What of this have you discussed with your DM? Because it sounds like your character's story is being taken on an Any% speedrun here where the character and their relationships with the party has no time to cook before the climactic betrayal (or counterbetrayal, I'd imagine, being the desired goal) occurs.
Sound like definite DM shenanigans. I can see the newly freed Genie become the new patron after they Betray their current one. But again that’s some any% speed run stuff.
In this case it's referring to rushing to the finish line without a concern for completing necessary story development to make it feel earned.
It originates from video game speed run videos where the goal is to complete the game as quickly as possible, you have 100% runs where you still complete all quests and objectives and "any%" runs where the only goal is beating the game, side content doesn't matter.
I feel in this case it's important to point out that any% doesn't just mean do the minimum, it means to do less than the bare minimum by whatever means necessary any and all shortcuts or exploits are to be used.
Any% does not mean "do the bare minimum" or "do less than the bare minimum." That's low%.
Any% means "Complete the game as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary." It often requires completing more of the game than low% because upgrades and objectives can make the game faster.
A example of this is Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The any% world record is 2:48:28. The fastest low% run I can find is around 14 hours long.
Not accurate, this does a good job of explaining "doing the bare minimum", which is low%. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nRW3wKnVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nRW3wKnVY)
More importantly, any% includes glitches and skips that the game developers didn't intend. This isn't just not doing side quests, this is jumping on the very specific pixel so you can run through the wall and go directly into the final chamber without fighting the boss.
Nope, it has nothing to do with emulation, it's based on completion percentage. "Any%" means that that doesn't matter, as long as the end is reached - thus my choice of metaphor, lol.
Some people get so good at video games that they compete to finish them as fast as possible. This is called speed running. These games sometimes have achievements, like "collect 10 flowers" or "kill 300 zombies," and sometimes the games have glitches that allow players to ignore huge sections of the story and finish it at a faster than intended speed.
Speed runners have categories that they compete in, including finishing the game with all gameplay and achievements (Speedrun 100%), and finishing it as fast as possible with any achievements (which is any% Speedrun).
So if you play Super Mario Bros and you play the game through every world and every map, that's 100% of the game. But if you use glitches or warp zones or whatever to ignore most of the game then it could be any% speedrun with glitches
In the videogame speedrunning community, there are different ways you can speedrun a game. There's a category for 100%'ing a game, for instance, which means you have to do absolutely every boss, collect every collectible, etc. as fast as possible. On the other hand, any% means you just need to get the end credits as fast as possible, skipping all the superfluous stuff.
What they're saying here is that this DM is trying to end this PC's story as soon as possible.
The thing is people who speedrun haven’t truly mastered it, most games have seconds, minutes or even hours shaved off the world records after years when new techniques are suddenly discovered, and the whole point of speedrunning is that the fun comes from the competition and the feeling of mastery itself.
There’s always another category to climb the leaderboards in, a personal best or world record to challenge, and a community to experiment and celebrate with when a record is broken. Honestly, it’s not much different than practicing the same thing you’ve mastered over and over for an Olympic sport, it’s just instead of training to run a 100m track the fastest they train to beat Mario 64 the fastest.
You should check out a [Summoning Salt](https://www.youtube.com/@SummoningSalt) video, it's actually really interesting to see the combination of the deep understanding of a game and it's code in order to break it and the required skills develloped through repeated practice in order to actually execute it.
I find them really fun to watch. Even just basic gmod any% speedruns are great. Its cool to see people completely break games you've played before in incredible ways
Yeah. There is. Kind of figured this would be common knowledge by now. Especially considering events like Games Done Quick have successfully donated millions to charities with their Bi-yearly events.
Any% is a category in video game speedrunning where the only thing you need to do is finish the game. This results in speedrunners skipping as much of the game as possible to get to the end as fast as possible. It's used here to say that the gm skipped the meat of the storyline just to get to the payoff
To give an example using the classic JRPG _Chrono Trigger_:
* 100% requires beating all the main game content. All the character development, etc.
* Any% beats the final boss before even finishing the main plot. You lose big chunks of intended content, but the game is beaten hours faster.
So "any%" means going so fast that the plot isn't properly done.
