So, one of my players, actually my wife, has suggested that she wants to be the ultimate villain that the party faces way down the road.  She's currently a level 3 Gnome Druid, but has said that it would be fun if she turned out to be the villain behind the scenes manipulating things.  In reality, she would be an evil wizard.  But sometimes, something would happen to kinda cast doubt on who she is pretending to be.  The party is in a jam, she casts a spell that she shouldn't be able to to get out of said jam.

I'm really liking this idea, and I think my group would like it was well.  They are really liking the twists and cliffhangers that I've thrown at them so far, and I think this would go over really well.

My question for everyone is, what would be the best way to implement this?  I'm open to any and all suggestions!

I think you have to be very careful to do this, ever, and doubly careful because it is your wife.

There are plenty of nightmare stories from years past to today, of tables where the DM plays favorites with the wife/husband/bf/gf/bff/etc. Many players have experienced this and so the DM has to avoid even the mere appearance of favoritism. Simple things like letting the bf play the only homebrew class in the game, can appear like you are playing favorites.

But this is not simple -- this is major. You are talking about letting her play a character who is, in reality, a "level 20 evil wizard" (let's say), but is just pretending to be a "level 3 druid". When the players find out about this, it's going to be very hard to avoid the appearance that you are just letting your wife co-DM with you. Again, especially because it is your wife. Casting spells she "shouldn't be able to" again, will look like you are letting her cheat "honey."

I think overall this is very hard to pull off long-term. Colville has done it, and has a story about it, but usually just for a session or two.  It sounds like a great idea in theory, but when you put it into practice the other players usually end up thinking that the DM was playing favorites and they won't like it. 

Even if they like plot-twists... they like them about NPCs, I bet. The problem when you make it about the player is that you make one PC more important than the others. Players do not like that.

Appearance of favoritism was my first thought as well. Biowizard expressed everything there quite eloquently.

But here's another thought, and I know it's a bit off topic. Has your wife ever been the DM before? It sounds like she might enjoy it. You might encourage her to run a side quest/one shot in the middle of the campaign to try it out. Run her character for her while she does it, and be an awesome player who follows hooks and helps her have a good first experience. 

Definitely +1 for letting the wife, or any player showing signs of wanting to help run storylines, to take up the DM mantle. Fun for them, and takes some work off of your shoulders.

But really, be very, very careful about making your own wife the incredibly special, powerful PC, in the campaign. I don't care how well your players know and like the two of you, it will look like you are playing favorites and they will resent it.

Quote from BioWizard >>

I think you have to be very careful to do this, ever, and doubly careful because it is your wife.

There are plenty of nightmare stories from years past to today, of tables where the DM plays favorites with the wife/husband/bf/gf/bff/etc. Many players have experienced this and so the DM has to avoid even the mere appearance of favoritism. Simple things like letting the bf play the only homebrew class in the game, can appear like you are playing favorites.

But this is not simple -- this is major. You are talking about letting her play a character who is, in reality, a "level 20 evil wizard" (let's say), but is just pretending to be a "level 3 druid". When the players find out about this, it's going to be very hard to avoid the appearance that you are just letting your wife co-DM with you. Again, especially because it is your wife. Casting spells she "shouldn't be able to" again, will look like you are letting her cheat "honey."

I think overall this is very hard to pull off long-term. Colville has done it, and has a story about it, but usually just for a session or two.  It sounds like a great idea in theory, but when you put it into practice the other players usually end up thinking that the DM was playing favorites and they won't like it. 

Even if they like plot-twists... they like them about NPCs, I bet. The problem when you make it about the player is that you make one PC more important than the others. Players do not like that.

 I appreciate your input.  I can guarantee you that the players won't be thinking anything like that.  They won't be worrying about favourtism, or me letting someone cheat.  I feel like your response has a LOT of genrealizations.  My players aren't that petty...they are friends that we hang out with outside of the game.  

I feel really discouraged regarding this now.  I was hoping for a little more help, rather than essentially, "This is a bad idea, you shouldn't do it.  Everyone will hate it."

