| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having read the first episode and the summaries in the back, I am very doubtful that I can make this campaign work as written, and I'd appreciate some feedback.
The PCs are repeatedly asked to do things for various NPCs. In the first module, at least, the motivation to do this is fairly lightweight. Almost always, the NPCs proceed to betray the PCs; I'd say the PCs are likely to feel very stupid for trusting them.
In my estimation, when the game hits the elven hostility and imprisonment of the PCs, my campaign will tank irrecoverably. I expect my player will be very angry, mostly at me--seesawing back and forth between "You're jerking me around so that I can't get any NPC help" and "How can they possibly be so STUPID?" The fact that this will be at least the third betrayal (if I am interpreting the summaries correctly) will be salt in the wounds. It's going to look to my player like his reward for being cooperative with the plot as written is getting screwed over and over.
How do the authors see this campaign arc as working? Other than the need to save the world, what is going to motivate the players to continue? (Please notice that I am asking about *players*. The PCs may have strong motivations, but if the players don't care anymore, the game dies.)
What kind of PCs do people see for this game? They need to be willing to be small-time crooks for a dirty employer in the first episode, but decide that they're saving the world, no matter how little it wants to be saved, within a couple of modules. I don't know what to tell my player. Noble characters who would do well with the elves are likely to refuse the first module. Shady characters are going to have a horrible time with the elves.
I must be missing something here--some idea about the emotional arc of the campaign. Any suggestions appreciated. I had been planning to run it but now I'm not sure I can.
Mary
My best suggestion (I'm just starting running it as well) is to play up the effects of the NPC contacts they make that *don't* betray them. Give them great reason/benefits to work with NPCs, even if they're not sure they can trust them.
Also the Elves don't sound so much as a betrayal as a hostile situation (from people they are trying to save).
For once I'm going to wait until I have all six volumes before I start running the path. My giantkin goblin RotRL campaign and my all-aristocrat CotCT campaign are both going well, and I can stretch one or both of them out for a while yet.
That said, I think it might be interesting to
I really hope that this path works out for you, Mary. I enjoy reading about the games that you run.
Yeah, too much NPC betrayal can ruin a game. Paranoia can be fun, but when players go from not trusting anyone to seeing everyone they meet as an enemy then things are just going to go down the s&&!ter.
I haven't read the adventure yet, but would it be possible to have the PCs star out as undercover operatives planted in the Golden Goblin casino by some other agency? Then at least they'd be prepared for the screwing-over. Sorry if I'm re-hashing what tbug just suggested. I might have more ideas when I get a copy of the book.
|
From what it looked like, this adventure isn't meant for your typical 'Good' PCs. That the iconics used in it are three Neutrals and one Evil suggests that trusting a lot of the NPCs in Riddleport is a bad idea. This is a den of thieves, pirates, and other such things. The party should already expect betrayal, expect backstabbing, and be in the mindset for such things. Having a group that is very Good and Trusting is going to lead to a lot of hurt feelings, but I think that's just part of the campaign.
I for one, love the opportunity to actually allow an evil character or two. It may take a few ground rules, but it's pretty cool to see a campaign work around that. After all, it could be the end of the world. That's a good reason for an evil PC to want to 'help out'. Not to mention the loot.
|
First off, the players do not know Saul is truly evil and going to betray them until the betrayal, so they do not need to be "small-time crooks." Even if they are, why would good characters want to save the world, but neutral and evil characters not want to? They would die if they didn't save it, so they have the motivation.
Ahh, you asked about the players. Well, I do not have your players, but if the PCs care and the players do not, I think something is wrong.
Not really. It's possible to play a PC that will be happy to do follow the plot of the module, but that doesn't necesarily help the player's enjoyment if he's still thinking "This module is dumb and makes no sense".
(I'm not saying that's the case here; that's just an example.)
|
|
Judging from the first installment and the outline, I'd probably take it as an opportunity to play up the difference in the two betrayals (and I'm assuming it'll be limited to the two...)
