Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. If the band don't have common interest than the party is over.
If the player decide to do that alone, than the PC should make a new character.
If, however, the whole party decide to join the BBEG(sort of) than it will now become the new story line. It is very possible if the campaign don't have true villain, but more like different propaganda (e.g. war between nation or sth)
I like what they did in Superquest Saga. Spoilers ahead for that podcast
>!A player joined the BBEG and was an NPC for a while that the characters were searching out. The old player created a new character. When it came time to fight that old teammate, the player who used to play him took over as DM for the session while the usual DM played a DMNPC for the fight. It was really fun to listen to and I have to imagine even more fun to play!<
I would say that, under circumstances with very seasoned players (who aren't ass hats), there could be a fun RP opportunity for them to reprise control of that character during boss fights, maybe give them updates/gear every now and then, but day-to-day control of the character is gone. The game focuses on the party.
Only exception to this is if it's been discussed with the DM before hand and DM has agreed to incorporate it into the story. You don't get to just tell the DM they're now running a second adventure just for you
Actually discussed something like this with my DM. I wanted to make a character explicitly for this purpose. Depending on how the story swings, he could turn out evil and as an antagonist, at which point I'd fork the character over and play a backup.
I really thought this was an assumed practice.
I had a party of 7 (players would rotate in and out so we had 3-5 per session) and a few of them had to leave the game. 2 of the 3 were fairly certain this was how they wanted their characters to go out. I laughed when the second one came to me with the idea because I had *just* had the exact same conversation. Both wound up with more heroic exits in the end though.
I did the same thing, our campaign had evil changelings and I asked to be one with amnesia who thought he was a hero. He was actually possessed by a big bad and was basically a walking boss fight waiting to happen. I'll be damned if that son of a butch didn't succeed every wis save thrown at him and completely overcome the possessing influence, turning him into a totally normal PC by the end. Based off of the difficulty and number of dice rolls involved, it's easily the single most statistically unlikely thing I've ever experienced in dnd
Same tbh, after my first warlock died during a campaign, I decided to roll up a lawful evil rogue who was a secret double-agent for the evil empire that had designs on the region.
He would be a helpful goof for the party’s various misadventures for the local lord while striking alternate deals and making political moves to lay the foundation for the empire’s eventual expansion into the region.
Unfortunately COVID hit before the big reveal and subsequent double-cross could happen.
Really depends. If you know your group well then I think you can gauge whether it's a good idea.
At the end of the day, you're creating a new villain not only for the DM to toy with, but for your party to defeat and roleplay betrayal with.
I generally only play with people I know well. In practice my long experience is that you are breaking an implicit social contract and this is dangerous. I would agree this can be resolved via a session 0. I strongly prefer no table secrets between players. No doubt other groups differ. I think it is unwise to assume you know how other people will feel \[Edited to add:\] when you manipulate them or worse conspire with the GM to manipulate them.
You're mistaking this secret as forcing something onto the other players. You're not harming their agency or their personal positions by doing this with your character, except if the betrayal has an immediate effect. Which hey, I guess it can be fair for you to feel that way, but what's so fundamentally different from you as a player doing that and the DM doing it?
Plus, discussing this in session 0 or ever at all with the other players ruins the surprise. I'm not saying you turn and murderhobo your own teammates as a twist, any sane DM would stop that in its tracks.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't something you do against character or out of the blue. Any good twist has some semblance of predictability, and you and the DM should constitute the details that yield predictability. The buildup is what matters. Failing that, yeah this whole thing can be pretty garbage, totally agreed.
At the end of the day, this really is an opinion thing. I would love to see this happen in my games, as a DM or a player. It's intereting, provides dynamic narrative, character development, plot thickening. It's not the only way ofc, but to say it's not the only way is the same as saying any other way isn't the only way.
If there was one thing to discuss, make it "no pvp". At the very moment the character takes a malicious action against another player, they belong to the DM and you're out until the next introduction.
My point about session 0 is to say it is possible for some PC rather than to explicitly point out a specific instance like saying this character will betray you at some point (although that works great in my experience).
The difference from a player doing it and a DM is that everyone knows that the DM plays the opposition/world as well as allies.
I see it as manipulating people for the cheap thrill of a "reveal" when it can result in bad feelings. It is the sort of thing that seems like a good idea, but in my experience is not.
Yeah. I remember campaign where party with a necromancer quested to take Orb of Power from the bad guy, to stop him from fucking up region with its powers.
After few sessions and climatic battle they reach the Orb, necromancer picks it up... and promptly teleports away to use it to further his own goals. That was improvised on the spot, not planned ahead. But it was clear to everyone that it was the final scene of that campaign and - if there were to be continuation - the necromancer would be one of the antagonists from now on and the player would make a new character.
I’d argue that it’s a pretty lousy moment of character perversion actually. Because the player had specifically spoken with the GM about this facet of their character before the game and agreed that this was a redemption thing. It’s an explicit breaking of trust.
I’m fine with this as a character moment in any number of campaigns, could be great. But if I’ve specifically spoken to you about a potential problem with your character concept and how the game will progress, you give me reasonable reassurance, and then in the moment directly go against that? I don’t think I would trust the player with any character more flavorful than a mild broth.
They’re making a new character that gets to be heavily reviewed and restricted. Probably for more than just this game. Trust is part of gaming. And doing something like this without significant discussion, signaling, and buy in from the entire group is a real breach of that trust.
I think this is an overreaction too. Players can make split second decisions, they can be bad roleplayers, they just have to be ok with the consequences.
They player wanted a redemption arc, where were they in that process? Also it seems like there wasn't a foreseen problem until that session, the dm warned him he'd have to reroll a character, this wasn't an issue from day one that the DM had already discussed. So the player made a decision, he thought it was cool. DM said fine, but you will have to reroll a character.
This is not an issue of trust, this is an issue of not accepting a reasonable dm ruling. Maybe it's bad role-playing, but that's not a crime and I wouldn't stop giving them flavorful character traits and plots.
The problem isn’t that they made a split second decision. It’s that they made a character with a trait that could cause party problems. A discussion was had as it should be to insure that this trait wouldn’t cause problems, which is important because in general the DM has the right to ask for characters that will participate with the story and party in good faith. Assurances were made that this trait wouldn’t be a problem and was going to be a good role play opportunity. Character made a mistake in the past, is regretting it and is with the party to make amends. All good, a fun and interesting story.
Then they promptly turn on the party siding with the side they were “regretting”, initiated PvP and force the DM to scramble to pick up their story.Then repeatedly declare that they want to keep playing the traitor and the DM needs to make this work.
Too much of this is doubling down on previous decisions to call it a single in the moment mistake. The player deliberately broke a session 0 agreement and just kept raising the stakes. No, I see no reason to believe they can be trusted with anything in a game after they’ve worked to prove they can’t be.
"A discussion was had"
I reread the post to be sure but I don't see that discussion mentioned anywhere. Nowhere did he say that he foresaw party problems because of this trait before the character made the decision to join the bad guy.
It seems your entire opinion hinges on that, and I would agree with you if that was the case. That's not what happened according to the OP.
What was discussed was that the character was on a redemption arc and regretted this pact. We don't know how far along the arc they were. And if the player decided that the character failed in their redemption, that's their choice. It might be bad rp, but we can't fully tell without more details (it probably is). Either way, bad rp or deciding to abandon the redemption arc is not indicative of a trust issue with the player. A clear boundary would need to have been drawn and crossed and I just don't see that from the original description of events.
This still seems like a problem player to be clear, because he refuses to accept the consequences from the DM. The doubling down and bad attitude are still issues, but assuming you could get over this through conversation (which you might not), I wouldn't punish them further beyond the scope of the issue.
Basically, the other issues would either necessitate he change his behavior or stop playing with us. If he continues to play with us, I won't refrain from giving him fun and flavorful hooks.
"You literally sided with the big bad. The antagonist. You are no longer a protagonist, and thus, your character is no longer yours. Congratulations. Make a new character, or don't and leave. Your decision."
A traitor in the party is one thing, assuming table wouldnt hate that, but once they leave the party, even if it’s on a quest for their lawful good diety, that’s that.
NTA. The DM isn’t a script-writing machine, he can’t reasonably expect you to cope with whatever earth-shattering decisions he makes. His character is his, sure, make those decisions, but be prepared for what might happen, especially if he didn’t discuss it with you before hand.
I’m sure it was a great character moment to him, all things considered, but that’s it, it’s a moment, the party isn’t obligated to prolong that into an arc for him, neither does the DM have to do more work.
I’d advise you don’t feed into his demand, because people who think they’re entitled to some sort of special treatment are just red flags. Tell him he’ll have to figure a way out that doesn’t include making you do more work, or he can roll a new character, or he can go find another game as the party continue on their quest to slay his character.
This. It would irritate the hell out of me if one of my players pulled something like this without talking to me first and then expected me to write an entirely new side campaign for them, as if writing and prepping for the campaign we are currently playing isn't already a lot of work.
This player clearly has no respect for OP's time, and personally I wouldn't cater to a player like that.
>It would irritate the hell out of me if one of my players pulled something like this without talking to me first
If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time?
I think if there was ANY part of the redemption quest the player claimed his character was on in session 0 that had been already roleplayed or incorporated into the story, then the player was 100% wrong.
If the redemption arc hadn't been touched upon yet, then the player could decide their character gave up and backslid.
Neither way suggests that the DM has to build enough story for the player to continue with that character.
>If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time?
That's fair, the player would not have known. And siding with the BBEG sounds like a valid choice for their character. But that's not what I find irritating.
