Is a player betraying the rest of the players ever pulled off well?

...Who- who won?
You can't just stop there, user.

This ^
My DM and I have lightly chatted about my and another character eventually having to kill each other because we work for opposing gods. I can imagine two old men swinging weapons on some secluded mountain reminiscing about adventures and old friends and whatnot.

Can't really envision an "I WAS EEEEVIL!!" Situation going as gracefully but give it a shot I suppose.

No one won, user. That's why I wanted to leave the story there.

> Visionary and Poster Child talk trash as they trade blows, most of which don't do anything because neither of them is especially strong. So its like one of those movie fighters where they keep punching each other in the face for 0 damage.
> Eventually the Visionary wins the fight and KOs the Poster Child, kicks him down a hole in the floor while unconscious to his presumed death.
> Challenged girl has Luck left over, blows all of it warping the narrative to get her down to the fight AND saying she picked up a gun off the body of a dead soldier on the way.
> gets there just in time to see the visionary kill their friend
> points the gun at him
> fires
> MISSES
> Visionary starts screaming shit at her and runs up to try and wrestle the gun away from her
> she fires again, point blank
> hits
> 6 INJURY, which is enough to splatter any PC in AdEva
> Shoots this kid dead close enough to reach out and touch him. He has luck left, but too much Doom to save himself with it because he spent so much winning the fistfight
> I point out that the challenged's physical drawback is triggered by stressful situations.
> Weak Heart triggers
> she has 0 Luck, 5 Doom
> test Physique, fails, takes injury, rolls ANOTHER 6

So the Visionary punched the Poster Child to death, the Challenge pulled a gun on him, killed him, and the stress of doing so shocked her so bad her heart stopped.

We all agreed to call it a draw and never officially say which side one in the end.

>So they got out of their entry plugs and started punching the shit out of each other for the fate of the human race.

youtube.com/watch?v=-b-7tP7IW5Q

The only time it has ever been acceptable to me is when you're doing a rotational DM system in the Same campaign. Player turns into the DM, he's tired of his current character, has him betray the party, then go against them as a minor bad guy. Of course, this only works if they know enough so he doesn't become a DMPC.

I've done it well once. I worked with the GM to help plot it out, and made a master of disguise and trickery. He was the leader of a thieves guild which had been hired to acquire a macguffin which bequeaths right to rule because muh feudalism.

I had the parties back, saved their lives, used them as pawns to off my rivals, led them on a goose chase into the orc infested mountains and then gave them to the dragon king as meat for his arena when my time as PC was over.

It created an antagonist that all the PC's felt very personally about. He was ultimately responsible for the death of two PC's, and the loss of the one characters ancestral axe to the orcs.

They chased him throughout the lands and when they caught him; did horrible things to him; they were so very, very pleased.

It all worked out in the end. The other players actually had implicit meta trust of me, because in the past I almost exclusively played bro-tier support characters who were the hearts of the party.

I wont do it for a while but everyone had fun and it led to some amazing roleplaying.

>Two twinks in mecha fight for the fate of the world
>Girl blows herself up to stop them, gets rid of all the Eva
>Remaining guys punch each other ineffectually
>One finally wins, and is immediately shot by the girl who blew herself up
>Girl freaks out and dies from the ensuing panic attack
>Nobody wins
Glorious.

Did they start shouting their names at each other?

Im running a game of Dark Heresy right now after a long hiatus. My usual players are new characters, all with their own solo adventure beforehand to get them attached to their characters before meeting each other. The same one has been hired to kill another member of the party.

They don't know they work for the inquisition yet and they all have reasons not to get along ranging from a sister and a psyker in the same party to one guy being responsible for the deaths of most of another characters friends and family.

Its kind of a stress test from their to be Inquisitor to see who cracks, where their loyalties lie, and if they can still get things done. All of the players have a pretty good understanding that their characters might not walk out of this one.

This may be the most Eva thing I've ever read.

Oh wow, something I can actually comment on. Our group has had it happen twice before.

First one was my Penal Legion Guardsman in Dark Heresy. The whole party suspected him of being a turncoat and coward (based on his reasons for being a Penal Legionnaire to begin with), including the enemy Inquisitor we had been competing against the whole campaign.

