A PC in one of our ongoing games who's obsessed with gaining money and power, is being paid to be in the party, only reason they're staying. However, during a fight against a few rat kings, the DM rolled for a random character, assigning each one a number and then rolling d3, rolled 3 which meant the money and power hungry one. They offered a good amount of money to fight the rest of the party (2 other people), and protect the remaining rat king. They accepted, and did nonlethal to one, knocking them out, intimidating the other to try and get them to run. Intimidated carried unconscious and ran away, then paid off collected his gold from a group of rats before leaving.
Eventually, the leader of these rats gave paid off a special flute as payment to keep the party away from the town, because for some reason the party still trusts paid off and are willing to follow them in travel.
Why would anyone continue to stick around with someone knowing full well that they'll definitely be betrayed because they have been before, let alone PAY them for it.
Sorry but it's time for the other characters to do the only sensible thing and refuse to travel with that character, sorry player you have to re-roll (this is why we generally don't PVP).
Edit: Unless, maybe, at a big stretch, both the other characters have absolutely abysmal intelligence and wisdom that could kind of be used as an excuse.
From a table perspective, this is not really a positive dynamic, generally speaking. Pretty much any time one player actively decides to screw the party over like that, it's at least a sign the DM needs to have a chat with them about courtesy and not ruining the fun for everyone else. Now, if this was a dynamic the group has agreed on in advance that's a whole other matter, you do you and all that. But yeah, if this happened at your table and wasn't a coordinated plot point, it's a red flag and needs to be addressed.
Is this a story you're telling us, or do you have a problem with what happened in-game? Are you a player or the DM?
This. I'm not sure if the OP is just sharing an experience they had, whether they liked it or not, or if this a complaint and asking for help. If the OP could clarify, we can move forward with the right tone. For all we know, he though this was an excellent thing to happen, and if everyone agrees...then brilliant. So, OP, let us know what your intent is.
From a table perspective, this is not really a positive dynamic, generally speaking. Pretty much any time one player actively decides to screw the party over like that, it's at least a sign the DM needs to have a chat with them about courtesy and not ruining the fun for everyone else. Now, if this was a dynamic the group has agreed on in advance that's a whole other matter, you do you and all that. But yeah, if this happened at your table and wasn't a coordinated plot point, it's a red flag and needs to be addressed.
While I agree in the general, in this specific instance, the DM set up this plot point. He should have known that the character was very mercenary and that they were setting up a situation where the character would defect. Assuming it wasn't coordinated and vetted by everyone, while the player should have spoken up and gotten it vetted by the table, the DM would be the one that's in the wrong (or, at least, has the lion's share of the blame), in this case at any rate. If they wanted the Rat King to offer the bribe due to his character while not actually creating this division point, he should have rolled hidden and just bribed one of the less mercurial characters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It’s a potentially legitimate tactic if the player in question felt the party was losing the fight and all going to get killed, the other PCs might accept it. As the player I might well explain my actions that way (true or not).
A PC in one of our ongoing games who's obsessed with gaining money and power, is being paid to be in the party, only reason they're staying.
If this tale is being presented here as an issue instead of a story, I'd suggest that the DM insists as part of a characters backstory in future that the whole table builds in a compelling reason to make their characters want to cooperate with other members and prevent Edgelord McPickPocket characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A PC in one of our ongoing games who's obsessed with gaining money and power, is being paid to be in the party, only reason they're staying. However, during a fight against a few rat kings, the DM rolled for a random character, assigning each one a number and then rolling d3, rolled 3 which meant the money and power hungry one. They offered a good amount of money to fight the rest of the party (2 other people), and protect the remaining rat king. They accepted, and did nonlethal to one, knocking them out, intimidating the other to try and get them to run. Intimidated carried unconscious and ran away, then paid off collected his gold from a group of rats before leaving.
Eventually, the leader of these rats gave paid off a special flute as payment to keep the party away from the town, because for some reason the party still trusts paid off and are willing to follow them in travel.
Is this a story you're telling us, or do you have a problem with what happened in-game? Are you a player or the DM?
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Why would anyone continue to stick around with someone knowing full well that they'll definitely be betrayed because they have been before, let alone PAY them for it.
Sorry but it's time for the other characters to do the only sensible thing and refuse to travel with that character, sorry player you have to re-roll (this is why we generally don't PVP).
Edit: Unless, maybe, at a big stretch, both the other characters have absolutely abysmal intelligence and wisdom that could kind of be used as an excuse.
From a table perspective, this is not really a positive dynamic, generally speaking. Pretty much any time one player actively decides to screw the party over like that, it's at least a sign the DM needs to have a chat with them about courtesy and not ruining the fun for everyone else. Now, if this was a dynamic the group has agreed on in advance that's a whole other matter, you do you and all that. But yeah, if this happened at your table and wasn't a coordinated plot point, it's a red flag and needs to be addressed.
This. I'm not sure if the OP is just sharing an experience they had, whether they liked it or not, or if this a complaint and asking for help. If the OP could clarify, we can move forward with the right tone. For all we know, he though this was an excellent thing to happen, and if everyone agrees...then brilliant. So, OP, let us know what your intent is.
While I agree in the general, in this specific instance, the DM set up this plot point. He should have known that the character was very mercenary and that they were setting up a situation where the character would defect. Assuming it wasn't coordinated and vetted by everyone, while the player should have spoken up and gotten it vetted by the table, the DM would be the one that's in the wrong (or, at least, has the lion's share of the blame), in this case at any rate. If they wanted the Rat King to offer the bribe due to his character while not actually creating this division point, he should have rolled hidden and just bribed one of the less mercurial characters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It’s a potentially legitimate tactic if the player in question felt the party was losing the fight and all going to get killed, the other PCs might accept it. As the player I might well explain my actions that way (true or not).
If this tale is being presented here as an issue instead of a story, I'd suggest that the DM insists as part of a characters backstory in future that the whole table builds in a compelling reason to make their characters want to cooperate with other members and prevent Edgelord McPickPocket characters.