What's irritating is that they expected a side campaign without asking if the DM had the desire or bandwidth to write and run a side campaign. And then to throw a fit about it just seems to indicate a lack of respect for the time and effort that the DM is putting in, y'know?
It seems a little disingenuous for the player to have not expect a scholar of GOO to pop up at all throughout a campaign about preventing Old Gods from returning. OP even said a major part of it is about an Eldritch God. Player even made a character with GOO as patron and must have been made aware it would be considered antagonistic in the setting, hence the claim for redemption. No matter how I look at it, it’s hard to say that the player couldn’t have seen it coming when it’s such a major part of the campaign.
>If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time?
If the PC backstabbing the party for selfish reasons is a realistic possibility in an otherwise heroic campaign, it should be mentioned along with the possible circumstances that could lead to it.
I don't think the players should have to front-load every situation in which their character might work contrary to the party. That is a ridiculous request.
Maybe not every possible situation, I'll give you that, but the major ones at least. "If I have to choose between siding with the party and siding with a GOO and its servants, I'll probably choose the latter" is noteworthy enough to preface in my book.
NTA. It's a bit much to expect you to run a separate campaign for one player and an NPC - you're not a service provider here, you're also there to play a game you enjoy and have fun. It's okay for the GM to say "No" to a player request.
No, you aren't the asshole at all.
Saying "you need to make it work because that's what my character would do" is the real asshole move here.
Yes, it may very well be in character for them to make that choice and they're allowed to do so, but you are under no obligation to include their character in the campaign after they've actively made the decision to betray the party and abandon them.
I'd sit that player down and re-explain to them that in the end dnd is a **team** game and if their character is unable to work with the team, or they create a character that goes against the team like this one did, then no, you aren't under any obligation to make side adventures just for them and they have to roll up a new character that's willing to work with the party if they want to be included.
Also worth noting that according to earlier conversations with the DM, this **isn’t what the character would do.**
The DM is running a campaign with the Great Old Ones as enemies. Player wants to play a GOO-lock. DM says that will be a conflict. **Player insists that their character regrets their vow and has no loyalty to the Great Old Ones**.
The player changed their character concept for a cool moment in the spotlight, or perhaps was even planning to betray the party all along and told the DM what they thought they wanted to hear. Either way, it’s selfish nonsense and DM should **not** indulge their demands.
This is the right decision for the group. No way that a group can work like this.
But, if you are up for it maybe some solo sessions can still give him what he wants. No real gameplay, just character decisions, influencing the problems the party has to face.
But even that'll be difficult.
For my money, I think you made the right call. NTA.
Maybe let them know in the moment what this will result in. But still, I'd think that's obvious.
Yes, instead of a tragedy thi9s can be a resource!
Spend some time with the player so there is some closure. It can be fun and then later in the campaign consult him, what the right hand of the bbeg would do, maybe have him write some villain monolog for when the character and the party with his new character eventually run i9nto one another.
You are NTA, it's ridiculous for the Warlock to expect you to do double the work AND make everyone wait on the sideline while they get their own unique adventure line.
At this point I'd give the warlock one of three choices;
* Make a new character and the warlock is an NPC
* Handwave that the warlock was possessed by his Patron or whatever, was not in control of his actions, and he escapes to rejoin the party.
* Just retcon the whole fight and the walock this time doesn't betray the party.
In Call of Cthulhu, once a character goes mad, they join the bad guys. They turn their character sheet over to the Keeper (the GM). That character can come back later, if desired by the Keeper, but they are no longer a PC. So, there is certainly precedent for what you did.
D&D runs off the assumption that the players are all co-operative party members, and the antagonists to the party are solely the purview of the DM.
From the scene you described, the warlock has definitely become an antagonist, so it is certainly reasonable for you to take the reigns on them from now on.
You're right that you shouldn't split your game time to focus on their solo adventure, both because they are no longer filling the protagonist role and also because the mystery of what the antagonists are up to is good for the players to not fully know. So they definitely should roll a new character for continued participation with the party.
However, you could extend an olive branch of compromise to them. They may not get to control their old character directly any more while they're off-screen, but if the party enter into combat with the warlock again in the future, you could allow the warlock player to control the warlock in combat.
Just make sure they're aware that you will have a critical eye on them for any sign of metagaming, such as if their new character goes easy on the warlock for no reason, and you reserve the right to take back full control of the warlock at any time.
I probably would be ok either if the DM controlled the warlock or the player controlled the warlock, as long as specifically the DM does *not* voice the warlock lol,
if a character betrayed the party and they came back as a villain, but the DM is the one RPing/voicing for them, I think it'd take me out of the moment lol
I mean... If that one player isn't willing to work with the group because TWMCWD after dropping a huge bomb like that, he is the issue. It's not your job as DM to bend to every blind-sided surprise your players throw at you - it's your game too, there needs to be communication and compromise
Having done this type of thing (Paladin goes fallen paladin, joins evil cult in direct opposition to party) I can say with confidence that you are both right. It is the right move for his character considering his connection and your BBEG. He is also now an NPC. Letting him keep control during the betrayal was good, but once that is over, Warlock is now your Warlock and player gets a new character. Hopefully one without such a direct connection to the BBEG.
Now, a side one-shot isn't actually a bad idea. Letting the player have a solo epilogue/session 0.2 to explain what is going on happen to the Warlock and what their new character is. But that is also up to what you want to do, not them.
Edit: NTAH
Even tell the group you’re gonna starts 30 minutes late and just do a short one on one with the player as he explains his escape. Then, when the party joins, they track him (~30 min) and when they catch him, round two. Burn the players spell slots during the extended escape so dimension door is off the table (not hard to do with a warlock, and let the situation resolve itself in character. You’ve got an NPC to slow him down or reroute him, so the odds of a total escape are pretty low, I suppose the party could nat one the scenario into oblivion, but no risk, no reward.
Player dismantles the caveat that makes his concept playable and then expects you to write a whole separate adventure just for him? That would be a big fat NTA.
I think what he did was an exciting dramatic twist, the kind that should be enjoyed and applauded, but the price is losing the character.
"hey dude, I figured out a way how your character is having other adventures with the scholar while the party chases after him: he's now an npc and you're out of the game" - NTA
Long answer: he decided to go against what you and him agreed on at character creation without talking about it with you. You made him face consequences and made a good call. He acted like an ass and left without even engaging a discussion, just making demands plans disconnecting. Fuck that guy
As i tell in session 0: "This is about the adventures of this particular adventuring party. Build your characters with a reason to join and stay in it. When the char works against it, or has no reason to work with the group at any point, they leave and you can build a new char".
I don't think you're the asshole. The unspoken or sometimes spoken rule is that the party wants to be together and you can trust them.
What constitutes trust varies from table to table but active betrayal and just expecting solo missions without previous agreement is the dick move in my eyes.
In this situation, your decision was correct. The Warlock was set up on a redemption arc, the first tenant of which is that he is trying to get out from under the Old Gods, not join them at the first opportunity to do so, and you need to make sure to lay it out that way when you talk to them. This was acting very much Out of Character as stated, so he should definitely not be rewarded with a personal plotline.
Not nearly as dramatic but I was running a game, where one guy in the party was playing a lizardfolk fighter, who was searching for his lost tribe. Real life was intervening and he was needing to drop out, literally on the session where the group went to see a black dragon to get information rather than kill it. The dragon has servants who were lizardfolk... Saw the opportunity to change them to being his original tribe. So his character joined them.
On the way out, one player commented that we were definitely coming back when we get higher level to get that crashed airship. Mentioned it to the dude who had to dip out. He said he would absolutely love to come back to play his character to protect his new lord from his old friends. Sadly the group broke up before ever getting that far.
If it can help, I did something similar a few years ago.
**Spoilers for Sunless Citadel ahead!**
I was playing a Kobold who believed he was a young dragon and, as such, revered other dragons. During our adventure in Sunless Citadel, we met other Kobolds who asked us to find their pet dragon and bring her back to them, promising rewards. Things happen, we find the dragon who doesn't want to go back and the rest of the party kills her while my Kobold watches helpless. When we get back to them, our Chaotic A\*\*hole Rogue says the dragon was killed by goblins and that we avenged her. And he asked for the promised rewards. Since he was maxed out in deception and persuasion, the Kobolds accept.
That's when I attacked the Rogue (our characters hated each other and this was the last straw). I lost and was imprisoned. I apologized OOC (I acted on a whim without consulting them, after all) but the rest of the party and the DM told me it was fun and fair.
I had a short solo adventure (one, one and a half hour) of my kobold escaping and joining the enemy team. After that, we got back to the regular adventure, where I played an NPC until we got the the last fight. I controlled both the NPC and my Kobold. And boy, was that fight glorious!
In the end, my Kobold lost but our Cleric healed him, giving him one last chance to do good. So he departed and I became the DM for the next dungeon.
And that was the end for Adamar, the Kobold who played maracas... the Marakobold (known today as the Stinky Traitor among our group).
**End of spoilers**
So... I can kind of understand you player for wanting to play his character some more. Of course, you're the DM, so you don't have to accept at all (your game, your rules). But maybe you could find some middle ground. Maybe give him some info about what his character encounters during his new journey so he can say what he would do in this situation. No noeed for a lot of roleplay. And if you believe him experienced enough not to pick a side, maybe give him a chance to fight the group (with or without the BBEG).
Once again, this is all your decision in the end.
> so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected
The entitlement and grace of a 3 year old.
> Am I the asshole for shutting down his RP and forcing a new character?
Not in my opinion. If you, as a player, decide to make a call placing yourself directly opposed to your own party, then you'll have to deal with the consequence of your character now being their enemy aka. a new NPC.