The GM, who played our party's Inquisitor, had him 'betray' the party as a double agent to get in with our rival Inquisitor's henchmen. I discussed this with the GM before it happened.

The PCs were furious and lots of 'I KNEW IT!'s and such. I played it off as 'Well, hey its totally what my character would do.' They all bought it.

I played a stand-in assassin character for a few missions before the finale, when the rival Inquisitor and his party had our PCs in a trap. That's when my guy sprung into action and saved the day and we won the campaign.

The second time was in Only War.

We had a party of Guardsmen (obviously), and one of the PCs was a guy who had been drafted against his will, wanted nothing more to get off the planet and get home. When a corrupted Inquisitor offered them a chance to abandon the Guard and work for him (and escape this hellhole with their lives), the others stoically refused, but this Guardsman wanted out.

It was going to be a boss battle anyway, but was made way more fun with the addition of a PC who was actively trying to kill his comrades. They managed to put him down, and we replaced his character with a Ratling in the next session.

Fun times if done well! It's gotta be done organically though. People gotta believe it. Then it's like a good twist in a movie or book.

No, but its was still a pretty anime ending in retrospect. It would have been better if they did.

> Miro
> Richard
> MIRO
> RICHARD
> MIROOOOOOOOOOOOO
> RICHAAAAAAAAAAARD

Nope. It always ALWAYS makes you the asshole and causes a massive amount of OOC hate.

Um, no?
I've been in three different games with plenty of backstabbing and everyone was having a blast.

"Soft" betrayals I find can work fine, provided you're playing with experienced and open-minded players. Like, a character withholding information or an important item because it furthers their own goals can work fine. Or sneaking off to claim a bounty while the party sleeps because they want all the gold for themselves. I've done it to my friends, my friends have done it to me. It can craft an interesting party dynamic; even very close friends can and will lie to each other about things which are important to them. And if you're a good DM, you'll provide plenty of these opportunities.

But "hard" betrayals are a different beast entirely. Facing off against a recurring enemy then turning to stab your friend in the back is shitty and basically means that character will be dead or retired by the end of the fight. Maybe if the reasons were good enough the character might find his way back to the party one way or another. It's not something you should take lightly, and it's certainly not something you should do in a new group.

So you're all edgelords? Usually games have a factor of trust in them. If you're starting each game from the outset with "don't trust anyone, even the other players. This isn't a game. For fun, we will back stab and rape your family if it benefits us".

Betrayals CAN be played good, except those betrayals are only good in movies where every character is controlled by an author to do things so they turn out exactly perfect to allow for the betrayal to work.

What most betrayals don't factor in is "what's next?". So you just backstabbed your party, are you are the bad side is even going to take you? Are you sure they won't just murder you to tie up loose ends? Are you sure this is a better path than going with the party to finish what you started? Are you sure the players sitting next to you at the table will appreciate you killing their characters for imaginary gold/power?

What is dark crusade

A shit system for edgelords to enjoy being horrible people while simultaneously not enjoying everyone else being horrible people?
Just play warhammer if you want grimdark.

A mediocre expansion.

What about small, continuous betrayals that are a little painful but the betraying character is too useful to the group to just turn against them fully? We had that issue before, it actually ended up being kind of funny.

As for proper betrayal, we had one where the character who betrayed us did so in such a significant force that it changed the tone and pace of the game, and forced us to play by her rules. In that way, it didn't force a party split either. It also had some nice historical precedent.

Kinda, but by that point you have to ask yourself "Why". Does betraying the party actually enhance the game besides painting a bigger "kick me from the game" target on your back?

Or they could have just be mature adults who can recognize the difference between in-game and ooc actions. I mean, supplies are scarce on radioactive wasteland, man

>I kill everyone else in their sleep and take their stuff
>>Okay campaign over
Wow betrayal is so good guys

...maybe just stop playing with people who are childish enough to pull shit like that?

You mean stop playing with people who think betraying the party is a good idea?!?! I would have never guessed.!