I don't think anyone was trying to tell you not to do it, just warning you of the potential dangers. If you want to do it then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, especially some people on a forum. 

That being said, I have done exactly what you are talking about doing and my players were not pleased. After the whole thing they felt like there was no way for them to really deal with the evil player character because of how much more powerful they were. It took away from my players agency and still has ramifications amongst the group that we are trying to work out months after it happened. 

The last thing you want is for one of the players to figure it out then share that information outside of the game because then who bites the bullet and talks about it in game? Do they ever talk about it in game? Do they just deal with it because she is a player character and they have to? What happens if your wife doesn't want to play a character where there is no risk in the adventure because they are so powerful? These are all things that really need to be thought about and planned around before you can agree to this.

I fully believe that it can be done in a way that allows for the players to maintain agency, I just don't really know how to do that. 

I would do that, but have her PC be an evil mastermind of the same level as the rest of the party the way she is now. Evil masterminds don’t have to be ultra powerful, they have minions! And they can have minions who are more dangerous in combat than they are too. Just give her a pair of sending stones where she has one and her chief henchman has the other one. 

Quote from Tim >>

I would do that, but have her PC be an evil mastermind of the same level as the rest of the party the way she is now. Evil masterminds don’t have to be ultra powerful, they have minions! And they can have minions who are more dangerous in combat than they are too. Just give her a pair of sending stones where she has one and her chief henchman has the other one. 

This! She can be more of a Skeletor, with a new evil plan each week, than a Sauron, who has One Big Evil Plan. At level 1, she kidnaps the blacksmith and leaves him in the sewers. At level 3, she unleashes an orc tribe on the local village. At level 5, she steals the king's crown. At level 7, she creates a kingdom-wide plague with no known cure. Every time she leaves a "foiled again" note as The Mastermind. And eventually, she gets so annoyed that she sends a letter to the PCs, telling her The Mastermind or whatever evil title she's using wants to meet them in a death-trap lair, waits for them to get to the throne room, then reveals herself, and, surrounded by her flunkies, begins the final battle.

But yeah, if she's not the same level as the characters, that could be a lot less fun for everyone. Even if they don't feel like it's favoritism, they might be disappointed they didn't get to be the super powerful evil mastermind!

Quote from Clantzy >>

I can guarantee you that the players won't be thinking anything like that.  They won't be worrying about favourtism, or me letting someone cheat.  I feel like your response has a LOT of genrealizations.  My players aren't that petty...they are friends that we hang out with outside of the game.  

I feel really discouraged regarding this now.  I was hoping for a little more help, rather than essentially, "This is a bad idea, you shouldn't do it.  Everyone will hate it."

People who walk these paths rarely do so believing that it will be a problem. The more you believe it won't be a problem, the more likely you are to miss the signs if it does become a problem. As a hyperbolic example, the friends and families of moderately successful serial killers are always shocked and amazed when they are finally caught. It's really, really easy to lose objectivity, especially with the people closest to us.

Take that as you will.

If you're committed to following this route regardless, then put three times as much effort into sharing the spotlight as you invest into your wife's alter-superego. 

For most of the campaign, an odd spell now and then could just be the result of secretly multiclassing, or possessing a magic staff/scroll. Something only as powerful as it needs to be. Once the "Big Reveal" happens, it needs to be a fast-burning dramatic climax, where the party defeats the BBEG and either deals a lethal blow, or strips it of its power. The party should never feel like it is overshadowed by a single PC.

If you want a safer way to approach this, don't let your wife be in control of the alter-ego. Have her be a lesser clone or thrall, driven by an irresistible subconscious impulse attributed to the BBEG, but unable to tap into those abilities herself. A Sleeper who believes herself to be her own person, but at a pivotal moment is activated for nefarious ends.

She would be a plot device, but not the powerful BBEG itself. Her allies could then attempt to save her, rather than defeat her. Transform her into a liability and/or victim, rather than a threat. (Only powerful when empowered.)

Ulterior motives are great, and every character should have their own private goals to achieve. However, it should be a priority to ensure that every character feels that they can impact the story in a meaningful, personal way.

