I'm GM'ing CotCT for a party of 4, and we've just reached Part 3 of Seven Days to the Grave.
Our alchemist had a massive fight with our kineticist about what to do with Jolistina/Carowyn Manor (the alchemist wanted to ally with Joli and take the mansion for the party) which ended up with the kineticist nearly killing the alchemist.
As a result of this, the alchemist has now decided that as he no longer has faith in the party, he wants to betray the party and Cressida to the Queen, in revenge, but also as a double agent sort of deal, where he wants to then betray the queen and save the party later on.
This plan of his took me by surprise when he messaged me about it after the previous session, and I'm trying to think of a way to handle it that doesn't just derail the AP completely, as I'm a relatively newbie GM and don't want to lose the support of the pre-existing material that the AP gives.
Is there anyone here who has GM'ed/is currently GMing this who has had to deal with a similar sort of traitorous party member situation and has advice on how to handle it?
(edited because I did not read the OP thoroughly at first)
Tell him unless he lets the other players in on it (metagame-wise), there WILL be bad blood.
They WILL be butt-hurt and angry. Better still if the character offers to do this in game, but the rescue plan better be very well thought out and agreed-to by all.
As a side-note... Did everyone agree that PvP was an option in this game? If so, then so be it. If not, then that should be discussed and agreed to one way or the other to prevent this kind of behind the back "one person has fun at the expense of the others or the game itself."
Tell him to think about keeping this plan secret and how the betrayal may play out...
#1 He succeeds, other players defeated, characters maybe executed? He lives, game over, he is not invited to play again because all the other players hate him for what he did.
#2 He succeeds, other players defeated, characters maybe executed? He is tortured and executed because he has proven to be untrustworthy as a traitor, and why take a chance? Game over, he is not invited to play again because all the other players hate him for what he did.
#3 He fails, players defeat his betrayal, he is killed or kicked out of the party because they cannot trust him, he is not invited to play again because all the other players hate him for what he did.
A common end there for all options.
And even in case # that mardaddy suggests, there's no guarantee the alchemist "wins". Nobody likes a traitor, not even the people they go to with their betrayal. Why wouldn't the queen have the alchemist tortured? Surely, the queen would want to make sure he told her everything and isn't holding any more plotting against her back.
I would take the player(s) aside and talk about it as people.
This sounds more like a common problem for lots of fresh GM's and players where people haven't quite clicked that this is a team based hobby where the whole group (GM included) work together to tell a story.
You main goal here should be to make sure that the RP doesn't come at the cost of your groups fun.
If this is all fine with your group and everyone at the table are friends and happy with sneaky behind the back play then try you best to let it evolve naturally or speak to them as a group about how you want to run the campaign and this is taking it a bit off course.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be entirely appropriate for the alchemist to have lost faith in the party and turn against it.
It's probably not appropriate for the alchemist to continue to be a PC, in that event, however. If the player feels strongly - and you agree - that the PC would betray the party, then have it happen. But that player should roll up a new character and move the alchemist into an NPC role.
There's plenty of opportunity for a showdown with the traitor in later books - the Queen's allies are many.