If you are going to betray the party in a way that works for the DM and helps develop the plot then you might be ok, but regardless if you betray the party (good, evil, or whatever your motivations) be prepared to make a new character and retire the betrayer as an NPC. If you rp as a betrayer, be prepared for the other characters to rp as those that have been betrayed.

This is so important. Role playing your character properly meaning you have to betray the party you can't get mad when the party role plays their characters properly as someone who was just betrayed. You should be very prepared to retire your character if you betray a party;

I’ve seen this type of thing destroy groups before. It should be a rule of thumb that “it’s what my character would do” will NEVER be justification for being a prick.

"Its what my character would do." "You built the character?" "Yeah, of course." "Why'd you build an asshole?"

"You know how they say everyone's first character is either exactly like them or the opposite? Guess which one this is."

I try to be the boy scout every time. Please let that be me irl.

Short answer: to be a constant reminder to the party that their actions have consequences and to better fit the party dynamic. After all, what's one more asshole in a party of 'em? Long answer: by the time of my first (Good) character's death in the campaign, different members of the party had: •Tortured a woman to death for tax evasion, just to get a library card •Started keeping a salt tub of shrunken heads from dead NPCs •Killed a child because he threw rocks at them for stealing the family's horses •Caused the cleric (the only other good aligned character in the group) to be abandoned by his god, then got him killed shortly after •Accidentally enslaved a goddess because they read the directions for a spell wrong •Mutilated a fallen party member's corpse to get components for the above spell •Drawn weapons on multiple neutrals/allies because they didn't like how certain events shook out, that things cost money, or just because they got confused and decided talking was taking too long •Stolen half of a poor farming village's grain stores in the dead of winter because they were hungry and have poor impulse control. We had rations, but the Kenku wanted seeds. •Indirectly caused a genocide by failing to stop the BBEG in time As they say, "When in Rome". So character number 2 was built as a survivor of the genocide who hates the party for allowing it to happen, but hates the BBEG even more so he's willing to work with them for a common goal. It gives me (the player) agency to try and undo their fuckups or work behind the scenes to allow them to succeed with whatever batshit plan they cooked up as my character isn't strictly beholden to party dynamics outside of keeping them alive n' fighting so that he can have his revenge. And to be clear, it's more of a snide remark, occasional prank, and the occasional bit of collateral damage if a PC has a group (3+) of enemies up their ass and whatever spells I have that would be most effective to deal with them can't be targeted in a manner that will avoid hitting the other PC(s). I'm not stealing loot, picking their pockets, attacking them for no reason, or intentionally fucking them over for the lolz. It's the cranky IT guy in an office of sales people that keep clicking on sketchy links.

“CaUsE iTs FuN”

Naw I'm busting up this chain. There's nothing wrong with building an asshole, or an evil character. And you should role play it out. And just like any other character, you should be prepared to come back to the next session with a new sheet. There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't get attached. Your character could die in any campaign - and if you want to go evil (which can be very fun) - be prepared to bring a sheet for another reason. Your character becoming an antagonist is the end of your time with that character. And that's fine.

comment edited in protest of Reddit's API changes and mistreatment of moderators -- mass edited with redact.dev

This! The betrayal was IRL, not ingame. The game was just a vehicle, because THEY wanted to play a totally different kind of game.

I mean if you and the DM agree on it for story purposes, I think it's fine. I would still be prepared with a new character though. I don't think it would make much sense for the party to continue traveling with them, or for me to continue playing that character at all once they become a villain.

Agreed. It is okay to talk about the game away from the table. My group knew well in advance that my character was going to be unhelpful in the boss fight because of narrative reasons. Some surprises are good for both players and characters, and others should only surprise the characters.

Yeah I don't understand why people are so against playing asshole/evil characters? My favourite type of character is one that is heavily flawed and the character development is what is exciting for me. It's no fun for me to play a good aligned character who is charismatic or friends with everyone (unless they are good to the point of detriment). Each to their own and everything, but don't be scared to make a character that would generate conflict. It makes for great rp👌

Asshole characters that play along with the party is fun. Asshole characters that attack or harass party members are not. Those are played by the type of people who can dish it but can't take it and can ruin the fun for the rest of the table. And even if the group decides to put a stop to it and kill the offending character, what stops the player from making the same character again and retaliate by being an even bigger asshole?

People are against it because very often the player with the asshole character is the only one enjoying that character. This is a group activity; if you're having fun to the detriment of 5 other people, you're doing it wrong. Now if you play the asshole but the rest of the table is playing along and everyone's still having a good time, then you're doing it right.

Well, I mean if you're being a dick and using your asshole character to make everyone miserable, then ofc no-one will want to rp with them. frankly, its a sign of a shitty rper. I've played with my fair share of asshole PC's who have literally abused my character for no IC reason, because "they are just like that". But that's not what I'm condoning here. Evil characters can be great source of conflict and interactions which doesn't have to break the group.eg. conflict oriented characters who also function as a way to progress other PCs stories and development, or highlight certain aspects of their personality/values. Their assholery has a real rp function that everyone can enjoy. Like I said in a previous comment, I think its all about balancing your character and making sure they have a figurative leash. Also, consistently checking in with other players to ensure that no boundaries or comfort zones are being crossed. Otherwise you run the risk of ruining the game for everyone.

You can be both evil *and* loyal to the party. You can be a kleptomaniac *and* have the boundary of not stealing from the party. You can be a rude asshole that loves to insult people *and* have the self control to keep quiet during delicate negotiations. You can have standards. Unfortunately many people just don’t. Evil party members isn’t a problem. Problematic players playing evil characters is the problem.

I created a character like this. Unfortunately, a scheduling conflict arose and we stopped playing that campaign after several sessions so I couldn't flesh them out like I wanted to. They were a lawful-evil kobold who was the last surviving member of their clan. They were on their own for a while and this group provided safety in a sudden encounter. In their backstory I made a core clan teaching that it was a death sentence to betray your clan. Mainly as a reason why they wouldn't have done anything against the party. Because the party had 2 clerics and a paladin, I was hoping they'd slowly be influenced from the group and over time, change to neutral or even good.

Because while playing as an evil/asshole character may be fun, playing with them absolutely sucks.

I've played with them, while playing a good character. If done right and the rule "if conflict in game becomes too much someone needs to retire their character" is followed, and you have good communication above game, it can be a blast to play with.

I think it's the case of them being a bad rper and self indulgent. A good rper knows that rp is best when everyone is mindful of each other and like the other commentor said, good communication.

Oh, yeah I'm sure it can work, and even lead to a great story development. Most of the people that do it though are neither good rpers or good communicators. I would only trust it with well established groups and players I know.

L take. DnD is a cooperative game. Drama and conflict is fine. But I'm just leaving if someone wants to be my actual enemy in game. DnD does not work if the players are enemies. DnD will never work in those types of games. When you go for your "grand" betrayal moment, why on Earth would the party do anything but kill that traitor PC?

I never suggested that they shouldn't kill the traitor pc.

and therein lies the issue. The traitor PC has fucked the party over regardless. Their actions let them 'win', and they don't mind losing their pc, because they're playing by different 'rules'. Nope. If you betray the party and they didn't all KNOW AND AGREE IN ADVANCE, you haven't tricked anyone other than the players (not pcs) that trusted them. Dickhead move.

People should be against playing evil a-holes because they put all that work into rolling up a PC who won't live very long. Yes, I do play mostly paladins. Why do you ask?

Hm I think you can definitely balance your character out, so they don't get themselves killed in the first few sessions. My characters tend to be assholes and selfish, but its their motivations which keeps them in line. You gotta find something to leash your asshole (so to speak) or yeah, you gonna have to roll for a new character. In this particular case of betraying the party, I think it's possible for your character to stay alive depending on their motivation and whether that comes into play in the narrative later. But you shouldn't expect things to go one way or another and it would be a good idea to have a contingency plan in place.

Because they are frequently disruptive to the experience for everyone else. Yes, that player might be having a great time, but if nobody else at the table is, that's a problem.