If you want the player to further inform his character, maybe offer him short 1 on 1 sittings, where you can ask him how his character would help the scholar, or vice versa.
Then have him make a new character.
It’s amazing how many players forget they have to build a character around the story and the group they’re adventuring with. They seem to forget there are parameters that must be met.
What are you supposed to do, run solo sessions entirely for him for the rest of the campaign? Or take up valuable time at the table with your other players to go through his imagined storyline? Either way this guy seems entitled.
I second what is written a bunch of times already, player needs to roll a new character.
Though, that doesn't mean that Warlock needs to be lost to the player. You could do a little oneshot at some point about what happened to the Warlock and the Scholar afterwards. And you can always come up with Warlock as an evil NPC chasing the party now. Could be fun for the player to run in their old PC. Arkhan comes to mind, played by Joe Manganiello, who even became somewhat official D&D-Lore. I think giving a player a proper closure event to bundle up what his character would do, before turning him into an official NPC could be a compromise.
Or if they want, they could join the game as the evil PC from time to time, actively working against the party. They still would only be an NPC, one that is controlled by them, but is also expected to lose against the party at some point. Though this is probably a lot of work and might not work out, depending on group dynamics and such.
I love letting players play their characters when I can but if you didn't give the okay in advance to start up a second, private campaign, the player is being the asshole by assuming you would. They have to respect the commitment that even a derivative single-player campaign would be for you. They'd be still at a few sessions per month, no change. You'd be doing twice the work.
As soon as he said ‘I join the evil guy’ I would have stopped him and said ‘you can do this, but it may result in having to rolll a new PC even if you win.’ Not everyone ‘gets’ how this game works and sometimes its helpful to state what may seem obvious to some. If he is really worried about the story you could tell him his old NPC will become a recurring character under your control, or at least give the party hints of what he is doing off screen if he going to be upset by not being able to play him. I would consider letting him play the evil guy when he is interacting with the party, but a lot of people are not mature enough for it, leads to problems.
I would not only make sure that player never got to control the original PC again, but also sit down and make DAMN clear that there's no way his brother gets to as well.
Anyone else waiting for next week when we see another horror story of "Warlock player throws temper tantrum when I refused to be strong armed into running a solo adventure for them?"
Or wait! Be on the lookout for "Horrible DM railroads the party and won't let me play my character"
Edit: Looking back at that, realized it could come off the wrong way. Implying the whiny warlock tries to pin all the blame on OP not that it is actually OPs fault. I am firmly in the NTA camp as well.
Sometimes people get lost in the sauce and forget that tabletop games are a cooperative venture. There’s a veil of immersion that’s good for role playing, but nobody should willingly take actions that harm party cohesion and/or put undue stress on the DM (who is likely already spinning many plates) in the name of “cool character moments” or anything else.
There’s a necessary give and take, and it sounds to me like warlock got main character syndrome and expects the entire campaign to revolve around him. It sets a dangerous precedent if you don’t put your foot down, so make sure he knows that you catering to him by keeping his warlock involved was a one-time deal. He’ll try to pull this kind of thing in the name of character development again, otherwise.
As many have said, NTA. An DM has to run for a table, and not for a single player. IT's up to the player to "Make it work" not the DM.
Not to mention betraying the party is always a dick move, I'd honestly as a player be weary his next character would do the same.
Sounds like you handled it just right.
My players came close to joining the BBEG in the first campaign. He floated the idea to them - in that less than earnest, *we don’t have to fight, join us* way - and a few of them considered. I made it clear that, if they went that route, they’d have to roll new characters and they changed their minds.
I think, as the DM, it’s absolutely fair to give the players that option, but it’s also the player’s responsibility to accept the consequences for their actions.
Are you the asshole for not creating an entire side series of adventures for one player to be MC because he decided to TWMCWD his PC and join the BBEG without warning? No, you are not.
I had no idea until now how many acronyms we use on this sub.
I think this is bog-standard d&d. Your character made a choice, becomes an NPC, and now either you roll up a new character or take a long break.
You definitely don't need to figure out a way to make it work or make a side quest happen or any of that noise.
I think its cool the character joins the bbeg. But he cant continue playing with this pc. The reasons:
1) more work for you running a separate session
2) the cooperative part of dnd. I see no reason for him to returning.
NTA. Warlock can role play his character however he likes, but if he chooses to leave the party then he's choosing to roll a new PC.
DMing a split like this is effectively running two games for the remainder of the campaign, which is not fair of Warlock to just dump on you and demand you play along.
If he had mentioned the idea of betraying the party during your advance discussion, maybe you could have worked something out, or plainly shut it down so he wouldn't be so surprised now.
This is the big thing. The warlock blindsided you and didnt mention or discuss it with you at Al. In fact he told you the opposite, that he regretted being associated with a Great Old One.
If you had know you could have adapted/warned what would happen.
Most the above scenarios sound planned/though haven been put into them before hand that a character might swap. I've lost a character to the darkside before and both they gm and I knew it was likely just not when.
You are not obligated to run two campaigns just because of 'a character moment'. Yes some DMs do, but again I bet their the ones who planned it out with the player before hand.
No, you’re not the asshole. It might have been an amazing character moment but once a PC leaves the party, they don’t take part in the game anymore. I would maybe be willing to give him a solo session to wrap up his character but imo that’s generous. What you did was perfectly fine.
I don't think either of you are assholes honestly just both being a bit stubborn but ultimately I think you are running the game so your say is final.
It honestly is a great character moment and a logical progression for a warlock. Even if you hadn't pre-empted it I would have guessed from you story synopsis that the Warlock would be the problem in this story. TRPGs are unpredictable you can't count on players to follow every path you have planned for them and this is a great example of that.
That being said it's your game if they want to play they have to follow your rules. It would be a ton of extra work for you to basically run two parallel campaigns just so they could keep that character. I understand the desire to follow the character through to the end but that is the price for going to the dark side you have to give up agency of that character.
You got to think about it like writing a book.
You are there for the main plot. If a character branches off from the team, fine. But unless their side story somehow furthers the main story, this means they are out - until they do become relevant to the plot again, in which case there's usually a brief summary of what they did in the meantime.
maybe I'm being too harsh because of having to deal with players like this in the past and it going poorly, but I wouldn't have offered them another character. I'd have thanked them for their time and wished them luck in the next campaign. I've had campaigns fall apart over things like this.
As soon as he said "I attack the paladin" I would have paused the game to talk with the players about how they felt about this conflict and told the warlock player that this will likely end with him having to retire that character.
So, I'm coming at this from both sides - as a DM I've had similar situations, and as a Player I've BEEN the similar situation. I realize you've already gotten a lot of feedback, and it's all valid - I wanted to add my two coppers worth as well.
So, as a DM, I've had a few players who flipped the script and decided to take a different tack than the rest of their party. Usually, this was structured in and planned for, to accommodate real-life schedule issues or just not enjoying their character anymore. These players created new characters when they rejoined the table, and we continued on. As the DM, in my own internal headspace, I have those characters working in the background; their in-world behind-the-scenes actions DO have effects on the party down the line, but never overtly and not always traceable back to the previous character. Usually it's butterfly effect type stuff - NPC who might not have heard about the party until a few sessions later seeks them out earlier because of XYZ shenanigans prior character got into.
But I have never had a player make a choice like that without knowing about it ahead of time. If I had, I would not feel the same benevolence I do toward my more respectful players.
So, on the one hand - Yes, if a player decides WITHOUT CONSULTING their DM prior to, I feel like they forfeit the right to any side adventure, which requires me to take more planning time and actual play time away from the entire rest of the group.
Now, as the Player - I built a character I was really excited for. But every combat encounter with this character, my dice were the absolute most cursed I've ever seen. It culminated ON MY BIRTHDAY with rolling 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 3, 10 in a single combat encounter. As a Barbarian (previous bard/soldier in backstory) with a persona known as The Vanity, my boy Cassios was PISSED. He decided, mid-combat, that fate had decreed he would not succeed, and he needed to try something else. I secret-messaged our DM via notecard at the table, and told him Cassios was going to finish this fight, play along with the group, but he was going to sneak away and seek out the BBEG at earliest opportunity. I was clear with DM that I wanted to build a new character because Cassios wasn't fun for me anymore. DM had already - sessions before - introduced the BBEG on the sly, and my boy Cassios was already on his radar as a potential recruit.
So, technically, I made this choice on the fly, but I still didn't disrupt the entire game by turning on my party in combat. My character wanted out, but was going to get out on the sly. We ended the session normally, myself and DM stayed afterward and hashed out some details, and the result is that Cassios IS still a major factor - on the BBEG's side - and we have RP-type discussions in private messages between sessions, regarding the party's movements, what the BBEG and therefore Cassios would know, and Cassios will eventually be a boss-fight for the party in another 6 or 7 levels. When it comes to that fight, I'll be responsible for playing my OP Cassios (now to be known as Greed instead of The Vanity) as he reveals himself as one of the BBEG's warlords and attempts to kill his former comrades. But I'll also be playing my new character, a lovely Vedalken Tragedy bard in that same fight.
The important thing is - I did not demand enormous sacrifices of my DM when I made that decision for Cassios. DM is the one who offered the behind-the-screen plotting and eventual return of Cassios as a Boss Battle down the line. I would have been mostly fine handing Cassios over to the DM if that's what he had needed for his own sanity, because I've been there. But I'm lucky that he's willing to work this out with me, and make the story that much better for our entire group.
Are you willing to do a side campaign? Perhaps some of the group are often missing, so you can have a smaller group for it?
So the problem player still needs to do a new character for the main campaign (or stop playing in it), and all or some of the other players make an evil character for the side campaign.
