If a character betrays the party in a story decision, would you allow him to get back to the party later?

If a character betrays the party in a story decision, would you allow him to get back to the party later?

PC reason to joining the quest was because he wanted a huge reward if we were successful. However the enemy offered him a lot of money, which he accepted and lured the group into an ambush. The group survived and the enemy eventually betrayed him.

He now wants to get back to the group and the other PCs don't seem to mind. But frankly I don't find this good roleplaying. This guy almost got all of us killed and we are just going to let him join back? Thoughts?

No, I'd kill him in his sleep. Why the hell would you trust someone who's betrayed you before?

You might need to treat it like that pc died. Have him leave and never return again and have the player roll up a newer more loyal character.

Sure. Guilt, a search for redemption, penance, revenge, all of these things are great motivations for a character. But you certainly need the right sort of group and the right GM to be able to address these without it seeming like a children's cartoon antihero.

You also need a story with a credible enough threat that helps to convince the rest of the party that may not be so willing, that it is in the common interest to have him join, since his relationship is effectively void. Common ways to accent this are entrust the character with something important to the plot, so that he can offer it as a gesture of good intention to the others, or to put himself at least as much of an inconvenience as he put on others, as a nod to fairness/justice (in your case, since he almost got you killed, he may have to put himself into some real harm's way).

Loyalty is something built over time through trust and familiarity. Trust will come in time if the rest of the group roleplay together, which leads to the loyalty. Naturally, they can claim trust through subconscious actions, supporting each other in combat or just adventuring together. The difficult part to portray with a group though is the familiarity, because it relies on getting character development, which takes time in game, and thus can get drawn out over several sessions, unless you are doing a montage summary.

(cont)

If the characters actually have known each other for a long time, then it may be easier for them to initially accept him back into the group, but at the least he owes an explanation and an apology. In a light game this can be fine, as the heroes have bigger fish to fry, and it shows their intrinsic moral qualities of forgiveness and mercy, as well as keeps the focus of the game on the action. If you are playing a short campaign or linear plot like a dungeon crawl, you may just dispense with the roleplay all together in order to keep on crawling.

So when you say you don't find this "good roleplaying" you need to consider more in the context of what your group is like, which you should be able to far more than we can. Talk to the other players about what they think in terms of their character's mindsets regarding the issue and work from there.

Yes, I would expect this.

I'm not DM, I was just bothered by the party's action.

It's not really a short campaign and he came back with his open hands ie not offering anything but a lame excuse. The other players actually agreed it was hasty roleplayed, but they said that we needed to push the party back together.

I just feel like if one can pull something like this with no consequences, well why not do it again?

The excuse was: "Sorry for betraying your guys, but you guys know I desire wealth. But since he didn't give me it and tried to kill me, consider my services at your guys disposal.'

Why would they mind?
He told them straight out from the start that he was in it for mercenary reasons. They got outbid.
That's how this shit works. Sure, you give him a bad review on fantasy-yelp, but it takes a really exceptional mercenary to stick with their countract when it's been soundly outbid. They would usually go with the default clause and bail.

Depends on what character you're playing.

Paladin or warrior or something like that, challenge him to a duel, make sure you can kill him.

Rogue or something just merk him in his sleep.

Wizard or something just blow him apart in the next combat encounter.

Actions have consequences, and as much as I advocate not being an overreacting douche in these types of threads, sounds like he made a pretty reasoned decision and you're in your rights to roleplay the consequences. If anyone complains, just remind them it's a game and you're playing it properly.

You could also hold a party trial for him and try to convince everyone he was super guilty and doesn't deserve forgiveness

Either way, you might end up being "that guy" so be careful I guess and remember you're just roleplaying.

>the other PCs don't seem to mind. But frankly I don't find this good roleplaying

what

So basically every single enemy that is rich means he can change sides, so we should immediately cut his head off if one appears?

Sounds good to me.

See, I'd just taze 'im. Or not use him when fighting rich people. Or work out a non-competition contract. Or fire him.

>taze him
>cannot forget to taze him every time this situation appears

>put him on the bench
>doesn't matter since he already know about him and unless he is tied he can still change sides

>make a non-competition contract
>doesn't matter because he is untrustworth

>fire him
>he joins the enemy anyway

My suggestion still seems much better.

> but they said that we needed to push the party back together.
This is a problem.