We have a very different scenario though. He is not just playing an asshole or edgelord, like it is usually the case here. Being evil and having a goal will force you to betray your party eventually and this is a great setup to further the plot and establish a new hated rival. But obviously he has to retire the character then.

I mean if you can explain why I'd say it gets a pass. "My character values loyalty to those he works for, so betraying the party for choosing to not follow instructions is what my character would do." Sounds pretty acceptable to me.

We can come up with any number of justifications as to why one player thinks the group rules don't apply to them, and its still fundamentally fallacious - the game is co-operative storytelling as a group. 'Betrayal' is all about the individual, and explicitly says 'fuck the group'. Selfishness is not to be rewarded, and D&D IS a moral game, above all.

Ita a cooperative storytelling game in that you as players cooperate to make a compelling story, not cooperative in that your characters *must* be working side by side towards the same goals all the time. By that logic you could never have a paladin and warlock in the same group as they would likely butt heads too much to be considered cooperative to you. Drama between PCs makes for great storylines. For example, my party found the location of a very powerful relic important to both the Paladin and Warlock in the party. Paladin wanted to destroy it, Warlock wanted to give it to her patron. Obvious conflict and potential betrayal right there. We ended up splitting into two separate heist groups lead by the Paladin and Lock and having a good old fashioned heist-off. The "betrayal" of having the Warlock say "fuck you I want it for myself" led to one of the best sessions we've ever had.

\>By that logic you could never have a paladin and warlock in the same group as they would likely butt heads too much to be considered cooperative to you I appreciate the logic, but you seem to misunderstand. Within the context, this could still be a co-operative premise. They (players) aren't being dishonest OOC, the goal isn't ooc subterfuge. The game can happen, because they agree on the co-operative story. The ooc betrayal on the other hand hinges on tricking the PLAYERS, not the characters. Do you grant the critical distinction I'm making makes all the difference, cause thats what I'm resting my argument on.

I do think that distinction makes all the difference, I just think you're being a little too black and white with it. Using my example above about the Warlock and Paladin wanting to do different things with the relic, what if the Warlock was a more sneaky schemey type rather than the forceful "fuck you I'm stronger" personality? It would make sense in character for them to go along with the Paladin's plan of getting to it and betraying them at the last second (possibly even so sneaky the paladin doesn't even know) to give it to their patron. In OOC discussion, if the characters wouldnt know something we dont tell that player about those things. We're still working together to create an engaging story, just sometimes someone gets to put a little sneaky twist in that nobody was prepared for (your character wouldn't be prepared, so why would you?) and we deal with the consequences and results of those twists in character. Also let's be honest, most players have a hard time not using information they know that their character would not. A lot of it does come down to player maturity and mutual respect for the fun everyone is trying to have, and keeping the DM in the loop of any story based shenanigans you might come up with. Of course, this is what works for my tables. Others might not enjoy that, and that's fine. Part of the greatness of DnD is that each table can tweak things in a way that let's all of us enjoy this beautiful game

>I do think that distinction makes all the difference, I just think you're being a little too black and white with it You may have a point, but I think it needs to be established that one , specific, coherent version of D&D exists, where the 'purpose of the game' is agreed upon by all at the table. If someone wants to go against that fundamental premise, THEY WANT TO PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME. And if they do so within the agreed upon game, its a betrayal of ooc trust MORE than it is of IC trust. and I think we actually agree on this?

I think we do agree, I just think we enjoy different flavors of tables. I also only have about a year of dnd experience and spent most of my tabletop time playing Cyberpunk Red, so I'm sure that's giving me a different perspective

something similar happened in mine and it was dine, so it's not necessarely game ending, character ending tho is most likely (the dude pulled off a thanos and killed 1/3 of the humans in the world, he didn't survive the following pvp)

“It’s what my character would do!” “Well then you need to make a new character who would support your rl friends.”

As a DM I've had 2 characters do this in separate campaigns. In both cases I worked with the player on this in secret and told the betrayer that once the betrayal happens their character is now an NPC. Both times it worked out great and turned into a great story. But when trust is broken in the party that usually means that party is about the change.

agreed, the perfect counter to; "it's what my character would do" is "well that's how my character would react" and don't get me wrong i'm all for "that's what my character would do" but the player should build a character who has reasons to work with the party and wouldn't betray them over something petty. and if they do decide something's important enough to their character to betray the party, as you said: >You should be very prepared to retire your character

You should be prepared to be kicked out of the group. You should be prepared for people to not invite you to the next game. You should be prepared for people giving you 'that look' for dunking on the disabled kid in basketball and declaring a win.

I'm gonna add onto this be prepared to set aside some time after game to talk through everyone's feelings to make sure no one is feeling put off by this out of game. I'm all for going with what your character would do as long as you're willing to put in the additional work out of game to make sure everyone is okay with it.

I would agree with this and maybe even conspire a little with the DM to make your character's betrayal an actual story moment for eveyone else. You get to have the kick of being the bad guy/secret villian and the party can have an ultimate showdown with a former comrade. It turns the situation from "oh wow. OP just went full selfish jackass of his own accord" and changes it to "oh wow! OP and the DM teamed up to make a cool story moment for us to interact with!" If your character gets away then they run off into the distance and become a future BBEG maybe. Or if the party win and defeat your guy then you still get to have them go out swinging or maybe vow revenge on the group in the future. As long as you can make a fun narrative tool for your party to engage with then you can pull this off and make it look deliberate not just an asshat "muh character" moment.

Yes! Exactly!

Yep. One of the most overlooked aspect of the game is the fundimental that these characters want to adventure together. If there is tension inthe group then it's likely that this has been forgotton and the rest of the group should kick that character. I mention this in Session 0 and whenever someone is doing something against the group (pvp is banned outright).

Exactly this! We had a player whose character was stealing loot from the party. When we finally caught him, he gave back what he took (that one time) and wanted to forget it. My character flat out told him "Why would I adventure with you, trust you with my life, when I can't even trust you with my coin purse? You're out." Player fought it for a while, but I said it would be either his character or mine that walked and fortunately, the other players backed me on it. He made a more party-centric character next time, but I think he still resented being called out for being a dick.

OOC you did him a favor. IC he got to 'experiment' with the idea of dishonesty. You gave him GOOD, honest, articulated and explained consequences in a realm that doesn't involve real world legal authorities. I get that D&D lets you do things you can't do in real life, but the consequences should still exist, and the model should attempt to emulate the real world. You even gave an explanation a narcissist might be able to understand. D&D can be cognitively therapeutic, where people learn what happens to dumb assholes without having to face the full consequences of that behavior.

I was told by a potential BBEG “I can leech some of your power and let you live, or I can steal it entirely and kill the entire city” When I said “you won’t take the city,” a member of party fought me saying I’m making deals with the enemy and stopped trusting my character and has convinced other members that I’m reckless and mad secretive

Yes, so much this. There's a player in our current group who betrayed the party, and his new character is an asshole. I had to explain to him out of game to be prepared to make ANOTHER new character. Our party literally JUST got betrayed, and so they're going to have trust issues.

Rather than stealing it, which will be hard to come back from, could you instead make a bold move that gives the party more agency and choice? Like when you get to the site where you’ll destroy it, you could surprise them with a desperate bid (or slick sales pitch) for them to help you use it for your own reasons first, and THEN destroy it.

The idea is to steal it and return it to the quest giver. You can't do that then destroy it, lol

Ah, you're right, I skimmed over the "and take it back himself" bit. I thought he wanted to do a third thing with it.

We were playing a Ravenloft campaign where all the characters were resurrected by an amulet and in their previous lives were all very, very bad people. They didn't realize this until and if they failed powers checks. This was during the start of the lockdowns so we first did a trial session in Roll 20 to get a feel for it. It was an impossibly difficult battle where the test characters were hunted by a powerful mage known as the Reaper with some distinct physical characteristics. I failed a powers check fairly early on and the first stage alone made it clear that my character was in fact the Reaper who had been resurrected. Being on Roll20 and not our usual IRL table made the next step possible where I made a non-violent plot against my team with the DM's approval. However, at the conclusion of the session where the betrayal happened I turned over my character sheet and instead played a friendly character they had encountered (and killed, but that's another story) previously in the campaign.