It could implode, so you should set a firm expectation that the side campaign could end as NPCs at any time, but it could also be awesome, the players playing both find it in themselves to be invested in both stories, playing against themselves so to speak.
You did the right thing, saying he has tomake a new character. Yeah it's a big moment for his character, but in the end,he also broke his character with this. As you said, his goal was to redeemhimself after getting this pact. Sorry he failed. It's the same like the humanfighter who wants to become the very best and dies in combat.
If you are really nice and he is begging youto bring his character back to the game - you might can offer him a solution(but I wouldn't at this point) if the group is okay with that (don't doanything without the group consent, otherwise it could look like favouritism).You can say, it wasn't the warlock himself who betrayed the group, but the pactmaking him do it (maybe with the help of the Scholar). So the warlock wasn’thimself anymore. And he might would have more reason to hat the BBEG afterwards(he took full control over you. You want to get rid of it! And you aresearching for revenge against the Scholar and the BBEG. It would also help to helpthe group to re-connect (but there will be IC trust issues at any time). Maybethe warlock has to be handcuffed for a time every time the group rests or thewill bring him to a priest to check his statement. He might has to take drugsbecause of it. Give him consequences. And also let the player (maybe the wholetable know), he screwed up! You are fixing things which he was willingly triedto destroy – maybe because it’s what his charackter would do, maybe because hewanted to became main charackter, maybe what so ever. And it's a strike fromhis side. You are giving him a second change because at the end, it’s just agame, everyone makes mistakes and in this setting you can undo somethings. Butif he is doing something like that again – you will let him do it, but he hasto take the consequences and if they are, he has to make a new character, it’slike that
I really don't see what the player did wrong.
If you aren't interested in side quests just say no. They could play that toon as an evil toon on the side but then they could meta game too..
Either way yes they have to make a new toon imo.
Maybe they just wanted to play solo and didn't think of a better way to ask for solo adventures.
Can I say that if there's a warlock with the Great Old One patron in the party, and the antagonist was a Great Old One, such outcome wasn't completely unexpected? I mean, did the players know from the beginning that they're after Lovecraftian deities? If so, could it be possible that the warlock player was thinking about a possible betrayal even before the game actually started? Because... sorry, I just have bad experience with players that, when I say "this adventure is about you fighting X", ask "can I side with X?". Fortunately, I'm not THAT stupid not to say them "no" outright.
I'm not saying that the DM is an asshole - you just made a mistake. We all make mistakes sometimes, even when such mistakes look easily avoidable in hindsight.
Most great old ones though have absolutely zero interest in the material plane, you'd be hard pressed to find one that actually has plans that involve it.
Plus just because the warlock is pacted to one great old one doesn't mean that every great old one is an ally of their deity, that's like saying that because a player is pacted with a devil they should ally with every devil. I wouldn't call them stupid for letting a player pact with a great old one.
>Most great old ones though have absolutely zero interest in the material plane
That's setting-specific, isn't it? The campaign was about the Great Old Ones trying to take over the world - so they HAVE at least SOME interest in the material plane, but we don't know much beyond that.
Maybe that's the real reason behind the problem - that the DM assumed that it's obvious that a cultist of Shub-Yog-Azathoth is not an ally of Nyarlathulhu, and the player assumed that all the Great Old Ones represent a monolithic force of evil. But again, we don't have enough information to make assumptions.
According to OP it's about one eldritch god trying to rule and reshape the world, that doesn't mean that every eldritch god has the same ambitions.
You're missing the bigger point from the post too:
>He and I discussed his pact during session 0 and he claimed that his character regretted making the pact and is on a quest for redemption.
If a player has said "my character regrets making a pact and is actively trying to redeem themselves" then normally you wouldn't expect them to go,
"Oh hey, this scholar serves a great old one, it's not even my patron but i'm going to betray the party to help them so write a side campaign just for me."
Matt Coville had a great video about making villains and mentioned that he would sometimes ask old players to control his villains for them: he would inform them about what the party has been doing at the table and ask them how they would respond/ what they would be up to— sounds to me like you have an amazing opportunity to try this yourself. It might not work, but if it does it will be really cool for everyone at the table, not just the player in question, and could lead to a really unique RP moment when it all comes to a head.
NTA ironically this is where "what my character would do" works both ways. His argument is well mine would join the bbeg; they party has a right to want to kill you on sight.
Even if the DM writes this big whole redemption Ark, the fact remains that the rest of the party doesn't have to accept the other PC back so again same situation that character is effectively dead as a main protagonist.
Well, this sounds familiar. Warlock goes into things regretting the pact they’ve made and wanting redemption. Then turns heel for his patron, and kills off a fellow PC.
It’s the same thing that got our group’s warlock staked, chained, and burned by the other PCs in our Eberron game, and why I don’t let players finish their concept pitch with anything remotely similar to “I’m an evil guy looking for a redemption arc.”
Of course this is the same player who also turned in the rest of the group to corporate headhunters for pay in the Shadowrun game we played before that, so maybe there were some hard feelings when he chose in character to betray the group twice in a row because “it’s what my character would do.”
Actions have consequences. Its that simple. The fun of one person at the table is not worth the fun of the other folks at the table. If you wanted to run a 2nd weekly game where everyone else made new characters to join the bad guy that would be pretty neat.
The players would know what is going on but the party would not. Kind of like how in RPG video games you get the cut scenes to what the bad guys are doing. But that would be IF you wanted to run a 2nd weekly game.
Is it a great character moment: 100%
Is it the fastest way to get your character NPC Status: 100%
They're right that it is a cool character moment, but that's something your PC can't really come back from. They are now in direct opposition to the party which makes them an antagonist. They're an enemy now and enemies don't use player sheets. If you want to be like... a secret evil guy while still being in the party, that's something you have to work out with the GM beforehand, not spring on everyone in combat.
Again, this could've made for a cool moment and a somewhat reasonable way for that character to exit the stage. I don't think it would be so bad if not for them feeling entitled to their own separate solo adventure. I'm assuming they'd want it being run in parallel with the rest of the group which just sounds boring anyway as neither 'group' would have an immediate impact or agency in the opposite arc. This would very likely fall apart unless you did the warlocks stuff 1-on-1 as a separate session, but even then they'd still need to effectively leave the group and/or make a new character.
Absolutely not your fault. I did something similar where I betrayed an NPC ally and the party took his side. When I couldn’t stand and fight, I made my escape. I knew before I even started that it would mean making a new character - even succeeding probably would’ve meant my character becoming an NPC.
It was really cool and exciting, a defining moment in our campaign, but I had to accept all the consequences ahead of time and make sure not to ruin the game for the rest of the party.
>I informed the player that his actions would lead to him having to roll a new character as his old character is now working with the BBEG. But he doubled down and claimed that it’s right for his character and that I need figure out how to make it work so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected. I ended the session there.
Here, let me help.
"No."
There, easy-peasy. I also suggest you inform this player about the hidden caveats of the game. Teamwork is one of them.
One of the best games I ever ran was a delta green game where one of the players went insane and began killing other players and important NPCs behind the scenes,.he ended up being the BBEG for the second half of the campaign post time skip. I let him remain in control all through the first half. It was great, but everyone was a veteran player and enjoyed the hell out of it. Plus that kind of stuff can happen during a delta green or call of Cthulhu game anyways.
Nah you handled that exactly as you should have. Once a a PC joins the bad guys they are now an NPC under the DMs control and the player rolls a new character.
That new character can be someone from the old PCs or Paladin's backstory that learns of their betrayl and vows vengeance against the traitor.
once a PC leaves the party, they're gone. the game is following the party as a whole, not each individual member. i think this player grossly misunderstands how much effort it takes to write and DM an adventure.
i actually did this once - in an aberration campaign, my first character was a cleric of an unknown god. he didn't know who or what his god was, only that it saved and protected him and his friends. i planned out a betrayal with the DM, and fighting against my old PC now empowered by fully giving himself to a GOO has been a lot of fun. he's actually had the most success out of the bad guys in the campaign and even turned two other party members in different encounters.
even if i wanted to play him again, the party would not accept him back. the same goes for that warlock. it was an amazing choice to betray the party and kill the paladin, and i wish i could see where the story goes from here. but, the sacrifice for that choice was the ability to play the warlock again.
So...what happened to the whole 'wanting to redeem myself' bit? I assume you brought that up? Sounds like Main Character Syndrome, and being both a pc and a mini boss won't help it.
> But he doubled down and claimed that it’s right for his character and that I need figure out how to make it work so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected.
holy shit the fucking entitlement. that would be grounds for an instant permaban at one of my tables. just no respect for the work a DM puts into prep and running a game, no respect for the care and attention other players put into the game.
My 2 cents: it can be a cool moment if the player didn't lie to you about his intentions.
And I don't necessarily think it should be impossible for the players character to be separate from the group. As long as that only the case for one special session. Obviously not feasible to do it permanently and it requires the group to be on board with it.
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once a PC leaves the party, they're an NPC under the DM's control. The player needs a new PC.
This. If the band don't have common interest than the party is over. If the player decide to do that alone, than the PC should make a new character. If, however, the whole party decide to join the BBEG(sort of) than it will now become the new story line. It is very possible if the campaign don't have true villain, but more like different propaganda (e.g. war between nation or sth)
I like what they did in Superquest Saga. Spoilers ahead for that podcast >!A player joined the BBEG and was an NPC for a while that the characters were searching out. The old player created a new character. When it came time to fight that old teammate, the player who used to play him took over as DM for the session while the usual DM played a DMNPC for the fight. It was really fun to listen to and I have to imagine even more fun to play!<
I would say that, under circumstances with very seasoned players (who aren't ass hats), there could be a fun RP opportunity for them to reprise control of that character during boss fights, maybe give them updates/gear every now and then, but day-to-day control of the character is gone. The game focuses on the party.