Saul is basically scum, who tries to play the players from the beginning. He should try to play up his attempts at redemption, and deliberately play on the characters' sympathies (and you'd know what pulls your players more than I would...) For the group I plan to run this for, having him confess to a bad past, but emphasize he's trying to do right now will probably play well. Once the betrayal becomes clear, of course, they should realize he was never sincere, and was a bad guy all along.
The elves look like a very different case. They are trying to do good, they are really fighting the drow, and trying to prevent the world from ending. They turn on the players out of fear. The players are on to a secret that they believe may doom them if it gets out. Now, some of this will depend on the module itself, but I'd try to play this out so that players are reminded of Saul's betrayal. But they should also have friends among the elves who disagree with the Council, and still try to help them. And they should then find the reasons behind it, and see that the Council isn't Saul.
Finding this, and seeing the differences, could lead to some interesting play. In short, I'd like the cases to initially seem parallel, but not really be so, and I'd hope to be able to bring that out.
Drew Garrett
From what it looked like, this adventure isn't meant for your typical 'Good' PCs. That the iconics used in it are three Neutrals and one Evil suggests that trusting a lot of the NPCs in Riddleport is a bad idea. This is a den of thieves, pirates, and other such things. The party should already expect betrayal, expect backstabbing, and be in the mindset for such things. Having a group that is very Good and Trusting is going to lead to a lot of hurt feelings, but I think that's just part of the campaign.
I for one, love the opportunity to actually allow an evil character or two. It may take a few ground rules, but it's pretty cool to see a campaign work around that. After all, it could be the end of the world. That's a good reason for an evil PC to want to 'help out'. Not to mention the loot.
It's hard for me to understand why *these* evil people are strongly motivated to be the ones who save the world, but none of the other innumerable evil people are willing to put out to do it--after all, they want to keep living too. Most plausible evil PCs, it seems to me, are at some point going to go for their personal advantage and hope that the problem is solved by other means. "It has to be us" usually flows from some kind of sense of duty, or from a personal connection. Maybe there's a personal connection here but I don't see it yet.
I'm particularly worried that an evil party will refuse the plot of #3, which from the summary involves a lot of "doing things for the Elves because they ask you to." Do the PCs know that the world is in danger at this point? If so, why are they unable to convince the Elves (in #4)? If not, why do they cooperate?
I'm also concerned that the events of #5 will precipitate a violent and prolonged PCs-versus-elves conflict which the modules won't support.
In our AoW campaign the evil PC was (a) pulled along by the good ones, whom she felt she needed, and (b) intrinsically interested in how Kyuss became a god, because she wanted to do it herself. I don't believe I could have made that campaign work if I'd had to motivate her by "the world will end if you don't intervene." There were too many powerful NPCs who ought to make the same reckoning and don't. If our PC had to do something (despite being self-centered and evil) then Manzorian (who is supposed to be good and altruistic) really, really ought to have done more.
I'm not adverse to the idea of more or less amoral PCs, and the opening scenario strongly suggests them; but I don't see how they are going to stay on track in #3 and #5, unless the hooks in those modules are a lot stronger than they appear. Cooperating with the elves not only looks like a bad idea, it *is* a bad idea (as the plot of #5 shows clearly). What will make the PCs continue to do it?
Not cooperating with the GM: in our group, at least, the GM is not allowed to ask for cooperation and then screw the players over because they play along. Not a sense of duty or moral obligation. Not a desire to save the world, because it's unlikely to look like the best way to save the world--especially to an evil party which expects betrayal. (Given the elven secrecy about the drow, murder of the whole party when it returns from the Underdark is a very plausible outcome.)
Maybe this will be clearer when the modules come out, but right now I don't see how it works.
Mary
Ahh, you asked about the players. Well, I do not have your players, but if the PCs care and the players do not, I think something is wrong.
I've seen it quite a few times.
One that happens to me: I am not personally very motivated by money. I can design and play a PC who is, but if the whole reward structure of the game is money, I get bored. The PC may be excited but I just don't care. I have an easier time engaging with the game if the reward is something that excites me as well as my character: fame, power, discovery, heroism, etc.