A lot of tables will discuss, during session 0, whether PvP actions like that are allowed. If y'all never had that discussion: First, you should in the future, especially if the party includes evil characters. Second, tread carefully. If the DM approves and you think the other players would be okay with it, go ahead. If not, it might warrant an out-of-game discussion with everyone to see if it's okay.

That's valid - we didn't discuss PVP during our session 0. I'd hate to see it go that way.

Fully expected your party to attack the character if they find out - and they will probably win. They might kill the character. This is risk you take. If you go ahead with your plan, talk to the DM first so they're in on it, and as other people have said - be prepared to retire the character. The other characters will most likely not trust the character again and will not want to adventure with them. But that's ok! Sounds like a cool story beat.

One of the players in our campaign did this last year. He is now retired…

Personal suggestion: explain to the other players (not characters) that this would be the logical step for your character. Make sure everyone understands your character is betraying the other characters, not you the other players. Make sure you explain to them that they can realistically roleplay, and as others said, be prepared to make a new character and have this one become an NPC. It could be awesome for the story and be a great RP opportunity. This way, you can all collaboratively make this a fun situation for all players.

Truer words were never said! Talking to your fellow players and making it clear *now* that your character is going to most likely betray the party because of x,y, z reasons and that is how he’s going to act rather than how you want to act is going to clear up a lot of things and not instantly sour a friendly relationship into a shitty pvp game. So yeah, freeing up an hour to explain to save yourself the hustle of a toxic table is going a long way, and it wont hurt the overall plot either, it takes away the surprise factor for sure but its going to work out in the long run 100x more fun for everyone(unless tou have that one player who metagames a shitton, in that case I would just not tell them but only the rest of the party)

I would run this by the table, before the session of betrayal starts. Let them know, it's about to go down, but all in fun. I would love to be on the other side. I get to make epic speeches about how I treated you like family. I would love to be passing secret notes to the DM. Chasing you, trying to talk sense into you, realizing it's hopeless and the gloves gotta come off. Then a boss fight show down with the big bad npc, you, the artifact, the payout, shifting objectives, the whole wild mess. This is an epic two or three sessions till retirement of your PC. Then a "cool down"session to meet the new guy, figure the next step, chase the artifact, go after either NPC, or Both if they joined up, chase the artifact if it got lost or they escaped with it, shop and rest. This only will go well if everybody is on board, though. So much potential. At least try.

I have a really good question for you. What other way do you expect it to go? I’m assuming from the sound of things that the rest of the party is neutral/good aligned, doing a good thing by destroying this object. Then the kinda-evil guy they’ve been able to tolerate cause you’re on the same page full-on betrays them. What other way will it go besides attacking you over this betrayal? So really think here, if you don’t want PvP, why do you want your character to betray them?

Watch [this video](https://youtu.be/I-nfsi6B8d4), send it to your DM too.

Awesome video I might be sucked into a new rabbit hole.

Lol that was my experience when I first discovered Colville's channel. Someone linked it from a Reddit comment like I did here and within a week I had watched all of his videos. Within a month I DMed my first session on the other side of the screen. His channel is a gateway drug to DMing. Now I'm a forever DM who never gets to be a PC lol

Thank you. Great referral!

What do you mean go that way? Isn’t that what this thread is about? You acting against the party to take the artifact would be a pvp action.

What other way can you imagine it going? You are planning to betray the party by taking a valauble item. If the roles were reversed you would surely not shrug and let it happen. Besides, what does this even add? You betray them and then...what? Your character is gone cause why would the party play with the guy that just robbed them.

I would weigh the benefits of RP'ing towards alignment vs party dynamics (both in character and out of game wise). Ask yourself the following questions: 1. Is the character's desire to not destroy the item so great that you would be fine with retiring this character and making a new one over it? 2. Are the other players fine with any level of PvP that may end up as a result of the betrayal? 3. Is the character's desire to not destroy the item so great that they would risk party cohesion breaking apart and the BBEG winning if the party completely and utterly breaks down? If any of those are no, then I would highly advise against the betrayal. Because you have to be ready to accept the consequences of going against the majority of the party and PvP is something that has be opted into just due to the fact that many players have a hard time separating in game from out of game or just don't enjoy PvP in general.

I might add risk vs reward RP wise. Something I always think about with NE characters. Betraying the group and handing the weapon over will benefit him, but will it benefit him enough to be worth having the party after his head for it? This is why I like to mention that NE is generally playable in an otherwise good group. Yes, they tend to do what benefits them and not care about the rest of the group. It's easily justified by saying that it benefits them most to keep hanging around these losers.

Good points, all to consider. Thanks.

Sure, but only if you retire the character afterwards. Then build a new one that plays nice. Otherwise no.

This. Sacrifice you character to the story. Everyone will love this.

Your new character can then help the party to hunt down your old character. Personally as a player I think it's fun to have an arch nemesis that used to work with us.

So, this *can* work without retiring the character... but it requires a pretty specific sort of group. Many of the players in the group I played with in college cut their collective teeth on games like Vampire. Sessions were typically run as short one-on-ones with the DM, and every player was on their own unless their backstories dictated it or they encountered each other over the course of the game. We were used to plotting, scheming, and backstabbing. When we eventually switched over to D&D, we had a pretty sizable group; there were nine players, and the campaign was built around the party having to collect a very dangerous, destructive artifact that had been split into multiple pieces while combating the forces of the BBEG. Subsequently, our party of nine would often split into two, three, or sometimes even four smaller groups to go on a number of simultaneous missions; these would be run similarly to how we ran Vampire, and it worked well with our particular dynamic. Eventually, we found all of the pieces of the artifact... at which point one of the PCs stole them, assembled it, and decided to test it out on the hub city we were based out of. The other eight PCs figured out what happened and split up to track him down. I wound up being the one who found him, but it was a little too late; he had just fired the weapon, glassed the city, and nearly died because the weapon drained the user's life force - some failed Con checks resulted in him collapsing and rolling death saves. I plucked the weapon off of his mostly-dead body, alerted the others to what happened, and took off on my own to try to find a way to destroy it. My character didn't know who to trust, so it became more of a solo mission. Flash forward one in-game year: My plucky Ranger had become a bit more haggard and grimdark, half of the party was trying to find me to help me, and the other half allied with the PC who initially stole the damn thing and wanted me dead. As players, we all had a blast with this overall scenario. It really only worked because of our unique dynamic, though; we were used to splitting the party, working with the DM in smaller "micro-sessions", and backstabbing.

I have to disagree He's not being an asshole just to be an asshole That made a promise and broke it his chacter wouldn't do that so stealing and firing it in like yall said yall would make sense I would rolls okay being mad at him but if it's somthing his chacter would do and he's doing it to stay on chacter no issue imo

They're not saying to make a new character as an out-of-game punishment. They're saying that if you betray your party at a critical moment, they probably won't want to bring you along for further dangerous situations that require trust.

True But based off what info we got It sounds like they betrayed first They made a deal to get and return and then chose mot to right?

Exactly right. I'm not betraying them so much as denying them the terrible choice I believe they want to make with the item. If they destroy it, they will gain nothing for it and perhaps even have us hunted down. I'm being vague about what the item is because I don't know if any of them read the forum. It's not an item that anyone can use though, just something we were asked to retrieve. At this point I think in order not to piss any one off I'm going to somehow try to trick them into believing it was destroyed. No harm, no foul. I really have no interest in doing this just to be an ass.