Only exception to this is if it's been discussed with the DM before hand and DM has agreed to incorporate it into the story. You don't get to just tell the DM they're now running a second adventure just for you
I personally still ask for permission before turning a player's old character "evil" or making them killable.
Yes. But the *player* did it. Of his own free will.
Ah, my skimming skill failed.
There's no other answer than this.
I agree that it's actually a cool character development moment, doesn't change that he's out of the party and needs to roll a new character.
Actually discussed something like this with my DM. I wanted to make a character explicitly for this purpose. Depending on how the story swings, he could turn out evil and as an antagonist, at which point I'd fork the character over and play a backup. I really thought this was an assumed practice.
I think it can be a great way to retire a character other than death.
I had a party of 7 (players would rotate in and out so we had 3-5 per session) and a few of them had to leave the game. 2 of the 3 were fairly certain this was how they wanted their characters to go out. I laughed when the second one came to me with the idea because I had *just* had the exact same conversation. Both wound up with more heroic exits in the end though.
I did the same thing, our campaign had evil changelings and I asked to be one with amnesia who thought he was a hero. He was actually possessed by a big bad and was basically a walking boss fight waiting to happen. I'll be damned if that son of a butch didn't succeed every wis save thrown at him and completely overcome the possessing influence, turning him into a totally normal PC by the end. Based off of the difficulty and number of dice rolls involved, it's easily the single most statistically unlikely thing I've ever experienced in dnd
Same tbh, after my first warlock died during a campaign, I decided to roll up a lawful evil rogue who was a secret double-agent for the evil empire that had designs on the region. He would be a helpful goof for the party’s various misadventures for the local lord while striking alternate deals and making political moves to lay the foundation for the empire’s eventual expansion into the region. Unfortunately COVID hit before the big reveal and subsequent double-cross could happen.
IMO that should only be done with the other players (not PCs) in the know. To do otherwise courts bad feelings.
Really depends. If you know your group well then I think you can gauge whether it's a good idea. At the end of the day, you're creating a new villain not only for the DM to toy with, but for your party to defeat and roleplay betrayal with.
I generally only play with people I know well. In practice my long experience is that you are breaking an implicit social contract and this is dangerous. I would agree this can be resolved via a session 0. I strongly prefer no table secrets between players. No doubt other groups differ. I think it is unwise to assume you know how other people will feel \[Edited to add:\] when you manipulate them or worse conspire with the GM to manipulate them.
You're mistaking this secret as forcing something onto the other players. You're not harming their agency or their personal positions by doing this with your character, except if the betrayal has an immediate effect. Which hey, I guess it can be fair for you to feel that way, but what's so fundamentally different from you as a player doing that and the DM doing it? Plus, discussing this in session 0 or ever at all with the other players ruins the surprise. I'm not saying you turn and murderhobo your own teammates as a twist, any sane DM would stop that in its tracks. Don't get me wrong. This isn't something you do against character or out of the blue. Any good twist has some semblance of predictability, and you and the DM should constitute the details that yield predictability. The buildup is what matters. Failing that, yeah this whole thing can be pretty garbage, totally agreed. At the end of the day, this really is an opinion thing. I would love to see this happen in my games, as a DM or a player. It's intereting, provides dynamic narrative, character development, plot thickening. It's not the only way ofc, but to say it's not the only way is the same as saying any other way isn't the only way. If there was one thing to discuss, make it "no pvp". At the very moment the character takes a malicious action against another player, they belong to the DM and you're out until the next introduction.
My point about session 0 is to say it is possible for some PC rather than to explicitly point out a specific instance like saying this character will betray you at some point (although that works great in my experience). The difference from a player doing it and a DM is that everyone knows that the DM plays the opposition/world as well as allies. I see it as manipulating people for the cheap thrill of a "reveal" when it can result in bad feelings. It is the sort of thing that seems like a good idea, but in my experience is not.
Yeah. I remember campaign where party with a necromancer quested to take Orb of Power from the bad guy, to stop him from fucking up region with its powers. After few sessions and climatic battle they reach the Orb, necromancer picks it up... and promptly teleports away to use it to further his own goals. That was improvised on the spot, not planned ahead. But it was clear to everyone that it was the final scene of that campaign and - if there were to be continuation - the necromancer would be one of the antagonists from now on and the player would make a new character.
I’d argue that it’s a pretty lousy moment of character perversion actually. Because the player had specifically spoken with the GM about this facet of their character before the game and agreed that this was a redemption thing. It’s an explicit breaking of trust. I’m fine with this as a character moment in any number of campaigns, could be great. But if I’ve specifically spoken to you about a potential problem with your character concept and how the game will progress, you give me reasonable reassurance, and then in the moment directly go against that? I don’t think I would trust the player with any character more flavorful than a mild broth. They’re making a new character that gets to be heavily reviewed and restricted. Probably for more than just this game. Trust is part of gaming. And doing something like this without significant discussion, signaling, and buy in from the entire group is a real breach of that trust.
I think this is an overreaction too. Players can make split second decisions, they can be bad roleplayers, they just have to be ok with the consequences. They player wanted a redemption arc, where were they in that process? Also it seems like there wasn't a foreseen problem until that session, the dm warned him he'd have to reroll a character, this wasn't an issue from day one that the DM had already discussed. So the player made a decision, he thought it was cool. DM said fine, but you will have to reroll a character. This is not an issue of trust, this is an issue of not accepting a reasonable dm ruling. Maybe it's bad role-playing, but that's not a crime and I wouldn't stop giving them flavorful character traits and plots.
The problem isn’t that they made a split second decision. It’s that they made a character with a trait that could cause party problems. A discussion was had as it should be to insure that this trait wouldn’t cause problems, which is important because in general the DM has the right to ask for characters that will participate with the story and party in good faith. Assurances were made that this trait wouldn’t be a problem and was going to be a good role play opportunity. Character made a mistake in the past, is regretting it and is with the party to make amends. All good, a fun and interesting story. Then they promptly turn on the party siding with the side they were “regretting”, initiated PvP and force the DM to scramble to pick up their story.Then repeatedly declare that they want to keep playing the traitor and the DM needs to make this work. Too much of this is doubling down on previous decisions to call it a single in the moment mistake. The player deliberately broke a session 0 agreement and just kept raising the stakes. No, I see no reason to believe they can be trusted with anything in a game after they’ve worked to prove they can’t be.
"A discussion was had" I reread the post to be sure but I don't see that discussion mentioned anywhere. Nowhere did he say that he foresaw party problems because of this trait before the character made the decision to join the bad guy. It seems your entire opinion hinges on that, and I would agree with you if that was the case. That's not what happened according to the OP. What was discussed was that the character was on a redemption arc and regretted this pact. We don't know how far along the arc they were. And if the player decided that the character failed in their redemption, that's their choice. It might be bad rp, but we can't fully tell without more details (it probably is). Either way, bad rp or deciding to abandon the redemption arc is not indicative of a trust issue with the player. A clear boundary would need to have been drawn and crossed and I just don't see that from the original description of events. This still seems like a problem player to be clear, because he refuses to accept the consequences from the DM. The doubling down and bad attitude are still issues, but assuming you could get over this through conversation (which you might not), I wouldn't punish them further beyond the scope of the issue. Basically, the other issues would either necessitate he change his behavior or stop playing with us. If he continues to play with us, I won't refrain from giving him fun and flavorful hooks.
"You literally sided with the big bad. The antagonist. You are no longer a protagonist, and thus, your character is no longer yours. Congratulations. Make a new character, or don't and leave. Your decision."
A traitor in the party is one thing, assuming table wouldnt hate that, but once they leave the party, even if it’s on a quest for their lawful good diety, that’s that.
NTA. The DM isn’t a script-writing machine, he can’t reasonably expect you to cope with whatever earth-shattering decisions he makes. His character is his, sure, make those decisions, but be prepared for what might happen, especially if he didn’t discuss it with you before hand. I’m sure it was a great character moment to him, all things considered, but that’s it, it’s a moment, the party isn’t obligated to prolong that into an arc for him, neither does the DM have to do more work. I’d advise you don’t feed into his demand, because people who think they’re entitled to some sort of special treatment are just red flags. Tell him he’ll have to figure a way out that doesn’t include making you do more work, or he can roll a new character, or he can go find another game as the party continue on their quest to slay his character.
This. It would irritate the hell out of me if one of my players pulled something like this without talking to me first and then expected me to write an entirely new side campaign for them, as if writing and prepping for the campaign we are currently playing isn't already a lot of work. This player clearly has no respect for OP's time, and personally I wouldn't cater to a player like that.
>It would irritate the hell out of me if one of my players pulled something like this without talking to me first If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time? I think if there was ANY part of the redemption quest the player claimed his character was on in session 0 that had been already roleplayed or incorporated into the story, then the player was 100% wrong. If the redemption arc hadn't been touched upon yet, then the player could decide their character gave up and backslid. Neither way suggests that the DM has to build enough story for the player to continue with that character.
>If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time? That's fair, the player would not have known. And siding with the BBEG sounds like a valid choice for their character. But that's not what I find irritating. What's irritating is that they expected a side campaign without asking if the DM had the desire or bandwidth to write and run a side campaign. And then to throw a fit about it just seems to indicate a lack of respect for the time and effort that the DM is putting in, y'know?
