So a player in my campaign pulled an unexpected move that led to him betraying the party over the course of a few sessions. At the end of a side-plot revolving around his backstory, he was supposed to kill a vampire who had stolen away his fiancee the night of their wedding. She was at the encounter as a vampire, but instead of killing her as a vampire to bring her back, he instead grabbed her and ran through a portal. The party had to finish dealing with the vampire lord, which gave him enough time (in a separate one-on-one) to roleplay her tricking him into becoming a vampire with her to live with her forever (he became a dhampir through a freak accident in the process).
I talked with the player and explained that if he betrayed the party now, there would be consequences later down the road, and I also wanted to make sure that he as a player understood that she was deceiving him and so that he didn't feel blindsided later. He understood both things, but felt his character would be so desperate that he'd actually block out reason.
He disappeared for a week in game, leaving a note that he had killed her and was using her as bait to track down other vampires nearby. When he returned (disguising his new appearance with his hat of disguises), the party had a discussion about whether or not they could continue to trust him, but the players didn't want it to be too severe on the betraying player, so not much happened. Fast forward a few sessions, and his vampire fiancee appeared in the middle of a fight and commanded him to betray the party so they could be together. He ended up siding with the party (telling them telepathically the quick gist of his real backstory) and the vampire was killed. He took her body with the intention to resurrect it, but the session ended about there.
So the whole party knew something fishy was going on, and it was just revealed to the characters that he had betrayed them but now seeks forgiveness and redemption. One player is a Paladin of the Oath of Redemption, so she will likely side with him (there may be a small role-play session where she casts Ceremony (Atonement) and he has to go through his penance). However, the rest of the party in-game likely will want some serious consequences, but the players themselves will not want to do anything to alienate the "betraying" player or make the game less fun for him.
What would be a good consequence for this character's betrayal in a way that won't make the player want to stop playing? He is aware that there will likely be some dire consequences for his character, and told me explicitly that he is okay with that, but we also can't just remove his character from the game (especially when we are getting to the fun redemption part). Banishment for a session would be fine if I get to have a one-one-one with him doing things for the party far away, but that's about the only thing I can think of.
Side Note: The players think his role-playing has been great, and although they've been annoyed once by his character's prideful low-intelligence personality leading to conflict, they completely understand how he is playing it (it is not a case of "bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO" and he isn't a murder-hobo).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
The first question that occurs to me is why he didn't kill her when he should have? It looks on first blush like he wanted to become a vampire and let himself be talked into it. Or perhaps *you* wanted him to be a vampire? Unless he was roleplaying both sides of the conversation, you had to have had some input there.
The most obvious penalty is to remove his Dhampirness. He does Atonement, he turns back into a regular mortal, and the rest of the party should be satisfied. If you want him to keep it, then he needs to do a quest. Let the party go with him, give them all the loot, and make sure they get enough to balance out his new powers, and all should be well. If you need more Dire in your consequences, make him take a vow of poverty, give away all his stuff, including all magic items, and wear sackcloth and ashes for a year.
I also wonder if the fiancée might enter the story again after being rezzed. She won't be undead anymore, she might hate him, or she might still love him and he has to give her up anyway as a sigh of repentance. Either way could be good roleplaying. The problem is what the other players are doing, since you don't want him to hog any more of the spotlight than he already has.
When a character betrays the party, it's not really reasonable to expect the other players to accept that character back into the group. I would say that it's time for that character to leave the campaign - preferably in a big vampire-showdown between the betraying character and the rest of the party. Alternatively, a redemptive death would suffice.
Ultimately, it's just not fair on the other characters to have to re-party up with a character that betrayed them, and then agreed to become the enemy that they were fighting. The characters I have played would absolutely not believe in his redemption, and would refuse to party up with him again, and that would be on him.
I had an issue with another player in a campaign where I played a PC where that character avoided every combat. One combat she leapt from a 30 foot high window to avoid a fight where the rest of the party was trapped with a bunch of ghosts. The next fight, she turned invisible and then did nothing, even when a party member went unconscious. The next fight, same invisibility, same non-action. I had to say to her character in-person that if she didn't fight, she had no place in the party. It created bad atmosphere and she gained an actual personal dislike of me because of it, but anything else would have meant unreasonable excusing of her behaviour (particularly as she still expected a full allocation of magic items from loot...).