I am worried that Second Darkness will be a long string of disappointments for my player, and that even if the PCs are motivated to keep going, the player may not be. I know that he particularly hates supposedly good people who become useless and obstructionist in a crisis, and #5 seems to be all about that. I suspect that he may be so personally angry and disappointed that he won't be interested in continuing. I think I would feel that way myself, and it's not as sore a point for me as it is for him.
Mary
|
|
I've been giving this some thought, having finished reading the adventure today. My biggest issue is the detect evil conundrum - the AP gives scant suggestion if the PCs use similar methods on Saul.
This is mainly a concern for Paladins and similarly concerned good characters. My work-around is to make the use of alignment-detection magic illegal in Riddleport, which would behold the Paladin to uphold that law unless given very good reason not to. Second, given such characters, make sure to put them to an actual contract to work for Saul. Trick them, cajole them, compel them with money, whatever. Once such a Lawful character signs a contract, up until the point they have hard evidence against Saul (the ambush probably) they are held to the contract.
Think of it as cleaning up the city from the inside out - play up Saul's desire to change and "clean up his act", slowly improve the atmosphere in the Gold Goblin to one approaching more Lawful or Good.
Even though they're aimed at pleasing as many people as possible, I feel that each AP will be modified enough that it may be said that every AP will not be able to 100% satisfy everyone. Any attempt at variety should sour someone eventually at some point. Ideally, there will be an AP that will match your group's interests. I don't know how large your group is, but the more players, the harder to satisfy everyone in one group, let alone all groups in the world.
I'd think that since buying a whole AP would be a considerable financial investment, that before buying the product, I'd think it would be appropriate to discuss with a group how interested they'd be to play it. I think it'd even be fine to discuss minor spoilers, or for a DM to share their concerns, and/or lack of enthusiasm for running the AP for them (maybe this might lead to a discussion among some groups to switch to a DM that will enjoy running a particular AP).
I would agree, that if all of the players run PC's that are simple-minded, sans street smarts, goody-two-shoes, run with a DM who has every NPC from every nook and cranny popping out of the woodworks to betray, backstab, rob, lie, cheat, and molest them to the severest degree (ie. throwing the sheep among the wolves), then I'd doubt such a game could be entertaining. The PC's constantly "falling for it" without a chance in the world to spot the scam, particularly no matter how high they advance their levels/ skills, would be depressing.
As above posts mention, it's critical to understand the setting of Riddleport, and that an evil alignment will be common. It mentions that those trying to rock the boat end up dead on the temple's steps or as food for the fish. Savvy PC's should expect the unexpected in Riddleport, and that there's always something more to someone's friendly smile. I would think some players would love a shot to enter an environment filled with scurvy knaves to test their luck. Also, as other posts mentioned, even in Riddleport, not every NPC will be out to hoodwink the PC's. I think having someone in the party with social-based skills would be critical in interacting well with this AP.
I wouldn't think that detecting evil should matter when one would be flooded by positive targets. Everyone's got skeletons in their closets at Riddleport, and evil doesn't always mean axe-murderer. I would expect that reading Saul as evil should be expected by wise PC's. They should eventually come to realize that Saul's up to something, that he's not truthful, and might guess that they could be set up for a fall. Crafty PC's invested in the AP should want to start to pick up on motives. Sure, Saul is CE, but he does have motives. He's not simply backstabbing the PC's to do it. PC's will then want to know why, and might enjoy playing along to find out more. A player hellbent on simply engaging a killing spree of genocide to eradicate all evil-aligned NPC's should not be permitted in this AP (I'd suggest these types of shallow PC concepts should be discouraged in any AP with a plot beyond a glamorized hack-n-slash-fest).