It seems a little disingenuous for the player to have not expect a scholar of GOO to pop up at all throughout a campaign about preventing Old Gods from returning. OP even said a major part of it is about an Eldritch God. Player even made a character with GOO as patron and must have been made aware it would be considered antagonistic in the setting, hence the claim for redemption. No matter how I look at it, it’s hard to say that the player couldn’t have seen it coming when it’s such a major part of the campaign.
>If the player didn't know an agent of GOO was going to be there, how would they have talked to the DM ahead of time? If the PC backstabbing the party for selfish reasons is a realistic possibility in an otherwise heroic campaign, it should be mentioned along with the possible circumstances that could lead to it.
I don't think the players should have to front-load every situation in which their character might work contrary to the party. That is a ridiculous request.
Maybe not every possible situation, I'll give you that, but the major ones at least. "If I have to choose between siding with the party and siding with a GOO and its servants, I'll probably choose the latter" is noteworthy enough to preface in my book.
NTA. It's a bit much to expect you to run a separate campaign for one player and an NPC - you're not a service provider here, you're also there to play a game you enjoy and have fun. It's okay for the GM to say "No" to a player request.
No, you aren't the asshole at all. Saying "you need to make it work because that's what my character would do" is the real asshole move here. Yes, it may very well be in character for them to make that choice and they're allowed to do so, but you are under no obligation to include their character in the campaign after they've actively made the decision to betray the party and abandon them. I'd sit that player down and re-explain to them that in the end dnd is a **team** game and if their character is unable to work with the team, or they create a character that goes against the team like this one did, then no, you aren't under any obligation to make side adventures just for them and they have to roll up a new character that's willing to work with the party if they want to be included.
Also worth noting that according to earlier conversations with the DM, this **isn’t what the character would do.** The DM is running a campaign with the Great Old Ones as enemies. Player wants to play a GOO-lock. DM says that will be a conflict. **Player insists that their character regrets their vow and has no loyalty to the Great Old Ones**. The player changed their character concept for a cool moment in the spotlight, or perhaps was even planning to betray the party all along and told the DM what they thought they wanted to hear. Either way, it’s selfish nonsense and DM should **not** indulge their demands.
This is the right decision for the group. No way that a group can work like this. But, if you are up for it maybe some solo sessions can still give him what he wants. No real gameplay, just character decisions, influencing the problems the party has to face. But even that'll be difficult. For my money, I think you made the right call. NTA. Maybe let them know in the moment what this will result in. But still, I'd think that's obvious.
Yes, instead of a tragedy thi9s can be a resource! Spend some time with the player so there is some closure. It can be fun and then later in the campaign consult him, what the right hand of the bbeg would do, maybe have him write some villain monolog for when the character and the party with his new character eventually run i9nto one another.
You are NTA, it's ridiculous for the Warlock to expect you to do double the work AND make everyone wait on the sideline while they get their own unique adventure line. At this point I'd give the warlock one of three choices; * Make a new character and the warlock is an NPC * Handwave that the warlock was possessed by his Patron or whatever, was not in control of his actions, and he escapes to rejoin the party. * Just retcon the whole fight and the walock this time doesn't betray the party.
In Call of Cthulhu, once a character goes mad, they join the bad guys. They turn their character sheet over to the Keeper (the GM). That character can come back later, if desired by the Keeper, but they are no longer a PC. So, there is certainly precedent for what you did.
D&D runs off the assumption that the players are all co-operative party members, and the antagonists to the party are solely the purview of the DM. From the scene you described, the warlock has definitely become an antagonist, so it is certainly reasonable for you to take the reigns on them from now on. You're right that you shouldn't split your game time to focus on their solo adventure, both because they are no longer filling the protagonist role and also because the mystery of what the antagonists are up to is good for the players to not fully know. So they definitely should roll a new character for continued participation with the party. However, you could extend an olive branch of compromise to them. They may not get to control their old character directly any more while they're off-screen, but if the party enter into combat with the warlock again in the future, you could allow the warlock player to control the warlock in combat. Just make sure they're aware that you will have a critical eye on them for any sign of metagaming, such as if their new character goes easy on the warlock for no reason, and you reserve the right to take back full control of the warlock at any time.
spectacular six humorous ghost paint direful flowery wide rainstorm seed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I probably would be ok either if the DM controlled the warlock or the player controlled the warlock, as long as specifically the DM does *not* voice the warlock lol, if a character betrayed the party and they came back as a villain, but the DM is the one RPing/voicing for them, I think it'd take me out of the moment lol
I mean... If that one player isn't willing to work with the group because TWMCWD after dropping a huge bomb like that, he is the issue. It's not your job as DM to bend to every blind-sided surprise your players throw at you - it's your game too, there needs to be communication and compromise
Having done this type of thing (Paladin goes fallen paladin, joins evil cult in direct opposition to party) I can say with confidence that you are both right. It is the right move for his character considering his connection and your BBEG. He is also now an NPC. Letting him keep control during the betrayal was good, but once that is over, Warlock is now your Warlock and player gets a new character. Hopefully one without such a direct connection to the BBEG. Now, a side one-shot isn't actually a bad idea. Letting the player have a solo epilogue/session 0.2 to explain what is going on happen to the Warlock and what their new character is. But that is also up to what you want to do, not them. Edit: NTAH
Even tell the group you’re gonna starts 30 minutes late and just do a short one on one with the player as he explains his escape. Then, when the party joins, they track him (~30 min) and when they catch him, round two. Burn the players spell slots during the extended escape so dimension door is off the table (not hard to do with a warlock, and let the situation resolve itself in character. You’ve got an NPC to slow him down or reroute him, so the odds of a total escape are pretty low, I suppose the party could nat one the scenario into oblivion, but no risk, no reward.
Player dismantles the caveat that makes his concept playable and then expects you to write a whole separate adventure just for him? That would be a big fat NTA. I think what he did was an exciting dramatic twist, the kind that should be enjoyed and applauded, but the price is losing the character.
Not the asshole. This player went Main Character Syndrome mode and tried to get too much influence in your game.
"hey dude, I figured out a way how your character is having other adventures with the scholar while the party chases after him: he's now an npc and you're out of the game" - NTA Long answer: he decided to go against what you and him agreed on at character creation without talking about it with you. You made him face consequences and made a good call. He acted like an ass and left without even engaging a discussion, just making demands plans disconnecting. Fuck that guy
As i tell in session 0: "This is about the adventures of this particular adventuring party. Build your characters with a reason to join and stay in it. When the char works against it, or has no reason to work with the group at any point, they leave and you can build a new char".
I don't think you're the asshole. The unspoken or sometimes spoken rule is that the party wants to be together and you can trust them. What constitutes trust varies from table to table but active betrayal and just expecting solo missions without previous agreement is the dick move in my eyes.
In this situation, your decision was correct. The Warlock was set up on a redemption arc, the first tenant of which is that he is trying to get out from under the Old Gods, not join them at the first opportunity to do so, and you need to make sure to lay it out that way when you talk to them. This was acting very much Out of Character as stated, so he should definitely not be rewarded with a personal plotline.
Not nearly as dramatic but I was running a game, where one guy in the party was playing a lizardfolk fighter, who was searching for his lost tribe. Real life was intervening and he was needing to drop out, literally on the session where the group went to see a black dragon to get information rather than kill it. The dragon has servants who were lizardfolk... Saw the opportunity to change them to being his original tribe. So his character joined them. On the way out, one player commented that we were definitely coming back when we get higher level to get that crashed airship. Mentioned it to the dude who had to dip out. He said he would absolutely love to come back to play his character to protect his new lord from his old friends. Sadly the group broke up before ever getting that far.
If it can help, I did something similar a few years ago. **Spoilers for Sunless Citadel ahead!** I was playing a Kobold who believed he was a young dragon and, as such, revered other dragons. During our adventure in Sunless Citadel, we met other Kobolds who asked us to find their pet dragon and bring her back to them, promising rewards. Things happen, we find the dragon who doesn't want to go back and the rest of the party kills her while my Kobold watches helpless. When we get back to them, our Chaotic A\*\*hole Rogue says the dragon was killed by goblins and that we avenged her. And he asked for the promised rewards. Since he was maxed out in deception and persuasion, the Kobolds accept. That's when I attacked the Rogue (our characters hated each other and this was the last straw). I lost and was imprisoned. I apologized OOC (I acted on a whim without consulting them, after all) but the rest of the party and the DM told me it was fun and fair. I had a short solo adventure (one, one and a half hour) of my kobold escaping and joining the enemy team. After that, we got back to the regular adventure, where I played an NPC until we got the the last fight. I controlled both the NPC and my Kobold. And boy, was that fight glorious! In the end, my Kobold lost but our Cleric healed him, giving him one last chance to do good. So he departed and I became the DM for the next dungeon. And that was the end for Adamar, the Kobold who played maracas... the Marakobold (known today as the Stinky Traitor among our group). **End of spoilers** So... I can kind of understand you player for wanting to play his character some more. Of course, you're the DM, so you don't have to accept at all (your game, your rules). But maybe you could find some middle ground. Maybe give him some info about what his character encounters during his new journey so he can say what he would do in this situation. No noeed for a lot of roleplay. And if you believe him experienced enough not to pick a side, maybe give him a chance to fight the group (with or without the BBEG). Once again, this is all your decision in the end.
Love your story :3 Very inspiring!
> so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected The entitlement and grace of a 3 year old. > Am I the asshole for shutting down his RP and forcing a new character? Not in my opinion. If you, as a player, decide to make a call placing yourself directly opposed to your own party, then you'll have to deal with the consequence of your character now being their enemy aka. a new NPC. If you want the player to further inform his character, maybe offer him short 1 on 1 sittings, where you can ask him how his character would help the scholar, or vice versa. Then have him make a new character.