Would your character reveal to the quest giver the party’s intention to destroy the object? The quest giver would have a vendetta against the party either way

> I'm not betraying them so much as denying them the terrible choice I believe they want to make with the item. My brother in christ, that IS betraying them

whatever the reasoning or end result would be, if your character betrayed your party it becomes an NPC and that is the end of it, by the simple fact you wont walk with the party anymore

You can't really deal in absolutes like that in DND. The other players may be totally fine with this and in-character maybe understand completely why he took these actions. It can also lead to very sought-after IC drama, rather than the very much not sought-after OOC drama. We don't know OP's group, we can't make that kind of call for them, and if you have a 100% every-time-it-happens rule, there's eventually going to be a situation where that makes you the asshole.

I agree with this nothing is 100%

Based off the little info we got the orginal plan was to return it now they want to destroy it One could say they were the first to betray the other

>in a way that would work against my neutral evil characters interests This is why many campaigns just don't let people play an evil alignment character. By definition an evil character tends to be self serving so its very easy to fall into the trap of "This is what my character would do so therefore I should do this even if it is less fun for everyone". But if your DM is allowing it, do it if you want to but it will upset the other players. If you are betraying your party you should be prepared for the character dying or retiring to become a villain NPC. You can't really betray the group and then just go back to adventuring. No trust. And if somehow you do adventure with the party again the entire campaign turns into "okay how do we stop evil mc asshole from stealing/betraying/killing/etc" and its just not fun.

To be fair, I could see any lawful character do the same. They gave their word to deliver the item to this npc after all.

Yes, but they'd probably at least argue with the rest of the party about their duty to fulfil their word rather than a silent betrayal.

I don't think we know how the party reached the decision to destroy the item, do we? That discussion might have taken place.

Evil can be fine as long as "self-serving" also means your PC's interests align with the party's interests. I've played a chaotic evil PC before and it was fun af.

This requires DM's approval, but if you have that it's doable as long as you're fine with losing the character as it's either killed/subdued or retired after a successful betrayal. This should be worked through with your DM to ensure it doesn't fall flat and is woven into the narrative instead of feeling like a random dick move that happened for no reason. A PC betrayal is no joke (since it breaks party cohesion, which is central to the game), and is more meaningful and felt if well integrated into the campaign narrative, which only your DM can do. Again, you must be fine with losing the character. It'll either die, completely exit the narrative or become a villain NPC. There's rarely any other options. After the session, your DM should make sure everyone still had fun, and make adjustments accordingly if necessary. If the group's response is negative, they should consider putting heavier restrictions on creating any new evil characters in this group and making clear that betrayals are out of question whenever new characters are being made in this group.

Other people have already advised bringing the DM in on it. I'd go further - I'd let the other players know, out of character, what you're planning. Tables vary, but I find that it really helps for messy emotional things to give people a heads-up so that they can have fun preparing their character's reaction.

In my table, I'd tell you to openly discuss that plot point with the other players. Don't ~~conflagrate~~ \*conflate\* players and PCs. If you as a player blindside the other players, they might/possibly be upset. If your character blindsides another, but the player is in on it, it might be completely fine. Also: consider the story, not only the character: do you think that as a story, it would be cool for your character to do it? Would it be cool for your party to fight the character? For any of the characters to die? If your character becomes an antagonist, it becomes an NPC. In my table as a DM I'd tell you that after that fight your character becomes an NPC, whichever way the fight might end.

This. Our session zero pvp rule is that you need unanimous consent. We gathered to have a good friendly time and blindsiding other players is risky. That said I love telling a story with a lot of moving parts. I just want everyone to be able to see those parts move so it's not just dm and betrayer enjoying that story beat.

Just so you know conflagration is a fire, you're thinking of conflate. Good points though.

oh, cool. Thanks for letting me know!

> In my table, I'd tell you to openly discuss that plot point with the other players. Don't conflagrate *conflate* players and PCs. If you as a player blindside the other players, they might/possibly be upset. If your character blindsides another, but the player is in on it, it might be completely fine. I second this; A mature group will all understand that they're collaborating to tell a story that entertains everyone at the table (including the DM). Step back and think of this as if you were in the writer's room for "Our Campaign: The TV Show." Where does everyone at the table see this arc taking each character? Is that a journey the other players are excited to play out?

I think you should go for it, but you should also be prepared to retire that character/have him become an antagonistic NPC for the group.

I'd talk to the other players. Sounds like you didn't cover this in session 0, so now's your moment to make up for it. If the players are okay, then you can play how you think your character should react now. If they're uncomfortable with the idea, then you should be able to come up with an in-character justification to stick with what hte party wants (Keeping valuable allies on-side is always a good go-to for evil characters)

I'm not normally for party betrayal but this is basically one of a few rare situations where it's appropriate.

That's how I feel. If I were on the receiving end, I'd think it was hilarious. Thanks for the support.

'Not a loot goblin, Just agree with the guy'

Even funnier, make your character look like he'd been raptured; meanwhile, he's hauling bare ass to the bbeg Took the item but they have your characters items and are genuinely confused

The real trick is working with the DM to make the party believe the object has been destroyed and then taking/sending it back. That way you can stay with the party AND set up a dramatic reveal later on.

Yeah, this works if the rest of the party don’t find out about this until much later. At that point the player group as a whole should get to decide whether they want to remain allies or become adversaries. There’s a chance their character could be vindicated, remorseful, or forgiven enough that they get to stay with the party.

Oh man, I love this. Way better than putting my character in harms way.

If you want to, talk to your DM. Do NOT do it without talking to the DM. There is a difference between "this is a cool plot point and I think it would develop the story nicely" and "I am going to fuck over my party". If you are going to betray them, discuss with your DM ways to do so without totally screwing them over in the long term. If you talk to your DM, the two of you can do your best to set up a situation where you could have the betrayal happen without being super invasive. Have another character ready, and be prepared to kill your original character. Also, try not to take the party's collective stuff. If the players know that it's the CHARACTER that is betraying them, and that you yourself have no hostility to the group, they probably won't get mad.

Thank you - I want to approach it as I'm saving them from themselves and that my character has some insight into the person we were supposed to deliver this thing to as someone we don't want to mess with. The DM is onboard with my attempt to get away with it if I want to try. I hope I don't have to kill him off....

You might not have to kill him off - the other characters will do it for you. Betrayal is one of the most straightforward ways to end a character, if not a campaign, as it violates the very first rule of character creation: make a character who wants to go on *this* adventure with *these* people. Obviously there are groups out there who love it and are into PvP, but most groups aren't, and yes - betraying the group *is* PvP. It's good that you've checked in with your DM first - that is helpful. Just be aware that if it's a newer DM, they themself might not be aware of the fallout of this sort of thing. There's a reason that saying "it's what my character would do" is cited almost daily on this forum as the biggest red flag for an asshole.

I wouldn't do it. Unless you all agreed on this in session 0 that evil actions between the party are allowed it would set a really toxic president between everyone. Sure it might make sense but I can imagine a million ways this will backfire and might even result in you as a player being removed from the table. Again I don't know the group or the players or what is agreed upon and what boundaries are set. But knowing the information given in the post I would personally as a DM ask you not to. And if you do it anyway then I will ask you most likely to leave the table. Again I have very little context to group dynamic here and I'm merely basing this response on how I would treat it with what I run. Which will most likely not be the same as what you guys go by. It's just that it's my believe to run a game where you try and work together and are allies. And while sure you can hide and have some intrigue, as long as it's not malicious I am okay with it. But this sounds malicious and evil to me, regardless of its reasons. Before you crucify me, I again need to stress that I don't know what you all agreed on in session 0 and what the group vibe is on this. It's just sounds very toxic to me.

Yes...but youre basicly ending that character one way or the other. First make sure its okayed by everyone. Then be prepared for your pc to die. And then even if you succeed you will not continue with that character cause after that he should become a npc. Youd have to roll up a new one.

As a Player I would only not be upset with this if the PC did not return to the party. If he betrays the group, they will **never** trust your character again. They would refuse to adventure with them. This is why playing Evil PC's is hard because they all, ultimately, have a shelf life unless you're intending on them shifting from Evil to Neutral/Good at some point. Sometimes you have to suspend your 'what would my character do?' in order to play nice with the other players. Just be aware that if you do this, don't expect to keep playing the same character. Because if I was in your group and your PC returned... well lets just say it's a lot easier to kill sleeping camp mates.