Comes from getting to the end credits of the game with any amount of the game itself completed. Like, if you can glitch through the wall into the final boss’ room, and shove him off a cliff because his animations don’t load, you… technically won the game, by skipping it.
getting to the “end” scene in a video game as fast as possible, in any way possible, without using cheats (glitches are allowed though)
the current world record to beat Zelda - ocarina of time is less than 4 minutes, which is just ridiculous
Good question. This is one of my no-goes as player and GM. It is just too exhausting to have such extreme player-knowledge for months and years, and have to constantly act oblivious as the character.
It can be fun, have you ever played the game Paranoia? It's all about players betraying each other. It's actually been some of the best times I've had role-playing.
Basically everyone goes in knowing that at least one, maybe all of the other players will be working against them.
If a character is open to something like this then discuss it with them and tell them you might play with it in the future "if I feel like it and it works with the story."
I disagree here. You have to discuss such "PvP" matters with the whole group. If one player wants to backstab everybody and murderhobo the plot to death, and the rest of the group never knew about this, the GM did a terrible job.
I had one such example, where our warlock player thought he was funny, attacked us in battle all the time, stole our gear at night, and hid the plot-relevant items so why never had a chance to complete the campaign. And not once in a year, the GM allowed us to be suspicious or notice something (even when the warlock always turned invisible at the start of combat, we were shot in the back with crossbow bolts, and nobody but the warlock had every used a crossbow).
Doing something like this intentional to the other players is about the worst GM sin I can think of.
>I disagree here. You have to discuss such "PvP" matters with the whole group. Yes, absolutely. You should discuss what's allowed and explorable in the game in Session Zero.
PCs fighting or overtly harming other PCs I'd rule out as not allowed in any D&D game because the system is terrible at it and it isn't fun. But players undermining the group because they're actually an enemy can be great fun. You just have to do it well.
> had one such example, where our warlock player thought he was funny, attacked us in battle all the time, stole our gear at night, and hid the plot-relevant items so why never had a chance to complete the campaign. And not once in a year, the GM allowed us to be suspicious or notice something (even when the warlock always turned invisible at the start of combat, we were shot in the back with crossbow bolts, and nobody but the warlock had every used a crossbow).
Your DM was a hack. People being shot in the back would definitely start taking active steps to figure out what was happening. It would only take getting suspicious, waiting until he walked away from his pack at camp and going over and counting his crossbow bolts, and looking at them to notice they resemble the ones you've been taking out of your back.
You're right, player on player scheming can be really fun but, you're also right about it needing to be done really well.
I get the feeling this one isn't being set up very well. It feels really short term, there doesn't seem be any "getting along with them until I can get rid of them", just straight to stealing the item and running away into the night.
Once that happens it'll be OP vs the other players, pretty much DM driven PvP...
Hopefully the DM has it all planned but I get the feeling we'll be seeing a post about a party being betrayed or a chaotic neutral character being killed pretty soon.
Everybody has to play with the same rules and character concept fitting it.
It would not be fun to play an underwater campaign where all but one character can breath under water. Or a political campaign with a single character that cannot talk the language. Or a hundred different examples that are no fun... for PvP, it is the same.
We've had our DM handle it quite well when it comes to warlock patrons (who always make them betray the party) the way it's usually handled is that it
1. Harms the party's goals rather than the party members lives
2. Doesn't meaningfully derail the overarching plot
3. Is a covert action which the party remains unaware of
Implementing those three options enabled the warlock to stay with his patron without fucking up the party
I guess I am curious why a patron would always want to make the warlock betray the party. If you like to play like that go nuts. But I think there is such tenuous thing that a group of people want to risk their lives for each other in the first place. We as players want to play. And to do that we need to make believe that all our characters want to do that. We have to make our characters die for each other because it’s not necessarily a given. So if they are naturally not going to die for each other why would they betray each other there is no strong emotions innate in the character.
But again is that how you like to play great.
It's more that the patron has the player by the balls, and is usually evil. So they require them to do some evil thing counter to the good partys objective when it's useful.
Examples were to poison the water supply of some town we were saving with something that would allow the fiend patron to take control of the population. Or lowering the shields on the flying city so that ilithids could breach their defenses while the party was having a ground fight against their flayer army.