Either your GM accept betrayal and PvP, or he doesn't. If he does, then there is no need to "push the party back together" because "the party" doesn't really exist. You all made characters that work together. If someone stop working with you but work against you, he get the axe.
If he doesn't, then a betrayal like that shouldn't happen.

In your place, I will either want clarification OOC with the GM and the group, because boundaries need to be set there.
In game, I will give him a world of shit, because there is no way I'm going to be nice to you after you betrayed me, risking my death. This dude is deader than dead.

How would he know about your enemies if you fired him?
He's not going to stalk you making no money looking for a chance to join your enemies.

Because we walk together?

We are an adventurer party, not an enterprise. Unless your solution is to ask him to walk ten metters behind the group?

Well, you ask him to go away.
If he stick around, break his legs. That will work.

user, firing someone means they aren't with you any more.
How do you not know this?

From the suggestions this was the best. I'm going to have a talk with the GM about this.

As a GM, this is something I set straight in session zero.

If everyone is OK with betrayal, secret plot between players, PvP and all the jazz, I roll with it.

Usually, people are OK with it at the start. Then, during the play, it goes a bit too far, characters die, the plot get derailled, etc.

I'm fine with it if it makes fun session and good character development. But usually, after the reveal of a big betrayal of after characters get killed, I remind the group that if they don't want PvP anymore, they can just say it, and I will ban it hard.

It makes thing more clear, and people who think they will like it have a chance to try.

You are ignoring that you suggested a preconditioned firing, ie fire him when the problem appears.

And that goes to the previous point, if I fire him I will have another PC to fight alongside the enemy because he already know about him.

If you mean however to immediately fire him now, then sure. But then that has nothing to do with my original point, which was what to do when this situation appears again.

I was giving you a range of options, user. You could taze him at the time, or fire him before you get there, or just not use him when you are involved with rich people, or work out a contract.

I mean fuck, this is basic shadowrunning. You have to do legwork.

You are forgetting that those aren't going to cut it because we sleep one meter from each other.

The tazer, sure. Not tazer, but stunning him I mean. But how do you plan to let him in the oblivion, taking into account there is no Mr. Johnsons for secret dealings and that quests usually fall on our heads when we arrive at new locations? Unless you want my previous suggestion, of telling him to walk always behind the group so we can scout the quest without him.

Your advice would actually be solid if this was Shadowrun. But this isn't, this is an adventure DnD group. We literally camp in the woods, eat rations while we aren't raiding dungeons or fighting against a local bad guy. I think you are mixing game styles.

If you are firing someone and they are still in your group, you are doing it wrong.

No, he's not. You just assume that the guy is going to stick around.

You're camping in the woods? Great, stun him and ditch him. What he's gonna do, track you down on miles in a forest?
Dump him on a running river and go away. He'll get the message.

If you fire someone, he's NOT going to sleep a meter from you. As I said earlier, if he keep following you when you fired him, break his fucking legs.

user, let be clear: are you suggesting immediately firing him or firing him when another situation like this happens?

Because of things I said before it's almost impossible to keep him in the dark of a new quest. And firing him when he saw another opportunity will only make him go straight for the new opportunity.

Nowhere I said that firing him will let him stay near us. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that firing him when he knows of another opportunity will make him join the other opportunity.

He was giving you "a range of options" as he said. He did not, in his answer to you, say "Fire him when another opportunity appears"
He said to just fire him.

You're just putting your "if one appears?" from the message he responded into his mouth, even when he said no such thing. So, miscomprehension, basically.

I would only allow him back if he shared the money he got by betraying us.

So he's a double double agent...

Yeah that's as terrible as this film.

Most adventuring groups have very little reason to be together for the most part and normally just stick together for the metagame reason of all being players at the table.

But to let somebody have your back who you know has betrayed you makes no sense at all. I'd just point this out and get them to roll a new character.

The problem is that this range of options doesn't apply to the original point, which is if we get outbid.

If he is going to change sides at the exactly second we get outbid, that's a precondition. I then replied that if that happens then we may as well just get rid of him rather than fight the enemy plus a PC.

If you mean with no preconditions, then sure. But that doesn't fit the original posts which is if this situation appears again.

That's actually a good one.

I think this might be why the other players didn't agree with you.
You don't have a very good grasp on what people are saying or moving situations along.

>If a character betrays the party in a story decision, would you allow him to get back to the party later?

It would depend on the circumstances. If the enemy held the betrayer's daughter hostage or something, but upon her rescue he offered to work loyally to the party as repayment, then yeah all is forgiven.