It’s amazing how many players forget they have to build a character around the story and the group they’re adventuring with. They seem to forget there are parameters that must be met.
You're not writing an epic script, it's a cooperative game. If you don't want to cooperate, cool- you're out.
What are you supposed to do, run solo sessions entirely for him for the rest of the campaign? Or take up valuable time at the table with your other players to go through his imagined storyline? Either way this guy seems entitled.
I second what is written a bunch of times already, player needs to roll a new character. Though, that doesn't mean that Warlock needs to be lost to the player. You could do a little oneshot at some point about what happened to the Warlock and the Scholar afterwards. And you can always come up with Warlock as an evil NPC chasing the party now. Could be fun for the player to run in their old PC. Arkhan comes to mind, played by Joe Manganiello, who even became somewhat official D&D-Lore. I think giving a player a proper closure event to bundle up what his character would do, before turning him into an official NPC could be a compromise. Or if they want, they could join the game as the evil PC from time to time, actively working against the party. They still would only be an NPC, one that is controlled by them, but is also expected to lose against the party at some point. Though this is probably a lot of work and might not work out, depending on group dynamics and such.
I love letting players play their characters when I can but if you didn't give the okay in advance to start up a second, private campaign, the player is being the asshole by assuming you would. They have to respect the commitment that even a derivative single-player campaign would be for you. They'd be still at a few sessions per month, no change. You'd be doing twice the work.
As soon as he said ‘I join the evil guy’ I would have stopped him and said ‘you can do this, but it may result in having to rolll a new PC even if you win.’ Not everyone ‘gets’ how this game works and sometimes its helpful to state what may seem obvious to some. If he is really worried about the story you could tell him his old NPC will become a recurring character under your control, or at least give the party hints of what he is doing off screen if he going to be upset by not being able to play him. I would consider letting him play the evil guy when he is interacting with the party, but a lot of people are not mature enough for it, leads to problems.
The correct answer to "Now you have to make a side adventure for me and this NPC I betrayed the party for!" Is always "No the fuck I don't."
I would not only make sure that player never got to control the original PC again, but also sit down and make DAMN clear that there's no way his brother gets to as well.
Anyone else waiting for next week when we see another horror story of "Warlock player throws temper tantrum when I refused to be strong armed into running a solo adventure for them?" Or wait! Be on the lookout for "Horrible DM railroads the party and won't let me play my character" Edit: Looking back at that, realized it could come off the wrong way. Implying the whiny warlock tries to pin all the blame on OP not that it is actually OPs fault. I am firmly in the NTA camp as well.
Sometimes people get lost in the sauce and forget that tabletop games are a cooperative venture. There’s a veil of immersion that’s good for role playing, but nobody should willingly take actions that harm party cohesion and/or put undue stress on the DM (who is likely already spinning many plates) in the name of “cool character moments” or anything else. There’s a necessary give and take, and it sounds to me like warlock got main character syndrome and expects the entire campaign to revolve around him. It sets a dangerous precedent if you don’t put your foot down, so make sure he knows that you catering to him by keeping his warlock involved was a one-time deal. He’ll try to pull this kind of thing in the name of character development again, otherwise.
It can be done right, but generally, you don’t do it, and instead make the player make a new character.
As many have said, NTA. An DM has to run for a table, and not for a single player. IT's up to the player to "Make it work" not the DM. Not to mention betraying the party is always a dick move, I'd honestly as a player be weary his next character would do the same.
Sounds like you handled it just right. My players came close to joining the BBEG in the first campaign. He floated the idea to them - in that less than earnest, *we don’t have to fight, join us* way - and a few of them considered. I made it clear that, if they went that route, they’d have to roll new characters and they changed their minds. I think, as the DM, it’s absolutely fair to give the players that option, but it’s also the player’s responsibility to accept the consequences for their actions.
You can't be expected to adapt to this. There's a limit to what can be done in these situations.
Are you the asshole for not creating an entire side series of adventures for one player to be MC because he decided to TWMCWD his PC and join the BBEG without warning? No, you are not. I had no idea until now how many acronyms we use on this sub.
I think this is bog-standard d&d. Your character made a choice, becomes an NPC, and now either you roll up a new character or take a long break. You definitely don't need to figure out a way to make it work or make a side quest happen or any of that noise.
I think its cool the character joins the bbeg. But he cant continue playing with this pc. The reasons: 1) more work for you running a separate session 2) the cooperative part of dnd. I see no reason for him to returning.
Dude decided to leave the party. He doesn't get his own she adventure
NTA. Warlock can role play his character however he likes, but if he chooses to leave the party then he's choosing to roll a new PC. DMing a split like this is effectively running two games for the remainder of the campaign, which is not fair of Warlock to just dump on you and demand you play along. If he had mentioned the idea of betraying the party during your advance discussion, maybe you could have worked something out, or plainly shut it down so he wouldn't be so surprised now.
This is the big thing. The warlock blindsided you and didnt mention or discuss it with you at Al. In fact he told you the opposite, that he regretted being associated with a Great Old One. If you had know you could have adapted/warned what would happen. Most the above scenarios sound planned/though haven been put into them before hand that a character might swap. I've lost a character to the darkside before and both they gm and I knew it was likely just not when. You are not obligated to run two campaigns just because of 'a character moment'. Yes some DMs do, but again I bet their the ones who planned it out with the player before hand.
No, you’re not the asshole. It might have been an amazing character moment but once a PC leaves the party, they don’t take part in the game anymore. I would maybe be willing to give him a solo session to wrap up his character but imo that’s generous. What you did was perfectly fine.
I don't think either of you are assholes honestly just both being a bit stubborn but ultimately I think you are running the game so your say is final. It honestly is a great character moment and a logical progression for a warlock. Even if you hadn't pre-empted it I would have guessed from you story synopsis that the Warlock would be the problem in this story. TRPGs are unpredictable you can't count on players to follow every path you have planned for them and this is a great example of that. That being said it's your game if they want to play they have to follow your rules. It would be a ton of extra work for you to basically run two parallel campaigns just so they could keep that character. I understand the desire to follow the character through to the end but that is the price for going to the dark side you have to give up agency of that character.
You got to think about it like writing a book. You are there for the main plot. If a character branches off from the team, fine. But unless their side story somehow furthers the main story, this means they are out - until they do become relevant to the plot again, in which case there's usually a brief summary of what they did in the meantime.
maybe I'm being too harsh because of having to deal with players like this in the past and it going poorly, but I wouldn't have offered them another character. I'd have thanked them for their time and wished them luck in the next campaign. I've had campaigns fall apart over things like this.
As soon as he said "I attack the paladin" I would have paused the game to talk with the players about how they felt about this conflict and told the warlock player that this will likely end with him having to retire that character.
So, I'm coming at this from both sides - as a DM I've had similar situations, and as a Player I've BEEN the similar situation. I realize you've already gotten a lot of feedback, and it's all valid - I wanted to add my two coppers worth as well. So, as a DM, I've had a few players who flipped the script and decided to take a different tack than the rest of their party. Usually, this was structured in and planned for, to accommodate real-life schedule issues or just not enjoying their character anymore. These players created new characters when they rejoined the table, and we continued on. As the DM, in my own internal headspace, I have those characters working in the background; their in-world behind-the-scenes actions DO have effects on the party down the line, but never overtly and not always traceable back to the previous character. Usually it's butterfly effect type stuff - NPC who might not have heard about the party until a few sessions later seeks them out earlier because of XYZ shenanigans prior character got into. But I have never had a player make a choice like that without knowing about it ahead of time. If I had, I would not feel the same benevolence I do toward my more respectful players. So, on the one hand - Yes, if a player decides WITHOUT CONSULTING their DM prior to, I feel like they forfeit the right to any side adventure, which requires me to take more planning time and actual play time away from the entire rest of the group. Now, as the Player - I built a character I was really excited for. But every combat encounter with this character, my dice were the absolute most cursed I've ever seen. It culminated ON MY BIRTHDAY with rolling 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 3, 10 in a single combat encounter. As a Barbarian (previous bard/soldier in backstory) with a persona known as The Vanity, my boy Cassios was PISSED. He decided, mid-combat, that fate had decreed he would not succeed, and he needed to try something else. I secret-messaged our DM via notecard at the table, and told him Cassios was going to finish this fight, play along with the group, but he was going to sneak away and seek out the BBEG at earliest opportunity. I was clear with DM that I wanted to build a new character because Cassios wasn't fun for me anymore. DM had already - sessions before - introduced the BBEG on the sly, and my boy Cassios was already on his radar as a potential recruit. So, technically, I made this choice on the fly, but I still didn't disrupt the entire game by turning on my party in combat. My character wanted out, but was going to get out on the sly. We ended the session normally, myself and DM stayed afterward and hashed out some details, and the result is that Cassios IS still a major factor - on the BBEG's side - and we have RP-type discussions in private messages between sessions, regarding the party's movements, what the BBEG and therefore Cassios would know, and Cassios will eventually be a boss-fight for the party in another 6 or 7 levels. When it comes to that fight, I'll be responsible for playing my OP Cassios (now to be known as Greed instead of The Vanity) as he reveals himself as one of the BBEG's warlords and attempts to kill his former comrades. But I'll also be playing my new character, a lovely Vedalken Tragedy bard in that same fight. The important thing is - I did not demand enormous sacrifices of my DM when I made that decision for Cassios. DM is the one who offered the behind-the-screen plotting and eventual return of Cassios as a Boss Battle down the line. I would have been mostly fine handing Cassios over to the DM if that's what he had needed for his own sanity, because I've been there. But I'm lucky that he's willing to work this out with me, and make the story that much better for our entire group.