There's a reason I never use the game finder threads to get players from this site.

as long as it doesn't wipe the party it can make an interesting antagonist, I think, although the player in question would probably have to role up a new character

if people are in a party where no one gets along/they're a selfish loner who would be willing to betray the party, the mistake is on the group for allowing that character to even be a thing

Why is it so hard for you to get that if players know that they might get betrayed and know the boundaries to which they can push it can be a fun experience?

Because I've had it done and it just killed the group.

Um, no?
We, as players, trusted each other to make our characters untrustworthy. Our characters all started out with compelling reasons to stick together, but largely incompatible goals. And our GM made sure to play those conflicts for all they're worth.

The first game had our cult vs. everyone else and one of the PCs just so happened end up on the side of everyone else. Our cult leader sacrificed himself for a greater purpose which the defector then recognized. So for the last part of the final session they rejoined the cult, which my character took over, and the dead cult leader's player took control of the defector's nemesis so we could wrap up that arc, too.

The second had the Paladin drag my Barbarian and the Immolator to the court of his order. We were headed into that region anyway, so we traveled with him to make use of his authority, planning to ditch him when he was no longer of any use to us. Then my Barbarian's ambition drove him into the service of a banished God and onto the blades of the other two characters. His replacement ran afoul of the Paladin's desire for order and tried to escape with the Immolator just to side with the Paladin in the end because he decided a life on the run wasn't for him.

Third game wasn't so much a game of intentional betrayal and more of a series of incredibly bad and/or stupid decisions leaving all of the characters in unstable alliances when they were not trying to kill each other out of a desire for justice, petty vengeance or simple survival. It was a horrible clusterfuck, but enjoyable nontheless.

I've heard of it being done well exactly once. Ever. And this story was probably made up, so there's that.

Also spoilers it all worked out because it was a double-double cross so it wasn't even really a betrayal.

I've posted it here before but its related to
These. I'm not a great writer so it might not show but it's honestly the most memorable campaign for me and the group cause the whole way the fall was subtle but the feelings between the characters weren't.

The whole reason Thomathy even became a sword for hire was to get gold for his daughters medication. His daughter was exposed to a necromantic plague at birth during a village raid. The medicine keeps the undeath at bay. Thomathy explored the world looking all over for trader caravans and cargo ships needing an experienced guard. Only keeping the money needed for food to get to his next job and sending the rest back home to his wife and child. The party hired him on as a guard and he accepted eagerly as the money they offered would have paid for his childs medication and kept his family fed for 4 years for a 6 month contract. Half way through the contract he had to spend money on gear upgrade as his contract only entitled him to the sign-on bonus and 30% of gold earned but no items looted. Slowly but surely to keep up and stay relevant he spent more and more on gear. Finally it came down to the BBEG which meant he would still get his end pay but it wasn't nearly as lucrative as he thought it would be. That combined with generally feeling like a contractor only and not a party member meant there wasn't a lot of love for them on his part. When the finale came the BBEG did some mind reading deal where he learned and offered each member a deal with the devil for what they want.

All members refused because it came down to serve him and kill their friends for what they wanted. Naturally everybody said no and when it came to Thomathy he openly refused, shortly before he backstabbed the paladin in the back. The finale ended up with Thomathy and the BBEG defeating them but not before Thomathy suffered a mortal wound. The BBEG as a man of his word kept Thomathy in his moment of death for eternity as a pain engine but shortly after sent Thomathy's final pay to his wife, an entire country. Thomathy's wife ruled harshly but the income easily ensured a pampered, healthy life for their daughter who will never know the sacrifice her father made.

I had it work well as the last session where the party turned on each other and the victors rode off into the sunset

Very, very rarely. I was in a game where we got betrayed by our companion, and not only was it a fitting (if perhaps not upbeat) ending to said campaign, the traitor, now turned into an NPC, became a major villain in a later campaign, and it felt great to smash her up.

It's the same thing as people who say "oh hey, let's have an open relationship" but still act like jealous cunts when you tell them that, gasp, you slept with someone else.

People always assume that they're the ones who will benefit the most from something but they never have the foresight to imagine it actually backfiring on them.

My DM once organized this with one of the party members, it was pretty good actually and ended up fitting the storry really well, so yeah, maybe?