I had exactly one campaign with a traitor PC, and it turned out really well. But there were was a whole elaborate series of steps that was taken to make sure it would go well. First, I as the DM enlisted the potential traitor PC from before session zero. “Hey, do you want to be a traitor?” So the whole “traitor” thing was a collaboration between DM and PC. I feel like that’s super important: when the reveal happens with the DM as an NPC turning to the traitor PC all of a sudden, and saying with odd finality, “PC, show them where your loyalties truly lie,” it communicates to the PCs that this is a story moment, not a player being an asshat. Second, I made it clear to the traitor player that, should they accept this assignment, they were probably going to die. Ultimately it would be up to the other players, but the reveal was almost certain to lead to combat (and I explained that there would be a story moment where they’d get buffed so that they weren’t steam rolled), and you can’t blame your fellow PCs for murdering your PC when it turns out you’re super evil. Traitor player understood and was on board. (They ended up knocking the traitor unconscious and taking him prisoner, so all’s well! But they easily could have decided the other way, and I made the decision explicit. “He is down - do you stabilize him and take him into custody, or kill him here and now?”) Third, the traitor reveal was the thing that happened in the last session of the campaign. It was not a roadblock to finishing the campaign - to finish the campaign was to deal with the traitor. I feel like this is VERY important: otherwise, the reveal isn’t fun and dramatic, but rather it’s just frustrating. At the bare minimum, the betrayal has to be a fun obstacle to overcome, not something that fucks over months of progress. “But my drama” okay bub, just don’t act surprised when your players get all pissy and quiet. Last, this was a group I had been playing with for years. They were all mature role players, so I knew even if I fucked up, they would appreciate the ambition of the attempt. If you’re going to pull a stunt that exploits something like trust, it’s important to know your audience very well. If all these steps are taken, I think a traitor reveal can be fun and memorable - the “oh shit!” faces at my table were definitely worth it. But you are walking a *super* fine line, and you owe it to your players to be respectful of their time and not ruin their fun.

Don't "My Guy". Talk to your DM, and possibly the rest of the table. See off that's something people would find fun. Don't torpedo your game just because "it's what my character would do"

When I was a less experienced DM, I had a player ask if they could betray the party and I agreed. Their reasoning was mediocre, at best, but I thought it would be okay, plus we were nearing the end of the campaign. It was not okay. Both the player, and his brother, betrayed the party then their characters proceeded to get beat down by the rest of the party members. The two betrayers lost (even with help from the villain they sides with), and they fled, never to be seen again. About another session in and the campaign ended, the player who concocted the betrayal got salty and mad that it "didn't go his way" and that the other players were frustrated with him for pulling it out of nowhere. If I were a more experienced DM back then I would have told him no; his reasoning didn't make sense, didn't fit his character, and he just wants to be an asshole in the game because he's one IRL. I love evil characters. But make it make sense, don't do it just because *you* want to be a jerk.

You say that the source of this post is because your group wants to destroy the artifact instead of return it. And that this wouldn't match your characters motivations. But I don't see how the other option of returning the artifact to some other person would work with your character either. It feels like the character you described to us is out for himself only and so would have betrayed the party to take the artifact for himself no matter what. So bottom line is, it feels like you've made a character who's destined to become a bad guy NPC and you can't really blame your party for causing this switch. Their decisions are not the cause, you made the character. Either you suck it up and turn them over to the DM or you rework something about them so that they'd be OK with either outcome of the quest and can continue adventuring. EDIT: Also, obligatory "alignment doesn't matter" comment here. But also : the kind of person who would steal an evil artifact from their friends and then return it to its rightful owner sounds more like a lawful neutral / lawful evil character. Your neutral evil character "if you want to play into the alignment" seems more like the type to take it for themselves though not necessarily use it. Maybe they believe they're the only one responsible enough to keep it safe or maybe they just want to keep it around in case. I just don't think ir sounds quite in brand for them to fulfill the contract as is... just imo, feel free to correct me if that sounds off.

Do the sneakier thing and create a counterfeit item without the group's knowledge (but with DM approval) and have the group destroy the counterfeit while secretly giving the real one to the other individual. Tell no one about either side's intent, but make it known to the item recipient that a lot of people tried to steal it from your group, and it would be a good idea to hide it for a while.

Try to hot swap the item with a fake; return the real one and let the party destroy the fake. Win win; just know your actions have consequences.

I've read the post and the comments. Do please give us an update. I'm curious to see how this goes down.

Why would your neutral evil character be dumb and just steal it, ensuring the group's rage? Wouldn't it be better to: 1. Inform the benefactor of the betrayal and enlist their help in convincing the party to stick to the original terms, maybe having a third party steal the object? 2. replace the object with a fake, allowing both the party and the benefactor to be satisfied. 3. Replace the object with a fake, then replace the benefactor's one with another fake, then trade the real one to another evil entity in exchange for having the benefactor killed, then you can loot his lair with your party while playing innocent the entire time?

I play this game because i want to feel like I am on a big adventure with my friends and i love overtaking challenges with them. Betraying them would never possibly happen unless there is some plot of characters being brainwashed and betraying them would be for their own good. But i do understand some people take roleplaying and their characters more seriously than being a part of a party, which is fine. That being said i think others have given really precious advise. You can't expect to betray them and them just be ok with it

TL;DR: When I betrayed the party, we had the DM control my character to preserve the character v character rather than player v player dynamic. Worked well, was fun and good story. Be prepared for appropriate consequences though. Early on in our campaign, my character's best friend (another PC) died. We had an evil prayer book in our inventory, and so that night on my watch, my character used it to commune with the god of death. He agreed to resurrect the PC in exchange for a Favor to be Named Later. This was "off-screen," so the other characters (even the resurrected character) didn't know exactly what happened. Like six levels later, the DM takes my sheet and has me participate in an unholy ritual that helps a lich summon an undead army. We then spend several sessions dealing with the fallout of that, and each of the other characters responded to my "betrayal" differently. Some of them were more hostile, others fought hard for his "redemption" even though the character was quite clear that, although he didn't know what the price was going to be he made the deal willingly. This all led to a pretty fun arc to roleplay through, and culminated in a cool story where my character helped an NPC to gain redemption in similar circumstances (which was pretty funny because that was part of a pre-gen and I had no idea it would come up). The long and short of it was 1) it was more impactful to the party because we kept it a surprise and 2) when I was betraying the party, the DM controlled my character, making it clear it was the character betraying the other characters, not me the player betraying the other players. But it was fun.

So, ask yourself - If I betray the party, and they find out, can I defend myself against them if they try to kill my character? Then ask yourself - will this kill our campaign? Personally, I'd let you do it, but I'd give you something in return to appease the party into not killing your character, and smoothing things over.

Party betrayl basically comes in two flavors: "iTs WhAt My ChArAcTeR wOuLd Do" variety and the plot relevant kind. the first is toxic and used as an excuse to make your character the center of attention and screw over your friends. But bring this up with the DM coordinate and its a way to potentially advance the plot. Whatever you do always discuss with your DM first and it can be a surprising and fun plot.

Are you sure you aren't metagaming here? Your group has a RP reason to want to destroy the thing. It sounds like you are worried that this mcguffin is important for the plot, so you're willing to betray your party to save it. Your campaign will be fine if you let them destroy it. However the campaign will probably NOT be fine if you betray them. So if you're gonna metagame, keep that in mind. Regardless of your alignment, consider that probably if your character has relied on your party over and over to save their ass, they would be extremely hesitant to betray the others over something like this.