>PC reason to joining the quest was because he wanted a huge reward if we were successful. However the enemy offered him a lot of money, which he accepted and lured the group into an ambush. The group survived and the enemy eventually betrayed him.
>He now wants to get back to the group and the other PCs don't seem to mind. But frankly I don't find this good roleplaying. This guy almost got all of us killed and we are just going to let him join back? Thoughts?

NO! ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!! TIME FOR HIM TO ROLL UP A NEW CHARACTER!!!

But I'd personally advocate kicking THE PLAYER out of the game.

What are you talking about? I got plenty of good answers here. And the other players reason in real life was metagaming ie we want to advance the plot so yeah.

You should read the thread again before posting.

I think this might be why the other players didn't agree with you.
You don't have a very good grasp on what people are saying or moving situations along.

>just repeating
I think you should go join another thread.

Have you considered that this is why other players didn't agree with you?
Because you seem to have consistent problems understanding relatively clear things people say.

I will humor you. Have you considered that the other players were at the table, they were also betrayed and were also pissed off? And that they just let it go because it was a PC and not an NPC?

Have you considered that I wouldn't have to say a single word to explain how scummy that was, and that just to imply that could be the reason is extremely retarded?

They did not, however, agree with your decision, instead choosing to allow the game to progress unhindered.
This may be why the other players didn't agree with you.
You may have many problems understanding what people say and mean.

Which decision you imbecile? I said 'are we going to just let him join back after he betrayed us?' and they said 'yeah that sucked, but he is a player'. Have this last (you) for wasting my time.

You decided it was bad roleplaying.
They decided it was not bad enough to you know, fuck up the game.
This is why you are feeling the outrage you do, and why you made the thread.

No, it was bad roleplaying. I didn't decide it just like I didn't decide 1+1=2 or that water was wet. Everyone in the table agreed it was badly roleplayed. Everyone here does too.

They decided to let it go however for a complete metareason 'he is a player'. I then made this thread to see what's other people reaction to excusing bad behavior with metagaming is, plus getting some tips of how to deal with it. Which gave me plenty of good answers and a few worthless ones. Not so worthless even, at least you are helping me bump it.

Yes, we know you got mad about your group's decision and came on Veeky Forums to bitch about it.
I'm just saying your inability to understand simple answers given to you may have some relation to why the group thought it was acceptable to carry on, and why you apparently did not.

Also he's kind of a liar, isn't he, what with
and all?

Seeing how the majority of the people here would react about it, then I'm pretty justified. And seeing how I got some very good tips, then no I didn't just came to bitch about it.

And seeing how people here are answering just fine besides you, then my ability to communicate is pretty good. But if you really believe it's bad then no sense talking with me right? I hope you take the hint.

I dunno, you seem to have had a lot of problems with understanding what firing a person was.
That went on quite a long while.

And you seem to have quite a problem with understanding what a precondition implies and that not having one makes it worthless to the discussion.

Or to actually read the thread, because if you did you would know I don't have the power to fire anybody, so you wouldn't even suggest it in the first place.

See, we're looping around to your central problem here, that you didn't understand when a person gave you a clear explanation of multiple options to do at various times.
It took you forever to realize you could take action against something... before it happened. Shocker, I know.

You actually could probably fire him if the other players agreed to fire him.
Which sort of would rely on you gaining their approval, which seems like it would be hard for you.

Except those options have nothing to do with the core problem (metagaming excusing behavior) and are frankly terrible for the reasons said before. Kinda stupid even, tazering a mercenary because he is going to betray you?

Yes, if other agreed. So it's useless, because if you read OP you know they didn't.

I thought you said you found useful advice here, user.
But none of the advice here solved you not being able to convince your group that this is a problem big enough to change anything involving the metagame.

Yes, I found useful advice such as talking seriously with GM and seeing which direction he is talking the game. I didn't say your advice was useful.

The advice here wasn't to solve something that already happened you fool, it was how to react from now on.

Nah fuck them.

Sadly some members of the party will hate you for retaliating.

In my group a thief tried to betray us and side with a lich. She almost got us killed by firing a poison dart at our wizard (who was keeping the horde away from us). I decide to go all out and shoot her down and two other guys in our party begged me to let her live. I did, and one of the high necromancers healed her (and she fled).

It was a west marches style game where we would sometimes play a backup character while our main character recovered or worked on a project.
I swap character for a few sessions and the thief approaches the party and rejoins (the rest of the party agrees, the wizard is displeased).