I can think of some motivations: 1) Eventual contact with knowledge that Saul is a part of something bigger, and secrets/ knowledge is just as powerful as gold in Riddleport. Someone who wants prestige in Riddleport, will want to know the dark on Saul. 2) Maybe someone comes into Riddleport with an angle a la the movie Yojimbo or Fistful of Dollars. They have a noble heart trapped under a cloak of grime, and they pit evil against evil to save whatever good they can. So, they play along, find out the movers and shakers, and then make their own moves. 3) In a doomsday scenario, something out to destroy, enslave, taint, transform the world, would ultimately pose a risk to anyone not part of the primary antagonizing force. Since a better chance of survival might come with defeating the antagonist, the evil PC decides to disarm them.
If a group chews and stews over this AP over every possible angle and still not find any lasting potential fun with it, I think it'd be wise just to not buy it and save money for an AP that the group will enjoy.
|
|
I would agree, that if all of the players run PC's that are simple-minded, sans street smarts, goody-two-shoes, run with a DM who has every NPC from every nook and cranny popping out of the woodworks to betray, backstab, rob, lie, cheat, and molest them to the severest degree (ie. throwing the sheep among the wolves), then I'd doubt such a game could be entertaining. The PC's constantly "falling for it" without a chance in the world to spot the scam, particularly no matter how high they advance their levels/ skills, would be depressing.
Thankfully, that is not this adventure path's plot.
I think a campaign theme of betrayal and desperation can be a powerful one, but it can't stand alone. In order to work, the campaign also has to feature redemption and trust found in unexpected places. Not just the PCs giving their trust to (hopefully) allies, but the PCs being given the trust of others.
It's one thing to ask the PCs to repeatedly trust others, then repeatedly betray them and see what they do. Most likely, they'll say "Screw this" and go off to do selfish things.
It's another thing entirely to repeatedly betray the PCs, and then give the PCs the trust of someone vulnerable and innocent and see what they do.
And later on meet one of their betrayors who has had a change of heart, works to their advantage of his own free will, and throws himself on their mercy.
In the first example, the campaign repeatedly challenges the PC and player motivation and provides no deeper meaning. In the second example, the campaign challenges PC and player motivation but provides the context for a deeper and more meaningful experience. I can certainly see some players (including myself) finding this latter experience to be a compelling one.
I don't know enough about Second Darkness to comment on which sort of example it portrays, but hopefully authors of future adventures are reading this and thinking about which direction they want to go.
Creative Director
|
I've been giving this some thought, having finished reading the adventure today. My biggest issue is the detect evil conundrum - the AP gives scant suggestion if the PCs use similar methods on Saul.
This is mainly a concern for Paladins and similarly concerned good characters. My work-around is to make the use of alignment-detection magic illegal in Riddleport, which would behold the Paladin to uphold that law unless given very good reason not to. Second, given such characters, make sure to put them to an actual contract to work for Saul. Trick them, cajole them, compel them with money, whatever. Once such a Lawful character signs a contract, up until the point they have hard evidence against Saul (the ambush probably) they are held to the contract.
Think of it as cleaning up the city from the inside out - play up Saul's desire to change and "clean up his act", slowly improve the atmosphere in the Gold Goblin to one approaching more Lawful or Good.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are a LOT of evil folk in Riddleport. It's ruler is evil. Evil pirates, smugglers, thugs, and murders walk the streets openly. A paladin or anyone who casts detect evil in Riddleport is going to detect a LOT of evil, but he won't necessarily see folk killing or burning or robbing folk. In Saul's case, if the PCs detect his alignment, have him do just what you say; that he's lead a life he's not proud of and that he's hoping to make amends, but that it's hard to stay on the straight-and-narrow in Riddleport, especially since survival here often means you have to be a jerk.
In fact, if you set things up so that there seems to be a chance that Saul could be redeemed, that could be a cool angle for a paladin or other lawful or good character to latch onto. You can even allow that character to be successful in Saul's redemption, in which case he might confess to the PCs that he's caught up with the drow and that he doesn't know what to do to get out of the situation. In this case, you wouldn't have him sending the PCs out to be ambushed or have the assault on the Gold Goblin, but instead he could lead the PCs to the caves below and beg them to handle the drow.