It sounds to me like you explained to the player the consequences it would have, they accepted there would be consequences, and it's time that they felt them. But your task as DM now is to make sure that the character exits the game in a fun and memorable way. Let them become a full vampire, let them be the enemy for a couple of sessions before the other players take them down.
When a character betrays the party, it's not really reasonable to expect the other players to accept that character back into the group. I would say that it's time for that character to leave the campaign - preferably in a big vampire-showdown between the betraying character and the rest of the party. Alternatively, a redemptive death would suffice.
Ultimately, it's just not fair on the other characters to have to re-party up with a character that betrayed them, and then agreed to become the enemy that they were fighting. The characters I have played would absolutely not believe in his redemption, and would refuse to party up with him again, and that would be on him.
I had an issue with another player in a campaign where I played a PC where that character avoided every combat. One combat she leapt from a 30 foot high window to avoid a fight where the rest of the party was trapped with a bunch of ghosts. The next fight, she turned invisible and then did nothing, even when a party member went unconscious. The next fight, same invisibility, same non-action. I had to say to her character in-person that if she didn't fight, she had no place in the party. It created bad atmosphere and she gained an actual personal dislike of me because of it, but anything else would have meant unreasonable excusing of her behaviour (particularly as she still expected a full allocation of magic items from loot...).
It sounds to me like you explained to the player the consequences it would have, they accepted there would be consequences, and it's time that they felt them. But your task as DM now is to make sure that the character exits the game in a fun and memorable way. Let them become a full vampire, let them be the enemy for a couple of sessions before the other players take them down.
I disagree with the premise that the character has to go, but I also think as a DM this is one of those times you sit back and let the characters hash it out amongst themselves. Only step in if they keep going in circles, if the characters understand, take him in and forgive him they may show you where to take things. For instance they may insist on healing him and making him mortal again.
This is one of those rare times you sit back, and let the player roleplay, keep dice rolling to a minimum and let them act it out.
When he returned (disguising his new appearance with his hat of disguises), the party had a discussion about whether or not they could continue to trust him, but the players didn't want it to be too severe on the betraying player, so not much happened.
Can you clarify, was it the players or their characters which didn't want to be too severe?
If it was the players wanting to keep party harmony in an out-of-character sense, then the double-cross doesn't sit too well. The players should have been clearly told that they can take WHATEVER actions they wanted with their characters.
I disagree with the premise that the character has to go, but I also think as a DM this is one of those times you sit back and let the characters hash it out amongst themselves. Only step in if they keep going in circles, if the characters understand, take him in and forgive him they may show you where to take things. For instance they may insist on healing him and making him mortal again.
This is one of those rare times you sit back, and let the player roleplay, keep dice rolling to a minimum and let them act it out.
I concur with this. As a DM, probably the best thing that could be done is to step back and let the players decide how this part of the story progresses. If there are in-world ramifications to his actions (such as the fiance building a vampire court, and the other 'nobles' being none too pleased with his betrayal of them) then you can play those out as you like, but whatever consequences the party chooses (or doesn't choose) within the group are for them to decide and for you to facilitate.
When a character betrays the party, it's not really reasonable to expect the other players to accept that character back into the group. I would say that it's time for that character to leave the campaign - preferably in a big vampire-showdown between the betraying character and the rest of the party. Alternatively, a redemptive death would suffice.
Ultimately, it's just not fair on the other characters to have to re-party up with a character that betrayed them, and then agreed to become the enemy that they were fighting. The characters I have played would absolutely not believe in his redemption, and would refuse to party up with him again, and that would be on him.
I had an issue with another player in a campaign where I played a PC where that character avoided every combat. One combat she leapt from a 30 foot high window to avoid a fight where the rest of the party was trapped with a bunch of ghosts. The next fight, she turned invisible and then did nothing, even when a party member went unconscious. The next fight, same invisibility, same non-action. I had to say to her character in-person that if she didn't fight, she had no place in the party. It created bad atmosphere and she gained an actual personal dislike of me because of it, but anything else would have meant unreasonable excusing of her behaviour (particularly as she still expected a full allocation of magic items from loot...).
It sounds to me like you explained to the player the consequences it would have, they accepted there would be consequences, and it's time that they felt them. But your task as DM now is to make sure that the character exits the game in a fun and memorable way. Let them become a full vampire, let them be the enemy for a couple of sessions before the other players take them down.