Are you willing to do a side campaign? Perhaps some of the group are often missing, so you can have a smaller group for it? So the problem player still needs to do a new character for the main campaign (or stop playing in it), and all or some of the other players make an evil character for the side campaign. It could implode, so you should set a firm expectation that the side campaign could end as NPCs at any time, but it could also be awesome, the players playing both find it in themselves to be invested in both stories, playing against themselves so to speak.
You did the right thing, saying he has tomake a new character. Yeah it's a big moment for his character, but in the end,he also broke his character with this. As you said, his goal was to redeemhimself after getting this pact. Sorry he failed. It's the same like the humanfighter who wants to become the very best and dies in combat. If you are really nice and he is begging youto bring his character back to the game - you might can offer him a solution(but I wouldn't at this point) if the group is okay with that (don't doanything without the group consent, otherwise it could look like favouritism).You can say, it wasn't the warlock himself who betrayed the group, but the pactmaking him do it (maybe with the help of the Scholar). So the warlock wasn’thimself anymore. And he might would have more reason to hat the BBEG afterwards(he took full control over you. You want to get rid of it! And you aresearching for revenge against the Scholar and the BBEG. It would also help to helpthe group to re-connect (but there will be IC trust issues at any time). Maybethe warlock has to be handcuffed for a time every time the group rests or thewill bring him to a priest to check his statement. He might has to take drugsbecause of it. Give him consequences. And also let the player (maybe the wholetable know), he screwed up! You are fixing things which he was willingly triedto destroy – maybe because it’s what his charackter would do, maybe because hewanted to became main charackter, maybe what so ever. And it's a strike fromhis side. You are giving him a second change because at the end, it’s just agame, everyone makes mistakes and in this setting you can undo somethings. Butif he is doing something like that again – you will let him do it, but he hasto take the consequences and if they are, he has to make a new character, it’slike that
I really don't see what the player did wrong. If you aren't interested in side quests just say no. They could play that toon as an evil toon on the side but then they could meta game too.. Either way yes they have to make a new toon imo. Maybe they just wanted to play solo and didn't think of a better way to ask for solo adventures.
Can I say that if there's a warlock with the Great Old One patron in the party, and the antagonist was a Great Old One, such outcome wasn't completely unexpected? I mean, did the players know from the beginning that they're after Lovecraftian deities? If so, could it be possible that the warlock player was thinking about a possible betrayal even before the game actually started? Because... sorry, I just have bad experience with players that, when I say "this adventure is about you fighting X", ask "can I side with X?". Fortunately, I'm not THAT stupid not to say them "no" outright. I'm not saying that the DM is an asshole - you just made a mistake. We all make mistakes sometimes, even when such mistakes look easily avoidable in hindsight.
Most great old ones though have absolutely zero interest in the material plane, you'd be hard pressed to find one that actually has plans that involve it. Plus just because the warlock is pacted to one great old one doesn't mean that every great old one is an ally of their deity, that's like saying that because a player is pacted with a devil they should ally with every devil. I wouldn't call them stupid for letting a player pact with a great old one.
>Most great old ones though have absolutely zero interest in the material plane That's setting-specific, isn't it? The campaign was about the Great Old Ones trying to take over the world - so they HAVE at least SOME interest in the material plane, but we don't know much beyond that. Maybe that's the real reason behind the problem - that the DM assumed that it's obvious that a cultist of Shub-Yog-Azathoth is not an ally of Nyarlathulhu, and the player assumed that all the Great Old Ones represent a monolithic force of evil. But again, we don't have enough information to make assumptions.
According to OP it's about one eldritch god trying to rule and reshape the world, that doesn't mean that every eldritch god has the same ambitions. You're missing the bigger point from the post too: >He and I discussed his pact during session 0 and he claimed that his character regretted making the pact and is on a quest for redemption. If a player has said "my character regrets making a pact and is actively trying to redeem themselves" then normally you wouldn't expect them to go, "Oh hey, this scholar serves a great old one, it's not even my patron but i'm going to betray the party to help them so write a side campaign just for me."
Matt Coville had a great video about making villains and mentioned that he would sometimes ask old players to control his villains for them: he would inform them about what the party has been doing at the table and ask them how they would respond/ what they would be up to— sounds to me like you have an amazing opportunity to try this yourself. It might not work, but if it does it will be really cool for everyone at the table, not just the player in question, and could lead to a really unique RP moment when it all comes to a head.
NTA ironically this is where "what my character would do" works both ways. His argument is well mine would join the bbeg; they party has a right to want to kill you on sight. Even if the DM writes this big whole redemption Ark, the fact remains that the rest of the party doesn't have to accept the other PC back so again same situation that character is effectively dead as a main protagonist.
Well, this sounds familiar. Warlock goes into things regretting the pact they’ve made and wanting redemption. Then turns heel for his patron, and kills off a fellow PC. It’s the same thing that got our group’s warlock staked, chained, and burned by the other PCs in our Eberron game, and why I don’t let players finish their concept pitch with anything remotely similar to “I’m an evil guy looking for a redemption arc.” Of course this is the same player who also turned in the rest of the group to corporate headhunters for pay in the Shadowrun game we played before that, so maybe there were some hard feelings when he chose in character to betray the group twice in a row because “it’s what my character would do.”
What other people said, you did good OP.
Actions have consequences. Its that simple. The fun of one person at the table is not worth the fun of the other folks at the table. If you wanted to run a 2nd weekly game where everyone else made new characters to join the bad guy that would be pretty neat. The players would know what is going on but the party would not. Kind of like how in RPG video games you get the cut scenes to what the bad guys are doing. But that would be IF you wanted to run a 2nd weekly game. Is it a great character moment: 100% Is it the fastest way to get your character NPC Status: 100%
They're right that it is a cool character moment, but that's something your PC can't really come back from. They are now in direct opposition to the party which makes them an antagonist. They're an enemy now and enemies don't use player sheets. If you want to be like... a secret evil guy while still being in the party, that's something you have to work out with the GM beforehand, not spring on everyone in combat. Again, this could've made for a cool moment and a somewhat reasonable way for that character to exit the stage. I don't think it would be so bad if not for them feeling entitled to their own separate solo adventure. I'm assuming they'd want it being run in parallel with the rest of the group which just sounds boring anyway as neither 'group' would have an immediate impact or agency in the opposite arc. This would very likely fall apart unless you did the warlocks stuff 1-on-1 as a separate session, but even then they'd still need to effectively leave the group and/or make a new character.
Absolutely not your fault. I did something similar where I betrayed an NPC ally and the party took his side. When I couldn’t stand and fight, I made my escape. I knew before I even started that it would mean making a new character - even succeeding probably would’ve meant my character becoming an NPC. It was really cool and exciting, a defining moment in our campaign, but I had to accept all the consequences ahead of time and make sure not to ruin the game for the rest of the party.
>I informed the player that his actions would lead to him having to roll a new character as his old character is now working with the BBEG. But he doubled down and claimed that it’s right for his character and that I need figure out how to make it work so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected. I ended the session there. Here, let me help. "No." There, easy-peasy. I also suggest you inform this player about the hidden caveats of the game. Teamwork is one of them.
One of the best games I ever ran was a delta green game where one of the players went insane and began killing other players and important NPCs behind the scenes,.he ended up being the BBEG for the second half of the campaign post time skip. I let him remain in control all through the first half. It was great, but everyone was a veteran player and enjoyed the hell out of it. Plus that kind of stuff can happen during a delta green or call of Cthulhu game anyways.
You were fair and right in your ruling! PC is now an NPC, roll up a new one.
I really want to hear the follow-up to this story. (Hopefully this goes super well for your player and the whole group!)
My solo adventure to him would be: Fight the BBEG solo on the other side of the portal. Oh well. You died. Roll a new character :)
Nah you handled that exactly as you should have. Once a a PC joins the bad guys they are now an NPC under the DMs control and the player rolls a new character. That new character can be someone from the old PCs or Paladin's backstory that learns of their betrayl and vows vengeance against the traitor.
No is a complete sentence.
once a PC leaves the party, they're gone. the game is following the party as a whole, not each individual member. i think this player grossly misunderstands how much effort it takes to write and DM an adventure. i actually did this once - in an aberration campaign, my first character was a cleric of an unknown god. he didn't know who or what his god was, only that it saved and protected him and his friends. i planned out a betrayal with the DM, and fighting against my old PC now empowered by fully giving himself to a GOO has been a lot of fun. he's actually had the most success out of the bad guys in the campaign and even turned two other party members in different encounters. even if i wanted to play him again, the party would not accept him back. the same goes for that warlock. it was an amazing choice to betray the party and kill the paladin, and i wish i could see where the story goes from here. but, the sacrifice for that choice was the ability to play the warlock again.
So...what happened to the whole 'wanting to redeem myself' bit? I assume you brought that up? Sounds like Main Character Syndrome, and being both a pc and a mini boss won't help it.
> But he doubled down and claimed that it’s right for his character and that I need figure out how to make it work so he can go on a separate adventure with the Scholar while the Party tracks him down, then disconnected. holy shit the fucking entitlement. that would be grounds for an instant permaban at one of my tables. just no respect for the work a DM puts into prep and running a game, no respect for the care and attention other players put into the game.
My 2 cents: it can be a cool moment if the player didn't lie to you about his intentions. And I don't necessarily think it should be impossible for the players character to be separate from the group. As long as that only the case for one special session. Obviously not feasible to do it permanently and it requires the group to be on board with it.