Of course... you shouldn't make it EASY for PCs who wish to take this route! They'd need to do some kick-ass roleplaying and back it up with lots of good Diplomacy rolls and promises and what not. The path of the righteous and redemption is tough and evil is easy, after all!
The primary goal of the adventure is to introduce the PCs to the Drow threat, after all, not to set up Saul Vancaskerkin as a big villain. The adventure presents the most likely route that MOST parties will take to this discovery, but it's by no means the only route; we included the additional material on the Gold Goblin and Riddleport precisely for this reason, to give GMs something to build on if their PCs take an unanticipated route.
|
It's hard for me to understand why *these* evil people are strongly motivated to be the ones who save the world, but none of the other innumerable evil people are willing to put out to do it--after all, they want to keep living too. Most plausible evil PCs, it seems to me, are at some point going to go for their personal advantage and hope that the problem is solved by other means. "It has to be us" usually flows from some kind of sense of duty, or from a personal connection. Maybe there's a personal connection here but I don't see it yet.
Well, it could be that they dont trust anyone else to do it right. Evil comes in many forms, and it often has a big ego. Take, for example, a LE wannabe-dark-lord sorceror/Wizard PC. He he knows he's going to be the next Geb/Nex/Tar Baphon, and what kind of dark lord would he be if he couldnt stop a big rock from hitting a planet?
|
|
One thing to keep in mind is that there are a LOT of evil folk in Riddleport. It's ruler is evil. Evil pirates, smugglers, thugs, and murders walk the streets openly. A paladin or anyone who casts detect evil in Riddleport is going to detect a LOT of evil, but he won't necessarily see folk killing or burning or robbing folk. In Saul's case, if the PCs detect his alignment, have him do just what you say; that he's lead a life he's not proud of and that he's hoping to make amends, but that it's hard to stay on the straight-and-narrow in Riddleport, especially since survival here often means you have to be a jerk.In fact, if you set things up so that there seems to be a chance that Saul could be redeemed, that could be a cool angle for a paladin or other lawful or good character to latch onto. You can even allow that character to be successful in Saul's redemption, in which case he might confess to the PCs that he's caught up with the drow and that he doesn't know what to do to get out of the situation. In this case, you...
Well said, James. The adventure certainly provides a lot of info. I am planning on having Chapter 1 last at least 2-3 sessions to give my players a good introduction to their characters and the feel of the town.
It would be high metagaming if players only detected evil on Saul without just cause, so it shouldn't be too much of a worry in my group. My main concern is with Saul getting killed in the first chapter, whichh pretty much derails the rest of the adventure except the conclusion. Of course, at that point another Boss could step in as well, which just brings me back to your point about the background info!
Also, two fine NPCs to have help out the party in different ways. I especially liked introducing the mage as hired help.
As a side note, James: I really enjoyed how Sandpoint had names for streets. Is there a reason this wasn't done for Riddleport?
|
I really enjoyed how Sandpoint had names for streets. Is there a reason this wasn't done for Riddleport?
I honestly suspect that a fair number of names for Riddleport's roads couldn't be printed in a polite publication. That or the city's so disorganized and ill-planned that there aren't a lot of official names for the streets that have lasted through the years.
|
|
I honestly suspect that a fair number of names for Riddleport's roads couldn't be printed in a polite publication. That or the city's so disorganized and ill-planned that there aren't a lot of official names for the streets that have lasted through the years.
Hehe. I hadn't though of that, but your first point is good (as is the second, I mean, the residents can't even decide on names for districts or what is part of the city and what is not).
I was thinking it had more to do with fitting things on the map or time constraints.
|
Creative Director
|
As a side note, James: I really enjoyed how Sandpoint had names for streets. Is there a reason this wasn't done for Riddleport?