I disagree with the premise that the character has to go, but I also think as a DM this is one of those times you sit back and let the characters hash it out amongst themselves. Only step in if they keep going in circles, if the characters understand, take him in and forgive him they may show you where to take things. For instance they may insist on healing him and making him mortal again.
This is one of those rare times you sit back, and let the player roleplay, keep dice rolling to a minimum and let them act it out.
I don't completely agree here, it's not only a question of roleplay, unfortunately this can (and I believe has, in this case) also annoyed the PLAYERS. And, to avoid the wangrod defense, it means that a player first need to agree about the way to play together. I understand that some players don't like the idea to be betrayed by one of the characters in the party, and, whatever the roleplay, I also understand them not wanting to give the player the opportunity to do it again (which he probably will).
So it should first be discussed in terms of table rules (redo a session 0 if need be) to clear the air and only then do the associated roleplay.
The last paragraph of the question states the players think he has role played it great. That suggests to me they are fine keeping the character in the party.
I think that Lyxen's suggestion of a Session Zero redo is a good idea here.
The players should be able to talk around the table about how they feel about these actions as players, and not try to solve an out-of-game issue with an in-game solution.
I play with friends; I wouldn't want any of them to leave the table, and no doubt the players who got betrayed don't want any bad feeling, or the game to stop, or the player to leave - or even to feel bad. But if that means that in-game they are forced to make out of character or irrational decisions, then it is an ongoing problem. What happens when the party finds an item that the betrayer and someone else could use? Normally there might be discussion, or even a roll - but would the party give a powerful item to someone they can't trust? The out of game lack of trust starts seeping in.
Getting everyone to talk about it and discuss the potential issues that this story development has caused. When a PC turns into a villain, for me that means it's time to retire the character (and preferably go out with a bang!) as that leaves everyone enjoying the story. But alternatives might be to get the rogue PC under a Zone of Truth and have them confess what they did and swear to never betray them again.
There are multiple ways to resolve this, but the core of it has to leave the players with no bad feeling towards one another.
Ok, there have been a few questions. First off, while the players didn't ASK to be betrayed, they do not find this to be annoying. He didn't derail the campaign or their goals, and in all reality he didn't do anything that directly affected them. His motivations were obviously related to his fiancee, which is no longer a motivator now that she is dead. I guess I should mention that he had become a yuan-ti in the past to further his goals of revenge, but the players themselves are not annoyed with him (there was just one time his player got threatened by some yuan-ti and he retaliated immediately instead of trying to bargain).
I agree with Scarloc_Stormcall that I should probably let them hash it out themselves, only stepping in if absolutely necessary. The characters may have issues, but the players do not. They've all been able to pursue their backstories and understand this is part of his and adds to the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
When a character betrays the party, it's not really reasonable to expect the other players to accept that character back into the group. I would say that it's time for that character to leave the campaign - preferably in a big vampire-showdown between the betraying character and the rest of the party. Alternatively, a redemptive death would suffice.
Ultimately, it's just not fair on the other characters to have to re-party up with a character that betrayed them, and then agreed to become the enemy that they were fighting. The characters I have played would absolutely not believe in his redemption, and would refuse to party up with him again, and that would be on him.
I had an issue with another player in a campaign where I played a PC where that character avoided every combat. One combat she leapt from a 30 foot high window to avoid a fight where the rest of the party was trapped with a bunch of ghosts. The next fight, she turned invisible and then did nothing, even when a party member went unconscious. The next fight, same invisibility, same non-action. I had to say to her character in-person that if she didn't fight, she had no place in the party. It created bad atmosphere and she gained an actual personal dislike of me because of it, but anything else would have meant unreasonable excusing of her behaviour (particularly as she still expected a full allocation of magic items from loot...).
It sounds to me like you explained to the player the consequences it would have, they accepted there would be consequences, and it's time that they felt them. But your task as DM now is to make sure that the character exits the game in a fun and memorable way. Let them become a full vampire, let them be the enemy for a couple of sessions before the other players take them down.
I disagree with the premise that the character has to go, but I also think as a DM this is one of those times you sit back and let the characters hash it out amongst themselves. Only step in if they keep going in circles, if the characters understand, take him in and forgive him they may show you where to take things. For instance they may insist on healing him and making him mortal again.
This is one of those rare times you sit back, and let the player roleplay, keep dice rolling to a minimum and let them act it out.