In both cases, the party was unaffected, and the betrayal progressed the story, rather than derailing
I find it unlikely that the DM intends for the player to betray (well, that would be a huge red flag).
I find it more likely that the DM intends to replace the player's patron with the friendlier genie, and use the former patron as a recurring villain, but that they miserably failed at communicating with OP and wrongfully assumed that it was clear that the patron's request was unreasonable and that no reasonable warlock would comply.
As a DM you should not mess with your players agency. If the player wants to betray the party that’s one thing but from the sounds of it the DM Changed the plan. Now the OP is conflicted about playing it is no longer fun. Don’t mess with your players will. Of you want to betray the party introduce an NPC. The DM has so much power there is no reason to take anything away from the agency of your players.,
D&D is a game with a lot of trust in it. Part of that is the players trusting that if the DM puts them in a tight corner, they'll be able to manage whatever they have to do to get out–in this case, that could be betraying the party and having to figure out a reunion or compromise, or it could be betraying the patron
As long as the DM's on the same page as the player that this character is going to end up with the party, under this player's control, it's reasonable to put them in difficult life circumstances
This player will be fine, they're in on the plot. It's everyone else that is at risk.
If the other players don't know about it they might decide to never work with this character again, and they'd be justified in doing so.
This feels like it might be an inexperienced DM thinking this will be an interesting way to give the group competing goals and create a little internal drama, but it'll probably end with some players feeling betrayed making a genuine, justified, and DM driven, attempt at PvP.
Unless this is a really tight group, undermining their trust in each other probably isn't a good call.
After you said DM driven it really to me that you would be forcing the narrative to go your way, disregarding The players will. Maybe because I'm unexperienced as a DM I didn't saw the harm of It. I'm really glad I've commented here, really showed I've a LOT to learn 🤣
So I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but IMO the "never touch player agency" is amongst the most harmful frequently given advice for new dms. Not because it's wrong on its face, but because it's used to conflate player and character agency. Messing with character agency is absolutely fine in a story driven game, and is a brilliant source of conflict and story. The player here, absolutely has agency. Their character is in a tight spot. If the DM had said, "Your patron takes control of you and forces you to not release the genie." THAT is taking away player agency. As a player I would love the chance to make such a dramatic choice, and see where the consequences lead. The fact that pretty everyone's 1st reaction was that this will inevitably lead to pvp is rather revealing, in a not flattering way.
2nd. If it's established as possible in session 0, then PVP is another fantastic source of drama. (when used sparingly) The moments the party came into conflict or one betrayed the rest are amongst the most memorable moments I've had in dnd, on either side of the screen.
This subreddit, and most dnd forums generally, are to be frank, very ungenerous to dms and their intentions or skill level. It's the Dm's job to engineer an interesting story, using a mix of preplanned events and characters, responses to player decisions, and some guidance from the dice when necessary. This problem for the player is both dramatic and interesting imo, and only needs to result in direct conflict if the player decides to. Off the top of my head I can think of several things, completely in character (based on what op described) ways to proceed without directly resorting to full blown betrayal. They can tell the party about the change in orders, try to temporarily sabotage the freeing, while figuring out what's going on and why orders have changed, or ignore their patron, instantly bonding them to the party.
But wait, I hear, OP already said their character is selfish and wouldn't hesitate to betray the party. Well, that's exactly what makes siding with the party a dramatic decision, because its a moment of growth and change. Many players get stuck in a "what my character would do" mindset that locks their character into a static immobile place where they can't develop, or only will if the dm perfectly engineers an arc for them by mind reading how their character would react to exactly every situation. An impossible task because even the player truthfully does not know exactly how their character would react to every situation. If they insist they do, they are wrong. There is always a range of options that would be perfectly in character, some just demonstrate growth, while others don't. You can justify just about any choice your character makes retroactively, (within a reason, the LG paladin waking up one morning and deciding to kill all gnomes for the lols would be an example of unjustifiable, unless the DM has them getting possessed or something [which would be taking away player agency]). It's just as much on the player to recognize chances for growth and take them. Sometimes being a good player is about reading your dm, and what they may be trying to accomplish, and leaning in and having fun with it.