Time constraints, as suspected in other posts nearby. We were scrambling to put over 3 times the amount of product out that month than normal (all the Gen Con releases), and while Greg's original map turnover DID have road names, we simply didn't have the time to get those street names on to the final map. Maybe we'll get a chance to add them in and make a few more corrections to the map come time to do the Map Folio for Second Darkness...
After my experience with RotRL due to my excessive impatience and excitement to start it asap, I've come to agree with the various posts recommending delaying the start of an AP until after all issues have been acquired. Some of the chapters in that AP really did play on having various character concepts shine, and to just pick one as "the" type to aim for an entire AP based on one chapter came to feel foolhardy to me.
Having all of the issues would have significantly cut down my questions on the boards. Most of them would be answered down the line, and I could better plan for unexpected contingencies players could have taken.
I do relish the idea of naughty names for the streets. That makes wonderful sense to me.
|
|
As a side note, James: I really enjoyed how Sandpoint had names for streets. Is there a reason this wasn't done for Riddleport?Time constraints, as suspected in other posts nearby. We were scrambling to put over 3 times the amount of product out that month than normal (all the Gen Con releases), and while Greg's original map turnover DID have road names, we simply didn't have the time to get those street names on to the final map. Maybe we'll get a chance to add them in and make a few more corrections to the map come time to do the Map Folio for Second Darkness...
I can live with that, thanks James!
It speaks highly of Paizo that when things have to get cut for time constraints, it ends up being something as trivial as street names on a map. Very high quality!
One more thing; if you're looking to give the PCs allies they can trust and depend on, you need look no further than Samaritha Beldusk or Kwava; these two characters have roles to play in the next adventure as well, and should become allies the PCs can trust.
The betrayal aspect bothered me, but my problem is more on motivation. I just don't see a group of adventurers deciding after probably their first real fight to say "Let's put all this adventuring thing on hold and help this former criminal run a gambling house".
I know that I would not be motivated to work for Saul in almost any situation as a player, so I suspect I will have a hard time motivating my players to do the same.
BTW, if I can hook them for the gig, the rest of the adventure looks great.
|
The betrayal aspect bothered me, but my problem is more on motivation. I just don't see a group of adventurers deciding after probably their first real fight to say "Let's put all this adventuring thing on hold and help this former criminal run a gambling house".
The question is: What adventuring?
As I understand the AP take a step back from the old "adventurers sitting in a tavern and get hired by a dark-hooded figure" trope. Instead they just function fine with the idea of "everyday people taking up arms because there's no one els to do it." idea.
It's not that I don't see your point but I think that the SD companion gives a lot of ideas to integrate characters which have yet to become adventurers first place. And for non-adventurer types of characters Sauls offer may just be the opportunity they've waited for.
If your players prefer another approach maybe you could give them an incentive to contact Saul for other reasons (maybe some investigation for competitors/old enemies/authorities). In this case Saul's offer after the starting scene would give them just the possibility for their undercover activities.
|
Creative Director
|
The betrayal aspect bothered me, but my problem is more on motivation. I just don't see a group of adventurers deciding after probably their first real fight to say "Let's put all this adventuring thing on hold and help this former criminal run a gambling house".
I know that I would not be motivated to work for Saul in almost any situation as a player, so I suspect I will have a hard time motivating my players to do the same.
BTW, if I can hook them for the gig, the rest of the adventure looks great.
Although the adventure does expect the PCs to end up living at the Gold Goblin and being on retainer to Saul... that's only a framing device. If you and your players prefer a more traditional setup, then you can change things up easily enough; after all, Saul saw the PCs fighting, so when it comes time for him to need adventurers for the other missions, he can simply contact them and offer them a one-time reward for a one-time job. That "one-time" job should eventually turn into several jobs, as the PCs complete tasks for him and he likes how they work.