I think it's entirely possible, but it's a difficult dance. You have to be on the same page as your players, but also genuinely surprise them.

Doing it at the end of the campaign, or as a graceful setup to allow a player to switch characters which I don't encourage, but still, or as a way of showing a new side of a character to the party and make for character development. It helps if there's an NPC that serves as the root of the betrayal, or if the NPC is the "real" traitor.

>So they got out of their entry plugs and started punching the shit out of each other for the fate of the human race.

Only thing that would've made it more Eva is if she had been strangled to death instead.

I played a Shadowrun campaign where I was planning to betray the party to feed them to an AI my technomancer worshipped as god. This subplot played out in notes between me and the GM for weeks, until I was ready to execute. I planted stories in the news media about how the party had kidnapped me the poor little rich girl, and when agents arrived I secretly hacked our own van so we'd be caught.

However, the agents turned out to be working for another player, in a completely unrelated plan for HIM to betray the party. It turns out three of the four players in the group were independently concocting schemes, and our GM had arraigned things so that we all triggered our plans at the same time, much to the confusion of poor Whiskey Joe the shaman, the only loyal member of the group. I actually "won" the engagement, though I was bleeding out in the van next to the shaman, so it was kind of pyrrhic

It was the most climatic ending to a campaign ever, and the most fun I've ever had playing, so I think it went well. It helps that Shadowrun is a setting conductive to that kind of thing and that we were all working with the GM.

So I think it works if done well and done carefully.

This. It can be amazing and memorable done well, but then what happens the next session? Either the betraying player becomes an NPC, or there is no next session because the campaign's over.

I think it can if, and only if, the player and the DM have planned this beforehand and it occurs at the ending or after it. I had two player betray the party: once he suddenly betrayed us after a dragon queen seduced him (betrayed because the guy wanted some dragon pussy. I was pissed) and once, where the guy, our dwarven cleric that was with the party for two whole campaigns revealed he was a cleric of a dark god all the time and that the "villains" were only political and religious enemies of his church. And we only realized that on an epilogue the DM decided to make with the cleric player after the final scene.

That first one pissed me off. That second one on the other hand? That was pretty cool. So yeah, it can be done right.

>Ctrl-F Paranoia
>0 Results
But seriously, whether a betrayal works well or not depends on the group and the system. If you're playing something like MAID or Paranoia it's going to end up better than if you pull one in, say, D&D.

Ah, a guy said the same thing i said in a better and shorter way. Yeah, basically that.

I'm btw

Worked for my group

>Be DM
>Have succubus big bad for first ~8 levels of pathfinder campaign
>Behind the scenes, pulling strings, secretive figure
>Long story short, PCs finally confront her after thwarting her master stroke
>She uses telepathy to appeal to each of their desires, promises endless power, and the ability to shoot fireballs from their fingertips regardless of class

I prepared a separate scenario for each player based on their histories, character traits, and decisions up to that point. I took them each aside and made the offer in private. I explained that if they took her offer, the character would become an NPC and they'd need to reroll. Once that was done, i brought them back to the table.

>Nobody takes the bait at first...
>Then the Priest speaks up, "sure. I'll do it"
>Priest was a chaotic neutral healer with a heart of gold, but had always pursued power for power's sake.
>Perfect for the role
>He goes with her into an abyssal portal (or they teleported away, don't remember)
>Priest player rerolls a Paladin.

Contd

Time passes. The players engage in a new adventure arc. Then around level 11...

>Priest returns in a flying dreadnought capable of interplanar travel
>Is a twisted version of his former self, based on Pinhead from Hellraiser
>Has greatly increased in power, is now the new big bad (with succubus pulling the strings yet again)
>Wreaks havoc on a portion of the continent, goes full Arthas and renders it a blighted land full of undead and worse
>Is attempting to create a rift that will merge the Prime Material plane with the Abyss
>Players go to stop him
>Meet up with their former comrade
>Try to appeal to him, but he's convinced he's in the right
>Fight ensues
>Paladin (the former player of the priest) is killed in the battle
>Rest of the party barely escape with their lives

I'll never forget the look on that players face when I hit him with that Harm spell and finished him with a Fireball next round, shit was priceless. He was a good sport about it though.