Later on we return to our base where my ranger is, he speaks with the wizard in private and asks if the theif gave any justification, wizard says no. I leave the room and see her at the bar, and shoot her in the neck for a near lethal blow, then shoot her again so she's dead for good.

The rest of the party get fucking sad but the thief was okay with it, had already made a backup character.

I'd pretend to accept it and then cripple him in his sleep before crucifying him.

>The advice here wasn't to solve something that already happened you fool, it was how to react from now on.
This might be why people think you are having trouble understanding other people, because nobody said that. And you had over an hour of trouble figuring out that you could take precautions against things.

>why people
Except other people answered just fine. It's you the one with the problem. And those precautions you said were stupid. Any other questions?

See, this here is another problem with you understanding what people say.
There were no questions in that.
Now, I know the idea of taking actions to stop bad things from happening might sound ridiculous to you, but it turns out, you can stop bad things from happening sometimes if you do absolutely anything at all to try to avoid them in the future. It's crazy, try it. Might work.

>there was no question in
>any other questions?

See, this is why it seems like you have problems understanding what other people say. You can't even follow a simple reply chain.

These are horrible suggestions. If you decide to let him stick around, you've already fucked yourself over.

Either tell him to fuck off, or kill him.

>stun him
What prevents him from waking up and catching up to you somehow?
After you've done this once he knows what to expect from you and will be prepared.
If you suddenly run into a rich enemy, you need to spend delicate time to deal with your rogue before focusing on the other enemies.

>put him on the bench
When do you put him on the bench? When you are notified of a rich enemy? Then he will seek out that enemy and offer his services.
Are you going to somehow keep him in the dark? Have him sit out of every meeting and npc interaction?
He's probably going to try to blackmail your informants or spy on you anways.

>make a non-competition contract
He doesn't care about contracts. He cares about money. If the competition offers him more, he'll accept it.

>fire him
If you fire him at that point in time, he will locate that antagonist and offer them his services.

>There were no questions in that.
That was a sarcastic statement. It meant that what you said was worthless to this situation.

The questions you had to answer were at OP.

But then I correctly predicted you would miss the point, so congrats.

Yes, this is what I said.

>Unable to even knock someone out right
>Unable to kick a guy out when things look like the guy is going to betray you
>Unable to point out to his prospective employer that he is violating a contract and will backstab him
>Unable to tell a guy to fuck off when he does a thing worthy of telling a guy to fuck off

What are you playing, a blind mute?

And here we have yet another instance of you not understanding what other people are saying, because the guy was needling your sarcastic hissy fit.

Why didn't you break his legs when he tried to stick around, as was suggested?

>fighting important antagonist
>can easily deal with a betrayal of another player
What kind of shitty game are you playing?

>kicking out a guy who was going to betray you
>letting him join forces with your enemies
What kind of idiot are you?

>his prospective employer
Either the employer is aligned against us and we should kill the character (and the employer) or there is no employer, as the character would not have betrayed the party to begin with.

>telling a guy who has betrayed you to fuck off
>when you've just learned of a rich enemy who would probably be interested in hiring the betrayer
What kind of idiot are you?

As I said, telling him to fuck off (or kill him) when he returns to the party is acceptable. Letting him stick around is not.

>If I keep saying it, it will become true
And it seems you may suffer some type of autism that makes you unable to see you aren't being useful here. Are you trolling or are you unable to get the hint and leave?

Have you considered he just came back at the end of last session, otherwise I wouldn't be having this thread?

And that if I were to break his legs I may as well kill his character, which would be a far simpler solution?

So, are you misunderstanding things on purpose here?
Why would he join forces with an enemy if you kick him out beforehand? He's a mercenary, he'll just go find some work somewhere. There are more people than you and your enemy in the world.
Why would whoever he is betraying you for NOT be interested in his long track record of betraying people?
Why would you not fire the guy in advance?

Why must all of your actions be reactions, and never planning ahead, ever? Are you not allowed to plan ahead? Are you unable to plan ahead? What is your problem with planning ahead?

Also what is he playing that he can just sort of take all of you on when you find out your foe is rich? There is a significant time gap between finding out your foe is rich and being in a fight with your foe and his forces.

I dunno, you seem to be in this thread entirely to throw a petulant fit about how the other players don't want to kick out a guy, thus making you apparently powerless.

Where in the thread I even said anything about kicking?