Sprinkle their Saul jobs with other adventures (perhaps running the set-piece adventure at St. Casperian's as an adventure not tied to Saul at all, or having them go on one of the many adventure hooks in the Riddleport gazetteer); the point of the adventure isn't really to turn the PCs into business owners as much as it is to introduce the main villain in an organic and somewhat surprising way.
|
|
Well, it could be that they dont trust anyone else to do it right. Evil comes in many forms, and it often has a big ego. Take, for example, a LE wannabe-dark-lord sorceror/Wizard PC. He he knows he's going to be the next Geb/Nex/Tar Baphon, and what kind of dark lord would he be if he couldnt stop a big rock from hitting a planet?
It's hard for me to understand why *these* evil people are strongly motivated to be the ones who save the world, but none of the other innumerable evil people are willing to put out to do it--after all, they want to keep living too. Most plausible evil PCs, it seems to me, are at some point going to go for their personal advantage and hope that the problem is solved by other means. "It has to be us" usually flows from some kind of sense of duty, or from a personal connection. Maybe there's a personal connection here but I don't see it yet.
That could be Jodah.
Also, keep in mind that evil people rarely believe they are actually bad guys. They usually believe that they are doing what must be done, or the ends justifies the means. Just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they don't want to be the hero.
Sprinkle their Saul jobs with other adventures (perhaps running the set-piece adventure at St. Casperian's as an adventure not tied to Saul at all, or having them go on one of the many adventure hooks in the Riddleport gazetteer); the point of the adventure isn't really to turn the PCs into business owners as much as it is to introduce the main villain in an organic and somewhat surprising way.
I like this idea a lot, I'm not sure if the players will bite into the whole move in with Saul thing so I'll play it by ear and if they don't this will give them some options.
I must agree with Mary that players tend to become angry when NPCs betray them. I think players can appreciate a well-timed betrayal that makes sense, but not a situation where trusted NPCs or the "good guys" jerk them around. It is very easy to discourage players this way.
Furthermore, I think the motivation for Saul is very lame. Yeah, in a "I'm a petty evil guy who does evil things" it makes sense. But it's not really necessary.
I think if Mary wants to run this issue at least, it's very easy to change things so that no betrayal occurs.
First, as part of the backstory, Saul wants to rebuild his fortune and does have revenge in mind, but he's not a moustache twirling villain. Or perhaps Saul is even a non-evil guy who is simply down on his luck. Saul meets some guy - an NPC you create - who is an agent of the drow, perhaps even a drow disguised in someway. He becomes Saul's partner and front the money. Saul runs the Gold Goblin, but he needs to payoff his silent partner. Bojask is hired by the partner and actually serves him, not Saul.
Second, the adventure runs as normal.
Third, near the end, it is the partner who determines the PCs need to go. He thinks they are dangerous to the drow's plans as they could help their patsy - Saul - get out of this. He sends Bojask to deal with the wererats, and then meets with the PCs (I'm glad I can finally meet you) and tells them Saul is in danger. Please go here and rescue him.
The adventure then proceeds as normal although they find and/or rescue Saul during the siege of the Gold Goblin. If you want, Saul is alive and grateful to be rescued. Or he could be dead - killed by his partner since he is no longer needed. Instead of fearing betrayal by Saul, the suspense comes from "who is this mystery partner?"
As for the other parts of the AP, I don't know until they come out. However, it's always possible to make the "betrayal" be a result of an infiltrator/disguised spy/whatever set up the PCs instead. Instead of being frustrated and angry with their erstwhile allies, it becomes a matter of foiling the doppleganger/faceless stalker/illusionist who is keeping them away as they try to "expose the traitor."
I must agree with Mary that players tend to become angry when NPCs betray them. I think players can appreciate a well-timed betrayal that makes sense, but not a situation where trusted NPCs or the "good guys" jerk them around. It is very easy to discourage players this way.
I think my player would handle betrayal fairly well, but the combination of weak motivation for the PCs followed by betrayal risks giving the impression of betrayal *by the GM* rather than by the NPCs. "You forced us to do this, then you screwed us over for cooperating." That's what I've critically got to avoid.
I like your suggested changes. But the first episode isn't my sticking point--the later ones, from the summary, look much worse--so I'm not going to do anything with Second Darkness until I see all of it.
Mary