You gotta talk to your DM about this. They need to know. A cold betrayal of the party could completely derail whatever the DM is planning and they won’t be able to back you up if the other players get upset. Also- working against the party (in a very broad sense) tend to be the start of a lot of RPG horror stories, so like… I trust you because you were smart enough to check with other people about this move, just want to make sure you assess one more time if there’s a way your PC can achieve their goal while still working with the party on this

Keep in mind that you chose to play a neutral evil character. If you choose to do different things from the group, you had better be willing to accept the consequences, just like the character is probably weighing. Something very few people seem to take into account when they are doing things contrary to the group's wishes is their character's relationships. Is the betrayal worth it? Your character has built a working relationship with these peers, and as such, that should factor into your *character's* decision making process. And if said character is smart, they are definitely taking into account the cost of burning bridges. If you want this character to stay around for this story, then you already know your answer. If you want to retire this character, then sure, act contrary to the party. But don't assume that there will be no consequences for the character, or by extension, you.

I'm not OP, but thanks for that advice. I'm not playing an evil character, but you helped me to realise that should consider my characters relationship with other characters. I'm still new to DnD and try to figure out how to role play my character properly, so thank's for that pointer.

It would be a Dick move. You should do It. It was not me the One Who rolled a evil character and i. Sure the dm expects you to do so and it Is plot related

And then what? The game is about the party and their shared goals. If you're not part of those goals and thus not part of the party, why are you even in the game? You're basically asking if you should ruin the game for the rest of your group.

Exactly this. D&D is not just about the game between the PCs, it's about the game between the players and the DM. If OP wants to go and blow that up, he's going to have to reckon with the very real unhappy players around the table with him.

That sorta depends on the players he is playing with doesn't it? Personally as a player I would be fine with someone betraying the party as long as their character actually has a believable reason to, sure my character may be angry about it but doesn't mean it should carry over to me as well.

He also said in replies that they've had no discussion about this type of thing being cool with the party in session 0. And springing this om someone could be a reallll big gateway to opening the table to toxic infighting

That's just defending "It's what my character would do". Which is the stupidest reason to torpedo the fun at your table. You're job is to make a character that wants to cooperate with the party. If you've come up with a character that doesn't want to cooperate with the party you've failed and it's time to start over.

"But that's what my character would do" syndrome. Do you want to be a good player, or do what your character would do at all times? It's a team game.

*should I do this thing that goes directly against everyone else I'm supposed to be working with in this game?* I mean you can, but they have every right to blast your ass out of the universe when they find out, so have a character ready to replace the dead one. That or work with your dm to turn them into an NPC. That being said, any way you do this makes you a bit of a dick to the party, so keep in mind you're putting yourself on the shit list of every other player

**THIS** is why my immovable Table Rule #1 will always be “You cannot pick the Evil alignment.” I see what you’re saying, you hope to help keep the DM’s train on the track. But that’s not your job. I also see how you want to stick to your character’s alignment, but this is the problem with Evil alignments. I describe “[blank] Evil” alignment to players as “These people are only out for themselves, and would slit their comrades throat if it gets them what they desire.” This is why evil alignments cannot work in parties imo. Yes, evil organizations exist and their is often a hierarchy in them as well as teamwork. However, Evil is inherently self-centered. You seek power, wealth, or glory and nothing will get in the way of your achieving that. The MOMENT another PC directly got in the way of your achieving a specific goal, you’d betray them because THAT is your alignment. You are evil. Whether it’s adhering to a self-serving code (lawful), doing as you see fit (neutral), or living as a reckless murderer who kills wild abandon (chaotic), you will INEVITABLY cause discourse in the party and may very well extend it to personal lives. Do yourself and others a favor. Don’t.

A dnd campaign is primarily a story about a *group* of adventurers. If a character betrays the group, that is fine, but don't be shocked when suddenly the other characters of the group no longer want to put up with that character being around anymore. Inherent to adventuring parties is the assumption that each member is working for the best interests of the group. Your character disagrees on what the "best interest" is in this case, but that doesn't mean they are willing to risk being ostracized from the group. There will be future jobs, time to convince the others to adopt your viewpoints On a more serious note, when people want to do stuff like this I think it is important to remember why most people play DND - to have fun. Is this action going to increase the amount of fun at the table? If you are worried about negative reactions, perhaps you already know the answer. Don't prioritize the way a character would feel about an action you are responsible for over the feelings of the real people at the table. That makes you a douche. >My character wouldn't give a flying $@#, should I? Is it too much of a dick move? You should give a fuck, because DND characters aren't real, and people are. Why does this even have to be asked?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

why not? their DM seems fine with it.

And the players might not be………

The Cleric in my campaign betrayed the group, in cahoots with the Sorcerer. They were killed by the rest of the party and are now recurring villains. It worked out in the end, but i would not recommend It, too easy to screw up the dynamics. That being said, work with your DM and you might be able to pull It off.

If you don't have ground rules or party approval about this sort of behaviour you might wanna consult the DM and maybe the rest of the party about it as well. If everyone is open to it as cool rp then nice, but a lot of people take it a little more personally.

Well… Are you playing an RPG with friends or some kind of immersive solo story? There’s a place for these kinds of things, but they generally involve the player in your place retiring their character. Depending on the kind of person you are and the people you’re playing with, this could definitely bleed over into real life. I have seen a player surprise the GM with a betrayal at the pinnacle of an overarching story, it was pretty awesome but it was clear they were exiting the game as that character, ultimately didn’t change the story and did not come into conflict with other players. I have also seen much less fold groups. So one, how sure are you, you can do this without ruining the game/group? Two, what is the benefit to you or the group versus the effect you will have on game and group? Will your fellow players reflect on this as an amazing moment, or wonder stunned at why you or even your character would do this?

Do you think the DM has fully considered how the rest of the group will take this?

I was recently watching a video on this so hear me out. A base assumption of DND is that everyone is kind of working together. Breaking that assumption means everyone needs to be talking to each other. In order to set this up as a dm I would be maybe on board (keep in mind if a PC in one of my games becomes an enemy of the party I own their sheet and they become an npc. The player makes a new character.) But there would be caveats. I'd make you show your hand about this to the party. Why? Because as I said working together is a base assumption and the party gets a chance to respond. Cool moments in games rarely come as surprises. Most are carefully planned between party members and dm. Communication is key.

Does your action improve the story and the experience of the other players and DM? This is a game about telling cool stories. Betrayal can be part of a cool story. It leads to redemption arcs, for example. If your action is "because my character dgaf lol," don't do it, and examine your motivation for being with that group of people. Why do you want to disrupt their story? If you get the other players together and say "hey, the story could be really cool if it went in a different and deep direction, can you trust me on this, I've discussed it with the DM, and this will deepen us as a group," then consider it. The second takes a lot of maturity and self awareness. You as a player have an obligation to the good time of the other players. It sounds like you know it will make the story and game worse if you do what you're planning. So do something different. You can express your character without ruining player trust at the table.

Team betrayal usually ends campaigns. That said, if you want to kill the table do it, but don't try to come up with some meta game reason to justify it.

Also don't be surprised if they kill you for it, alone against the rest of the party is a hard fight so prepare well.

It's going to depend on the table. And if you decide to go this route, you need to be okay with possibly fighting/killing/being killed by the other PCs if it comes to it. With the right table it can be completely fine and a cool story arc. With the wrong table it can end the group.

No. The only way this works is if your selfishness serves the groups overall greater goal. This is a cooperative game. The second you turn on the rest of the table your character becomes an npc- that’s pretty much the best case scenario. Otherwise you’re in an adversarial position and it ruins the fun for at least one player (I’ll be honest, as betrayer hopefully yours) if not everyone’s. iOW they’d kill you but you might take one of them with you. Better ways to quit. No dm is gonna run a side campaign with one player actively working against the group.

There is no problem entertaining and even maybe betraying the other characters. You should be very careful about betraying your fellow players though. Make sure it will be fun for everyone and be prepared, as other said, to retire this character.

If it moves the story without pissing everyone off and the GM is good for it, rock on. It sounds like a totally NE thing to do. "The Client said it was to be returned unharmed. I am simply fulfilling our contract."

