they know it's within the realm of possibility. Heck, it could even be a springboard for your character to shift alignments and start a 'redemption' arc (or at least a 'not QUITE as much of a jerk as they used to be' arc) if you want to go that way.

[FrancisBean]

Don't bring it up just to the DM. Bring it up to the other players too, so no one is caught off guard and everyone knows what's coming.

This is probably the best advice in the thread. If I weren't sure of the table, that's what I'd do, too. But I'm at the extreme end of the "D&D as collaborative story-telling" spectrum. I'd lay it out and make sure the table was OK with it. We might even plan out certain interactions in advance. I don't have a problem with knowing where things are going so long as I get the fun of getting there.

One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had was founded on intra-party conflict. My character and another party member had a blood feud going. We manipulated our enemies, other party members, mustered armies and moved gods as pawns on the chess board of our vendetta, all while smiling at each other over breakfast. Sadly, we got denied the denouement -- his character had a fatal accident trying to bind diabolic allies to his cause. It's a pity, because I was really looking forward to him manipulating my character's son into being the final assassin.

The point is, if you have a table which is comfortable with it, this sort of thing can make for an amazing game. If your table isn't into it, just don't go there. It all ends in tears and four-letter words.

[Sigreid]

This is probably the best advice in the thread. If I weren't sure of the table, that's what I'd do, too. But I'm at the extreme end of the "D&D as collaborative story-telling" spectrum. I'd lay it out and make sure the table was OK with it. We might even plan out certain interactions in advance. I don't have a problem with knowing where things are going so long as I get the fun of getting there.

One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had was founded on intra-party conflict. My character and another party member had a blood feud going. We manipulated our enemies, other party members, mustered armies and moved gods as pawns on the chess board of our vendetta, all while smiling at each other over breakfast. Sadly, we got denied the denouement -- his character had a fatal accident trying to bind diabolic allies to his cause. It's a pity, because I was really looking forward to him manipulating my character's son into being the final assassin.

The point is, if you have a table which is comfortable with it, this sort of thing can make for an amazing game. If your table isn't into it, just don't go there. It all ends in tears and four-letter words.

Not saying your way of playing is bad, because if you're having fun you're doing it right, but we enjoy very different games. At my table basically nothing is ever scripted out or planned ahead of time.

[FrancisBean]

Not saying your way of playing is bad, because if you're having fun you're doing it right, but we enjoy very different games. At my table basically nothing is ever scripted out or planned ahead of time. (Emphasis mine)

I see you understand the Tao of Gaming. :smallbiggrin:

Really, it's all about knowing what your table likes. I'm sure that, if I were at your table, I'd adapt and have a good time, and I'd bet some green that you'd do the same at mine. Which is really what the OP needs to get from this thread: find a way to read the table and know which direction they'll enjoy. Hopefully that's already come through.

[Stone-Ears]

Drows working with non-drows?

Not bloody likely. They would have no reason to work with a goblin so unless your DM has made an opportunity for your goblin to be able to help the Drow, I probably wouldn't go there.

Plllluuuusss...It's mostly a d*** move that unless it ties in to the story wonderfully, isn't going to be appreciated by a good majority of tables.

[Demonslayer666]

It's rude if you didn't discuss it beforehand. I strongly believe that everyone should be on board with it ahead of time. I would be pissed if it was sprung on me. Then again I have been at the same table for many years, and we always play as a party that works together.

It's also good roleplaying. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Sigreid]

(Emphasis mine)

I see you understand the Tao of Gaming. :smallbiggrin:

Really, it's all about knowing what your table likes. I'm sure that, if I were at your table, I'd adapt and have a good time, and I'd bet some green that you'd do the same at mine. Which is really what the OP needs to get from this thread: find a way to read the table and know which direction they'll enjoy. Hopefully that's already come through.

I dont know. While I dont go around screwing the party I am very much the table wild card.

[GlenSmash!]

I dont know. While I dont go around screwing the party I am very much the table wild card.

Wild cards can be lots of fun.

Table trolls rarely are.

[Nagog]

Depends on the players. If they can't/don't differentiate between player and character, I'd advise against it as it will likely cause a rift. If not, I'd go for it. It's in character and fits who they are better than staying and fighting a losing battle for less gold alongside folks he doesn't have all that much attachment to.