I don't completely agree here, it's not only a question of roleplay, unfortunately this can (and I believe has, in this case) also annoyed the PLAYERS. And, to avoid the wangrod defense, it means that a player first need to agree about the way to play together. I understand that some players don't like the idea to be betrayed by one of the characters in the party, and, whatever the roleplay, I also understand them not wanting to give the player the opportunity to do it again (which he probably will).
So it should first be discussed in terms of table rules (redo a session 0 if need be) to clear the air and only then do the associated roleplay.
The last paragraph of the question states the players think he has role played it great. That suggests to me they are fine keeping the character in the party.
But although they find the roleplaying great and they understand it now, it has also ANNOYED them as players.
As has now been confirmed the players are not annoyed which would go with my own experience, I have DMd betrayers, been a betrayed player and been the betrayer, in none of those situations did the other players know and, in none of those situations did it annoy the players, they loved it. In 2 of those occasions the betrayer remained a member of the party for a long time after, in the 3rd, the characters killed the character, resurrected him and then forgave him.
So a player in my campaign pulled an unexpected move that led to him betraying the party over the course of a few sessions. At the end of a side-plot revolving around his backstory, he was supposed to kill a vampire who had stolen away his fiancee the night of their wedding. She was at the encounter as a vampire, but instead of killing her as a vampire to bring her back, he instead grabbed her and ran through a portal. The party had to finish dealing with the vampire lord, which gave him enough time (in a separate one-on-one) to roleplay her tricking him into becoming a vampire with her to live with her forever (he became a dhampir through a freak accident in the process).
I talked with the player and explained that if he betrayed the party now, there would be consequences later down the road, and I also wanted to make sure that he as a player understood that she was deceiving him and so that he didn't feel blindsided later. He understood both things, but felt his character would be so desperate that he'd actually block out reason.
He disappeared for a week in game, leaving a note that he had killed her and was using her as bait to track down other vampires nearby. When he returned (disguising his new appearance with his hat of disguises), the party had a discussion about whether or not they could continue to trust him, but the players didn't want it to be too severe on the betraying player, so not much happened. Fast forward a few sessions, and his vampire fiancee appeared in the middle of a fight and commanded him to betray the party so they could be together. He ended up siding with the party (telling them telepathically the quick gist of his real backstory) and the vampire was killed. He took her body with the intention to resurrect it, but the session ended about there.
So the whole party knew something fishy was going on, and it was just revealed to the characters that he had betrayed them but now seeks forgiveness and redemption. One player is a Paladin of the Oath of Redemption, so she will likely side with him (there may be a small role-play session where she casts Ceremony (Atonement) and he has to go through his penance). However, the rest of the party in-game likely will want some serious consequences, but the players themselves will not want to do anything to alienate the "betraying" player or make the game less fun for him.
What would be a good consequence for this character's betrayal in a way that won't make the player want to stop playing? He is aware that there will likely be some dire consequences for his character, and told me explicitly that he is okay with that, but we also can't just remove his character from the game (especially when we are getting to the fun redemption part). Banishment for a session would be fine if I get to have a one-one-one with him doing things for the party far away, but that's about the only thing I can think of.
Side Note: The players think his role-playing has been great, and although they've been annoyed once by his character's prideful low-intelligence personality leading to conflict, they completely understand how he is playing it (it is not a case of "bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO" and he isn't a murder-hobo).
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
|| How to add tooltips || How to use snippet codes ||
The first question that occurs to me is why he didn't kill her when he should have? It looks on first blush like he wanted to become a vampire and let himself be talked into it. Or perhaps *you* wanted him to be a vampire? Unless he was roleplaying both sides of the conversation, you had to have had some input there.
The most obvious penalty is to remove his Dhampirness. He does Atonement, he turns back into a regular mortal, and the rest of the party should be satisfied. If you want him to keep it, then he needs to do a quest. Let the party go with him, give them all the loot, and make sure they get enough to balance out his new powers, and all should be well. If you need more Dire in your consequences, make him take a vow of poverty, give away all his stuff, including all magic items, and wear sackcloth and ashes for a year.
I also wonder if the fiancée might enter the story again after being rezzed. She won't be undead anymore, she might hate him, or she might still love him and he has to give her up anyway as a sigh of repentance. Either way could be good roleplaying. The problem is what the other players are doing, since you don't want him to hog any more of the spotlight than he already has.
<Insert clever signature here>
When a character betrays the party, it's not really reasonable to expect the other players to accept that character back into the group. I would say that it's time for that character to leave the campaign - preferably in a big vampire-showdown between the betraying character and the rest of the party. Alternatively, a redemptive death would suffice.