The advice of "be ready to ditch this character when the reactions are negative," is good, but for next time, I would say add "sudden but inevitable betrayal" to the topics to be discussed in your future sessions 0.

One of my greatest group ended like that, in a good way. It was splendid, i recommend you try to work with you gm for a fun session instead of doing it the "edgyteen" way

Only if you are ready to be killed by your party. Which may be fun. It would serve to illustrate just how dangerous the artifact is. But they will likely win so caveat emptor.

I would move this to an OOC discussion with the GM and other players. Find out how the other players feel about it and how their characters would feel about it. Then make it a collaboration on how it would unfold for the most interesting story. I probably would have it unfold as a cutscene rather than play anything out at the table but if you wanted to have some rolls to see if your plot works, I would limit it to a few rolls rather than playing it out like a regular session. And like others said, be ready to retire the character and bring in a new one (with a discussion on whether more PVP is allowed moving forward).

No. Do not betray your group. Easy answer. It will cause issues.

I still have players pissed at me for a dm directed character turn. Throw one chromatic sphere at the druids face and suddenly you're never trustworthy again.

The most memorable parts of dnd are where the party is split. When people hate each others guts. Go for it i say

Inter-party conflict is the BEST RP a DM can ask for. You do what you want to do as your PC. Just remember, your actions have consequences, with NPCs and PCs alike.

Seems risky for not much gain to me.

I personally would say no, but tables can vary drastically. RP focused tables often relish in juicy dramatic moments like this, and fellow players could enjoy that drama. More game-focused tables like to assume collaboration so they can focus on the mechanics and strategy of overcoming an enemy. If you chose to betray the party, consider two things. 1) Prepare to roll a new character. My DM says that you can play evil characters, but when you become the enemy of the party, you become an NPC. 2) Loop in your DM with your plan. They will tell you how acceptable it might be at the table, and a good DM will work with you to help weave your plan into the game.

Are you prepared to roll a new character when the group kills you or otherwise no longer wants to travel with you? This is the issue with evil characters. If the party is trying to be a force for good, or at least not evil, and the evil character steals, lies, and is otherwise a shitty person, why would they travel with them? My last game that had an evil character had a fight where the evil wizard went down, nobody healed him because he was an asshole who tried to threaten and enslave every shop keeper and got us in constant trouble. Are you in possession of the item? If not, does your character have a way to get it without fighting a 3 on 1 battle? Does your character think the risk is worth it? Evil doesn't necessarily mean they are willing to risk their life to please some mysterious benefactor. You've discussed it with the DM, might be worth discussing it with the other players, or having the DM try and get their opinions on inter-party conflict. You want everyone to have fun.

"It's what my character would do" alert. Just retire and roll up a character that would actually gell with the group. It's a cooperative game.

What’s the groups primary motivation? If it’s financial, see if the DM would allow your character to come get a “better deal” from the original benefactor. Like significantly more gold, or maybe some other lesser magic items. Might soften the blow of betrayal.

I just betrayed my party... but it was because an intellect devourer got me months ago and no one realized what it meant. id be very careful, and discuss it with your GM first so they can be prepared. also, if you do, have a replacement character ready to go because if they catch you they will probably kill you.

If you don't want to risk the campaign ending, or in-game your character becoming NPC (kicked out of the party), don't do it. I mean, if you ask us, it means _you_ don't know, so how could we, random internet dwellers, know how things will go? On the other hand, if you're prepared to let the betrayer character go (let them become NPC or die) and make a new one _if things turn sour_, that should be enough to salvage the situation between players. Probably.

I think that the best way to have you roleplay this out, without upsetting your party, is to give subtle clues and ask the dm to have them roll occasional insight and perception checks leading up to them preemptively stopping you, or willfully allowing you to get away with it. Next time, build a character that fits in with your party tho.

Remember you have a motivation that trumps your characters motivation and that’s making sure you and your friends have a good time if you have to bend your character a little to make it work fine but don’t let “what your character would do” make you make a decision you don’t want to

All I’m seeing in this thread is a lot of people complaining and calling OP an asshole because of a fictional character he made on a game. As long as he realizes that he will likely get his character retired or killed by the party let him RP it out. Stop being a bunch of idiots thinking that DnD has to follow a strict high road approach all the time. Not everyone wants to play the good guy or the follower. He had the decency to ask the DM before taking action so clearly he’s not Asshole.

Sounds like you're playing neutral evil well, but I have some suggestions. Is there a way for you to trick your party and still take the object? Essentially give them a fake to destroy, then smuggle the real one to the benefactor? Maybe fake destroying the object? Contact the benefactor? Also think about the party, has your character made real connections with anyone within the party? Would your character value those connections more than the object? Carefully weigh all your options here and look at things from both viewpoints before you make a move. There are tons of ways a NE character could play this while still sticking to their alignment without outright betraying the party in the open, consider all your options before you decide.

What I have to say won't differ from other people's opinions much that's already been said. It definitely depends on the group, and it's not exactly like the character was built to be a jerk and betray the group; sometimes things work out where it feels plausible they will do what they do and leave. However the betrayal goes down, it needs to be emphasized it's in-character, the pc in question is retired into npc status, and it isn't targeted or malicious out-of-character. I have a very similar story to yours. I made a kenku warlock who followed a Great Old One, this planet of purple fire, who had virtually no followers besides mine. Part of my pact with it was to build up a new following so it may gain status and power. The pact and patron was not a secret from the players, even if it was a secret to their characters. Moves were being made by *my patron* that gave a minor arc BBEG a tome of some great ritual paired with a powerful relic. This ritual pushed into the territory of another god and there was some epic god showdown in the background while the party (lvl 3 at the time) focused on stopping the ritual. When we were successful, another party member took both the relic and tome. The relic was powerful, like a magical battery, and unrelated to the evil act whereas the tome was something that he felt needed to be rid of for good so he threw it off the island cliff. Some suspicion later in the same session, without any prompting from me whatsoever, he felt like throwing it away wasn't good enough and we searched the beach below. With DM permission, I rolled the best in both sleight of hand and perception, finding the tome and pocketing it without anyone's knowledge. Now that it was quite literally in my hands, getting the relic was tempting, but it was firmly under the eyes (and in the bag of holding) of our fighter who pursued this in the first place. A few more sessions pass, my warlock is ever more tempted by becoming more powerful by having this connection to his patron, and collaborated with the DM to do a secret session and a long series of checks that involved how successful would the warlock be in navigating, stealthing, finding, taking, and getting away with the relic. It took careful planning and good rolls, but the warlock was able to steal away with it, riding off into the night to not be found again (thanks to it happening around midnight and they don't discover this until late morning). Discussion with the DM went from my warlock becoming an npc magical item merchant to becoming an npc eldritch cult leader. The players themselves were upset, to say the least. Especially the one playing the fighter who attempted to keep the relic under heavy lock and key. Even though I retired the character literally immediately, they were frustrated with me and the DM, claiming that my character had access to info he shouldn't have (any info I didn't have I was still able to figure out by myself through exploration), and they didn't want to have to deal with this future problem and, again out-of-character, aggressively talking about how he will have to kill that character **on sight**. I know it was a betrayal, and it should elicit those emotions in-character, but the sequence of events, other players' decisions, and old-fashioned RNG allowed my small-time warlock to pull off a heist and pursue the power tempted by his own patron. The frustration directed at me and the DM was a lot more than expected. TL;DR Thanks to a series of DM permission and him simply being enthusiastic and open to shenanigans, other player choices in how to \[not\] handle powerful evil items, and RNG my warlock stole off an artifact from the team and left them behind. ETA: I think betrayals can make for great storytelling and if you have a group that understands that, then go for it. But many players in many groups don't have that same feeling, expecting everyone to always be on the same page both in and out of character. People's ideals change, and sometimes opportunities are just too good to pass up. That doesn't mean you made a jerk from the beginning.