 I appreciate your input.  I can guarantee you that the players won't be thinking anything like that.  They won't be worrying about favourtism, or me letting someone cheat.

Every GM who has ever done something that he or she didn't think was favoritism, would have said the exact same thing, before finding out the players didn't like it.

  I feel like your response has a LOT of genrealizations.  My players aren't that petty...they are friends that we hang out with outside of the game.  

I don't see how I or anyone else here could respond without making generalizations, as we do not know you or your players. I can only speak to what I have seen and what tends to happen in my experience -- not to any specifics about your group.

Again, I have seen tables and MMORPG guilds break up over stuff like this. it is very hard not to make something this big look like you are playing favorites with the wife/hubby/gf/etc.

I feel really discouraged regarding this now.  I was hoping for a little more help, rather than essentially, "This is a bad idea, you shouldn't do it.  Everyone will hate it."

I'm sorry that you didn't like my input. Feel free to ignore it.

But I'm not going to say I think something is a great idea when, in my experience, I have not seen it pulled off successfully but I have seen it cause group break-ups. I warned you the dangers... if you want to go ahead anyway, feel free. I can't tell you how to execute it, though. Because I've not done it.

Hi Clantzy,

having players contributing and being invested in the story is a good thing.  I'm not trying to dissuade you from player input.

The party is in a jam, she casts a spell that she shouldn't be able to to get out of said jam.

So at that point, are you ok, with the rest of the group just attacking her or kicking her out of the party?   Once they suspect someone is not playing in the groups interest, why would they not just leave her at the previous town and refuse to adventure with her?  

As Bio alluded to, this situation sets up potential drama,  not only because the player in question is your wife , but also because it doesn't seem like you've expressed this possibility to the rest of the table.  From an outsider perspective, it looks like you and your wife are collaborating against the group.    It's fine to have players do this, but you have to be careful, and everyone at the table should be aware this is possible.   Is your group experienced gamers?  if so, then they may be able to handle it,  if not, they may think this reeks of favoritism.  Also, if you set this up, are you going to not let her character die along the way in random encounters or combat?

For your campaign opening, did you tell all the players that they need to work together, or did you allow all to have differing agendas. While it may seem fun to you and your wife (yay collaboration) it may not seem that way to the others at the table, unless they had a chance to do this.

In the interest of full disclosure, I once ran a Temple of Elemental Evil game, where most of the party was evil.   They negotiated with me and the various npcs (and other pcs) independently, but it was stated at the beginning of the game that "hey, we can be evil".  Everyone knew they could set up their own machiavellian schemes against the rest of the party and gave me (as dm) input into that -- but it was understood at the table. 

I don't want to dissuade you from this, but be aware of the perception and potential favoritism.

Interesting idea, very difficult to do it right.

Generally speaking, a big reveal that surprises all players is a good experience. A big reveal that surprises some players but the other players act like they already know it all along will be a VERY bad experience.

The surprised players will feel like being betrayed and manipulated, not in character, but in person. “We worked so hard through all these games to solve a mystery, but it turns out they already knew what it was. They just didn’t want to tell us and wanted to keep us guessing. I feel like an idiot and a joke.”

That may backslash very soon. They may not want to start another D&D campaign with you and your wife after this one.

if you have made up your mind to do it, add some twists to your wife’s ideas. It needs to be your (DM’s) story of all players’ characters, not one player’s story of that player’s character. All player characters’ decisions need to matter to the developments of the story.

Just don't turn PC into villain. It may feel good idea but it is not, sorry. DND is cooperative game so this will only break up the game.

Generally speaking, a big reveal that surprises all players is a good experience. A big reveal that surprises some players but the other players act like they already know it all along will be a VERY bad experience.

I think it can work in very limited circumstances. But you need to make sure that (a) there isn't a special out of game relationship between the DM and the other player (wife, husband, boyfriend, etc) or it looks like favoritism, and (b) it cannot go on for a long time.

Colville has a story about how he and one of his co-workers pulled a fast one together on their other co-workers in his Turtle Rock Studios game. However, that lasted for 1 game session, maybe 2... not for months and months.