Ultimately, it's just not fair on the other characters to have to re-party up with a character that betrayed them, and then agreed to become the enemy that they were fighting. The characters I have played would absolutely not believe in his redemption, and would refuse to party up with him again, and that would be on him.
I had an issue with another player in a campaign where I played a PC where that character avoided every combat. One combat she leapt from a 30 foot high window to avoid a fight where the rest of the party was trapped with a bunch of ghosts. The next fight, she turned invisible and then did nothing, even when a party member went unconscious. The next fight, same invisibility, same non-action. I had to say to her character in-person that if she didn't fight, she had no place in the party. It created bad atmosphere and she gained an actual personal dislike of me because of it, but anything else would have meant unreasonable excusing of her behaviour (particularly as she still expected a full allocation of magic items from loot...).
It sounds to me like you explained to the player the consequences it would have, they accepted there would be consequences, and it's time that they felt them. But your task as DM now is to make sure that the character exits the game in a fun and memorable way. Let them become a full vampire, let them be the enemy for a couple of sessions before the other players take them down.
I disagree with the premise that the character has to go, but I also think as a DM this is one of those times you sit back and let the characters hash it out amongst themselves. Only step in if they keep going in circles, if the characters understand, take him in and forgive him they may show you where to take things. For instance they may insist on healing him and making him mortal again.
This is one of those rare times you sit back, and let the player roleplay, keep dice rolling to a minimum and let them act it out.
Can you clarify, was it the players or their characters which didn't want to be too severe?
If it was the players wanting to keep party harmony in an out-of-character sense, then the double-cross doesn't sit too well. The players should have been clearly told that they can take WHATEVER actions they wanted with their characters.
I concur with this. As a DM, probably the best thing that could be done is to step back and let the players decide how this part of the story progresses. If there are in-world ramifications to his actions (such as the fiance building a vampire court, and the other 'nobles' being none too pleased with his betrayal of them) then you can play those out as you like, but whatever consequences the party chooses (or doesn't choose) within the group are for them to decide and for you to facilitate.
The last paragraph of the question states the players think he has role played it great. That suggests to me they are fine keeping the character in the party.
I think that Lyxen's suggestion of a Session Zero redo is a good idea here.
The players should be able to talk around the table about how they feel about these actions as players, and not try to solve an out-of-game issue with an in-game solution.
I play with friends; I wouldn't want any of them to leave the table, and no doubt the players who got betrayed don't want any bad feeling, or the game to stop, or the player to leave - or even to feel bad. But if that means that in-game they are forced to make out of character or irrational decisions, then it is an ongoing problem. What happens when the party finds an item that the betrayer and someone else could use? Normally there might be discussion, or even a roll - but would the party give a powerful item to someone they can't trust? The out of game lack of trust starts seeping in.
Getting everyone to talk about it and discuss the potential issues that this story development has caused. When a PC turns into a villain, for me that means it's time to retire the character (and preferably go out with a bang!) as that leaves everyone enjoying the story. But alternatives might be to get the rogue PC under a Zone of Truth and have them confess what they did and swear to never betray them again.
There are multiple ways to resolve this, but the core of it has to leave the players with no bad feeling towards one another.
Ok, there have been a few questions. First off, while the players didn't ASK to be betrayed, they do not find this to be annoying. He didn't derail the campaign or their goals, and in all reality he didn't do anything that directly affected them. His motivations were obviously related to his fiancee, which is no longer a motivator now that she is dead. I guess I should mention that he had become a yuan-ti in the past to further his goals of revenge, but the players themselves are not annoyed with him (there was just one time his player got threatened by some yuan-ti and he retaliated immediately instead of trying to bargain).
I agree with Scarloc_Stormcall that I should probably let them hash it out themselves, only stepping in if absolutely necessary. The characters may have issues, but the players do not. They've all been able to pursue their backstories and understand this is part of his and adds to the campaign.
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
|| How to add tooltips || How to use snippet codes ||
As has now been confirmed the players are not annoyed which would go with my own experience, I have DMd betrayers, been a betrayed player and been the betrayer, in none of those situations did the other players know and, in none of those situations did it annoy the players, they loved it. In 2 of those occasions the betrayer remained a member of the party for a long time after, in the 3rd, the characters killed the character, resurrected him and then forgave him.