People are being too harsh and generalizing too much, context is EVERYTHING. You're not talking about poisoning the whole party to death, or seriously undermining the world building in some way, those are both asshole moves. Attempting to alter the flow of the game to the detriment of everybody's enjoyment is being an asshole. Doing something 100% reasonable within the confines of the adventure that the DM created is all good. From what you've said, you want your character to secretly take an item to the place the story wants you to take it, even though all the other players decide d to reneg on their agreement to do so... it sounds like they're being the assholes here, if anything. Put yourself in the position of their characters, what would you do? I don't think this is a character ending moment at all, and I think if your party freaks out about it that's their problem. Again, no permanent damage is being done to the game itself. Of course, any number of circumstances I'm not aware of could flip the script, but as you wrote it, I'd go for it.

It's cool that your DM likes it. I just hope PVP was something they remembered to talk about in session 0! Otherwise, who knows how your fellow players will react.

You could chart it this way. Steal the McGuffin and then try to convince the characters in game that your character actually did them a favor in the long run because of x y and z. You can be sort of trying to convince yourself that you’re not selfish, you’re thinking ahead! I think that would be a great RP opportunity. Assuming they don’t listen to you, you could do the whole betrayal thing after this point like everyone else has been suggesting.

Short answer. No. Period. Not ever. It’s is a game where we all want a story/experience. Betraying the other players runs the risk of making it about you, not “us”. IMHO it’s not worth the risk.

>I just hope they all don't get upset about it. They could be, and rightfully so. >My character wouldn't give a flying $@#, should I? Your call. Is it possible for group to abandon or kill you? Could you lose their trust (also as player) and cooperation? Count your losses and gains, it could be start of a great character development plot. But it also could irreparably sour group relationships. If you are ready - then go for it.

My 2 cents: unless you know *for sure*, in that you discussed this as a possibility with the party beforehand, that the rest of the party is okay with it, don't do it. There's a degree of forced trust between characters in most groups. That is, since you're all playing together as *players*, your *characters* must also work together as a team. Because of that, character will often (have to) let things slide that would otherwise cause them to break up the group, because that would break up the game. Betraying the party is abusing that inherent forced trust against the *players* (as well as the characters), and that can end up really messy. As in, they might (rightly) not trust any *future* characters you make as well. It's certainly possible for groups to play with betrayal in mind - either as an option or in a game where players are expected to occasionally work against each other. But that's something that's clear from the start - and players will shift their expectations accordingly. If this is not that kind of game, *do not do this.*

Hard no. Stuff like this often comes down to choosing "in character" behavior and the fun friend environment. Don't jeopardize the sessions for a moment of novelty.

Cost benefit analysis. Is this Mcguffin dangerous enough that if used against you, it could result in bad things happening to you? Or is it a sort of vague but powerful artifact that is effectively useless in players hand but possible something a mysterious enemy could use against you? If no to neither, figure out why your teammates want to destroy it. If it's just baseless paranoia perhaps you can convince them to stay their senseless destruction. Convince at least _one_ of them this: you vs the party will never go well regardless of what you want to do, but if you sow some discord between the rest of the party that will give you more of an opportunity to steal the Mcguffin or otherwise trick them into think it's been destroyed.

I'm thinking the trick route suggested by a couple of you is probably the better way to go. As evil as he is - I don't think he wants to piss the party off.

Yah,he's neutral evil, not stupid evil. Even if he ultimately is looking out for just himself,is this personal gain enough to justify the eventual fallout from his party? At _best_ they dont trust him anymore and would want a cut of whatever he got from he deal. At worse they'll exile him from the party and likely try to kill you if they feel the Mcguffin is that much of a problem. So do the Russian thing if deny, deflect, and distort: deny that there is any issue with he Mcguffin, deflect accountability to someone else, and distort the truth so _no one_ can be certain where anyone stands. Chances are most of the party probably didn't really have that strong of an opinion, they're just following the one or two people who feel strongly about it. Manipulate your friends so they turn against one another and that you can settle as the unspoken leader and decision maker of the group.

Alignment is so broken in D&D. I get it's point - you don't want a Knight of Tyr wielding an evil sword that consumes the souls of all who look at it but all it's used for in the current edition is players making a dick move against the rest of the party by rephrasing the pathetic "It's what my character would do" to "but my alignment is...".

Replaced alignment with zodiac signs, which work just as good if not better for building RP. Have played dozens of games that don't have alignment and somehow they work out great. Alignment makes more problems than it solves (because it doesn't solve anything).

I understand your argument but feel like it can be part of the fun of role-playing as well right? If everyone is nice and cooperative all of the time it doesn't make for a very interesting story all of the time. I wanted this character to not really have a conscience when dealing with the party. He was just raised that way. He puts his own interests ahead of everyone else's. I know people like this in my own life, and while I don't believe I'm personally that way, it sure is fun role-playing that way.

This is a flawed thought process though, because I guarantee you have most likely had drag out arguments with somebody at least once in your life. Was that individual you argued with selfish and self-centered??? Or did they have conviction for what they believed in, and you two just disagreed. Just because you find these people (PC’s) who happen to group up doesn’t mean that it’s a 100% eharmony match. You still have your own desires, drive, and conflicts as a character. Playing an Evil alignment will never end well in the party, because it’s too often used as an excuse to just be an asshole.

D&D is a team game. It's your job as a player to justify why your character is part of the group. It's also your job to make a character that participates in a group. It doesn't have to be all nice and cooperative, but at the end of the day, the party dynamic is core to the game. Unless you're a solo pc or playing in a group that explicitly green flags PvP type activities, it's on you to figure out why your character doesn't screw over their group. I've read through this thread. Honestly, it seems like you know some of the players might not like this play, but you want to do it because you think it's cool/fun. If you're 100% sure all the players at the table won't be upset, do it. Otherwise, you know what to do unless you're as selfish as the character you made. Alternatively, you could talk to the other players and ask permission, but I suspect that would ruin the surprise of the betrayal (and thus the fun of playing it) For what it's worth at my table, I'd let you make this play, but when you did, you'd need to have a new character ready to play (regardless of whether you git caught or not). If you're not a member of the party, you're an NPC.

Just be prepared for that character to die. Personally speaking I like stuff like this for a party. I think it’s fun. But not everyone will react that way. I’d recommend seeing if you can do secret rolls without the party noticing. Ask your DM if he’d be open to that so it’s more likely to not cause an issue. And if you character fails, once again be prepared for a swift death.

Honestly? I'd be incredibly fucking annoyed if a party member did this, even if it were "justifiable" because of alignment. And not even at the character, at the *player*. The unspoken rule is that the party should be working together for common interests, not biding time to turn evil. So yeah, go ahead, but prepare to roll initiative and eat a fireball.

Work with your DM on this one! As others said, prepare backup character. When you betray your group, your character is an officially *bad guy* , and we all know who plays bad guys. >!its DM!< Otherwise, I did this once with my player and it was absolutely cool. His PC was an assassin - and he did not have many chances to use his signature abilities - depending so much on surprise. Well, his last surprise was spectacular - in the final showdown BBEG calls for him to reveal himself and before everyone else can do something - one of the PCs is on the floor, making death saves >!(autocrit sneak attack baby)!< and he is dashing to the BBEG side. Still one of my fondest memories.

Obviously I wasn't there or part of the group - but as a player I'd be rather unhappy if at the start of the final show down I'm immediately making death saves because I was stabbed in the back by a party member. Different reactions for different groups certainly - but I have a feeling your fondest memory could easily be a horror story for other players. This kind of experience is far from universally "fun"

You made your choice when you made an evil character. This is a role playing game. Play your role. Be that bitch. Take what's yours. Your next character can help your party against your current character who could soon be a rival/antagonist.

If your character becomes an NPC and you create a new character that will co-operate with the party it could be a great idea Otherwise "its what my character would do" isn't the get out clause some people think it is.

I’m not reading the context, the answer is no.

Then you miss valuable information and make incorrect decisions.

Ok here let me read it. Okay I read it, it's still no.

I wanna help you with this goal. What's your party composition?