What I said is about having consequences for betraying the party. I think you are the one who even now still haven't figured out the purpose of it.

You did just sort of bitch at a guy for suggesting consequences saying you wanted a solution for the meta problem, user.
Like, just a couple posts ago.

Is this a thing you do? Just sort of lie when it is convenient? Because you already provably did it once with the (you) thing.

Honestly, he probably didn't even play in this "game" of his.

The player wants to work for / with the party.
Somebody is able to outbid the party.

>why would he join the new enemy instead of looking for work elsewhere
Thie new enemy is wealthy and willing to hire him. An obvious employer. Why would the player ignore them?

>history of betrayal
How do they know of his history?
If they know of his history, they also know that he will follow through as long as they pay him (or they know to be prepared for his inevitable double betrayal if they refuse to pay him).

>fire him in advance
If you mean immediately, that was one of my suggestions too. When he returns to the party (as he just did), tell him to fuck off or just kill him.
You refuse to acknowledge that if 'you' hire him, he is a burden to the team and will betray you when a wealthy opponent shows up. If you fire him when the party learns of this opponent the betrayer will also be aware of the opponent's offer, thus putting you in further danger by letting him leave.

>planning ahead
I am planning ahead by killing him or firing him immediately upon his return.

>what is he playing
In most games, the players are fighting somewhat balanced foes, so when one of the players betrays the party their enemies should have the stronger position.

>But frankly I don't find this good roleplaying.
You haven't told us enough to judge, it could be excellent roleplaying. It could be shit.

But more importantly, whether you allow him in again or not is up to your characters. Are you playing a forgiving peiest? Maybe you should.

I can only say that upwards 80-90% of my characters would kill or murder him, for various reasons.

You really seem to be unable to understand. The problem is letting metagaming excuse an atrocious roleplaying decision.

Yes, and I do think you are fishing for (you)s. Otherwise you would have as I said plenty of times left instead of autistic going on. No matter, it keeps my thread bumped.

So, let me get this straight.
In this "game" of yours, you only find out your enemy is wealthy WHILE fighting him?
Because all your discussion is predicated on this.

Like, did you not find out they had money... BEFORE you started fighting them?
If so, why does he believe it when they claim they can pay him?
If he's that gullible, why not just tell him you have secret money that beats whatever the other guy bids?

If you're not playing D&Dlike, disregard

Truth spells to determine if he's lying, place a geas on him to prevent further betrayals

user I'm OP. That user is not me.

I know you are autistic but consider you are talking with more than a single person.

>the problem is metagaming
>no, but the problem is there being consequence for the guy
>no, the problem is metagaming
So, you're trolling then?
It's the only explanation for why you would talk in circles like this, and continue your hissyfit after claiming you wouldn't.
Do you need the last word? Is that it? Can you not stop unless you get it?

That's also pretty good. Good thing I didn't talk with GM, depending on what he says I can ask DMPC to do this.

You do realize you are talking to several people, right?
Also, same questions to you. They all apply to your scenario.

>user is unable to figure out that a metagame decison affecting roleplaying can be fixed with a in game action
>user literally gives up
It's okay. You can leave now.

Yes, I know you 'are' several people shitposter.

Except they doesn't because it already happened you retarded.

So you have no answer to the questions, and choose to try to drum up more responses with vague insults?
I think I'm gonna go on a walk and give you a while to actually think about why you don't know your foe is rich until you are mid battle with them.

Basically because it's worthless to the discussion, like 'why didn't you kill him if you thought he was untrustworth?', but please go take a walk. That will improve the quality of here considerably.

>all your discussion is predicate on finding out that the enemy is wealthy while fighting him
No they are not.

If your party learns that an enemy is wealthy and potentially willing to hire the betrayer, the betrayer will try to betray the party.

You can deal with the betrayer then, but you will have to actually kill them (or somehow ensure they wont escape before you've located, fought and beat the enemy). If you fail (he escapes or something). This might not succeed.
If you let him go, he will try to join with the enemy and you've put yourself in danger.

That said, OP described a situation where an enemy revealed their wealth during an encounter and the betrayer decided to betray the party. Thus, the revelation can happen during combat (again).

So, you didn't really come to a resolution on those questions at all, then? Unfortunate.
It's weird you are playing a game that you don't actually know anything about your foe until you reach the point where you are fighting him so a betrayer can betray properly.
We already went over that, if he's gullible enough to find out a guy is rich mid combat and believe him, he's gullible enough to tell him you have seeecret money.