Playing a traitor?

[Kid Charlemagne]

Why do you think it is even remotely selfish? If you play a traitor character you are basically playing a character that is doomed to fail and most likely die at the hands of the other PCs. How is that selfish?

It just needs to be incredibly clear to the player that this is the case. There are a lot of players who get caught up in the moment and feel they need to succeed at all costs.

I had a player do this in one of my games - the players were all very good friends and good roleplayers, so I knew this would work. It turned out to be less than fulfilling, but only because one of the PC's turned out to be more shady than the evil-vampire-servant-fake-fallen-paladin-traitor.

The player in question was very cognizant that after his traitor turn, the PC would become an NPC - or very likely die.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It can have some great role playing potential. After all, some of the best fiction comes frmo when betray happens.

If your group is mature enough to handle it and leave it at the table, no problem.

Only when we were teenagers was my group able to pull it off. Nowadays, it's a sign of scheming for the point of scheming as we're now at the game to play and hate having the idea of someone killing a character that another person spent months on building up.

Having said that, there's nothing to say that your character won't turn against his bosses, perhaps even becoming more free willed like a chaotic neutral character.

 

[Tiew]

One thing to keep in mind. As D&D is in a way amature adlibed fiction we tend to get in the habit of cutting each other a lot of slack. Just to make things easier on the DM and other players people will tend to accept new members without too many questions. You might say its unrealistic to play your character this unsuspiciously and that you deserve what you get but I'd say it's often just a generous consecion to allow the story to move on smoothly.

By creating a traitor you are in a way taking advantage of the suspension of disbelief that the other players commit to allow you to enter the game easily. If it works out to be fun they may not mind, but if it works out badly for them they might be unhappy and feel taken advantage of.

Just my thoughts.

Tiew

 

[Thebalor]

.1. Lower your attributes (either use point by or a standard array). If the players find out you have attributes like that and our working for the DM, they are going to think you cheated even if you just rolled well. And that will not help the situation if they don't like the double cross. If you like them ask the DM if you can carry them over to your next character because this one won't last that long.

This is actually the one thing that won't be an issue, since one of the other players was sitting right by me and watching me roll my stats.

 

[Terwox]

Well, if you think the other players would have fun with it, cool.
I'd go with the "she's being coerced into doing it" method, could be more fun than "I'm eeevil."
My players would probably not go for this at all in a D&D game, and neither would I. Shadowrun or White Wolf for this sort of thing, for the gamers I know.
But, I hope it works out for ya, if you decide to go through with it! Just think about whether or not any of the players would be annoyed -- I imagine a lot would only be annoyed if your character won.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'd like to add another perspective to this issue...

I've ran a game where 1 of the PCs was a traitor, and it worked well story-wise. This character didn't kill any of the other PCs, but made the task harder (& the PCs lives a bit more interesting).

Now, this was for a Heroes Unlimited campaign, so I can't really say if the type of game/setting may have made a difference.

The player in question played in 2 groups that I DMed for. In 1 group, he played a good character; since he was playing w/ another group as well, I gave him the option of having either his old character or the new one to play the part of a traitor (spying on the PCs & reporting to the enemy--if things got bad or the character was found out, then the double-agent could do what was necessary to escape &/or hinder the other PCs). He went with the idea (& it was the only time I allowed an evil-aligned PC).

It worked well. The other PCs/players despised the character (but not the player), & the character became infamous--about as memorable as a few other villains of mine.

Now, as for using this tactic in a D&D game, I'd say that it could work, but only at the right moment. If the other PCs gain means to detemine the character's true agenda, than provide the character with a means to evade it. Also, I think that it's best to have this PC work subtly rather than overtly--there's a few more ambushes along the way, the villains seem a bit more aware of the party's resources, the PCs are misinformed about an opponent, have less resources than they thought they began with, etc.

The PC's treachery should only be immediately evident when it is, for lack of a better word, the cinematically best time for the turn (e.g., tipping the odds in the villains' favor), or when/if the PCs discover the character's treachery--in either case, the PC should then become an NPC afterward (perhaps allowing the PC to play the moment of the turn, but nothing afterward). The former PC could die after the turn, or he/she could escape & take the role of a recurring villain.

However, the player should have a new character/option immediately available after the turn--you may want to have an NPC (which is actually the player's replacement character) accompany the PCs, and then have the player assume the NPC's role after the traitor is revealed. You may want to have a few other NPCs available either as replacement characters (if any other PCs die after the turn), or as victims of the traitor's machinations (a good friend, valued companion, lover, etc.--i.e., a character with an emotional/personal attachment to the PCs).

Also, as a DM, I'd caution that it's very important to be picky about who you allow/have to play this role. I think it works well with an experienced player who you think is capable of playing the role intelligently, is able to keep things secret (i.e., not blurt out, brag, or (in)advertantly drop hints about it), and whose capable (& ideally, willing) of playing/resuming a good guy role afterward (having that player play a selfish, scheming, or other questionable character after the traitor PC may maintain the other players' feelings of distrust, but they may be directed toward the player instead of just the character). And, it should come from a player who the other players wouldn't expect such behavior from--it's not as surprising if it comes from a player who often plays conniving/selfish characters.

And, to be honest, it's not a good idea to use this plot device (which is what I see this idea as) in a group that has players/characters who already act in a disruptive, selfish, or similar manner. Also, it's a one-time plot device--don't use it in more than 1 game with the same group of players (or, at least do it years apart in different genre games).

Just my 2 cents on the matter.

 

[Numion]

I see a fundamental problem with the secret identity / traitor PCs.

As I see it, adventurer groups somehow seem to know when to accept a new member to their group. Shortly after a comrade has fallen they happen on a replacement of roughly equivalent competence level. The new acquitance may even surprisingly know facts only privy to the dead member, and in strange cases the new member may even try to collect the dead characters debts! The new member is usually accepted with little scrutiny, guided by something called the PC Halo. PC groups just know some members of the public to be inherently more trustworthy than others. They recognize PCs among NPCs. (I once even witnessed a new member coming to defence (and lie for them to boot!) of apparent murderers, 5 minutes after meeting them!).

If an NPC tried to be included in the group there would be a higher level of suspicion. Not so with another PC. And there is the problem IMO. Playing a traitor PC takes advantage of the inherent nature of the game. It's too easy. Deep cover PCs are accepted for far longer than would be in reality. Player can explain what the PC can not.

In short, it's no something the game is designed for, nor works best for.

 

[Brain]

A friend of mine once ran a campaign once where he told every player in secret that they were the evil one of the party, and they all believed it. From what I hear of it, it made for a very interesting (and amusing) campaign. The players resented him a bit for it after they found out, however.