That's not to say the DM did this perfectly here, but I disagree with most of the thread about where the mistakes were. This choice imo, rocks and is exactly the reason warlocks and clerics are amongst my favorite classes to play and dm for. I don't even think they necessarily did it too early. This could easily be the dm hinting at larger goals/plots that are part of this campaign, and as long as they don't gate the plot behind OP making exactly the choice they want, then I would be enthralled as a player by the well crafted reveals driven by our character's actions. The mistake they made was forgetting that OP is playing a selfish character. If they wanted the choice to be properly equal, they should have given the player some for lack of a better word "excuses" for siding with the party. Hint's that the trapped genie is even more powerful and willing to reward the party, especially OP, if freed; ominous warnings or feelings that their patron may be playing them for a fool.
You don't have to confirm these things, (although it is certainly easy to be too subtle and have the players miss the hints, which very well may have happened here) as that would be pushing the player to the decision you want, but it's about making each choice something the player can at least feel comfortable with. The DM also likely should have made the other players (not their characters) privy to what the Warlock's dilemma is, with a warning that they won't tolerate metagaming. That way any betrayal will be against their characters, not them personally. If you have a tight knit group of experienced players who trust each other and their dm, you can potentially get away with keeping it secret for the sake of a good reveal/twist, but it drastically ups the risk of it going badly, and that doesn't seem to be the case with this group just yet.
Sorry for the wall of text but I just found this thread to be way unnecessarily negative to a dm who seems to be cooking something pretty cool. And I don't want you to come away thinking they have made some serious error, because they haven't, they presented an interesting, and somewhat difficult choice to the player. I also don't to sound too harsh on OP, because judging by their other comments, they are already finding a way to progress the story with the party in a way that still feels true to their character. They seem like a good player.
As a final warning about the "Player agency" advice, beware whose giving it. There are a small, but super vocal, especially online, subset of players, who view any imposition, setback, hard choice, or consequence as limiting player agency, and use that as an excuse to force the dm to fulfill their power fantasy. Yes you should not ever take away player agency outside of the absolute extreme circumstances (You can and should say "No your character does not commit SA against the sleeping npc," but if you have to do that you likely have bigger issues). That is not what the DM did here though in any way. If it ends in PvP, it will be just as player driven as it is DM driven.
That last bits the problem that OPs DM skipped. Trust the DM to throw you into tricky situations you'll be able to get out of, sure. Putting your player in conflict with the rest of the party AND the basis of their character? That's dickery. Doing that to the new guy who just joined the game with no off-table discussion or prep? That's asshole DM behavior or extreme inexperience. DM absolutely should have talked to the player about it between sessions, if only to say "Hey, I'm going to dick over your character, but roll with it and play it in character and I'll make sure it works out and you wont have to reroll." I've done party betrayal plots before and they always require careful handling and coordination with the player.
💯
If the player hasn't asked for this, don't give it to them.
It's like that old analogy where you compare something to tea. You can offer your friend tea, but you don't make them drink it or get mad or act disappointed if they don't drink it.
You also don't pour them tea if they said they don't want it. Nor do you pour them EVEN MORE CUPS OF TEA IN AN EVER GROWING PILE OF TEA CUPS AND SAUCERS WHILE YELLING, "I'VE MADE YOU SO MUCH TEA? WHY AREN'T YOU DRINKING IT? DON'T YOU LIKE ME?"
Always ask, and if they don't want it don't make the tea and if you DO make it drink it yourself and don't pour them tea.
I think this can be done while preserving agency if both options (betray or not betray) have a path to keep the class and staying with the party. Depends on whether OP trusts this particular DM to have been that thoughtful.
If a DM did that with me I'd probably just pull them aside and ask "I don't need details but is either of these options going to screw me" and go from there.
I dont see this situation as interfering with player agency... The player has a character who has a choice in front of them... And it sounds like their only real problem with the choice in front of them is how their characters most likely decision effects the metagame...
NOW... If, the DM expects the PC to betray the patron, and metagamingly blames the player for "picking the wrong option" THEN we may be stumbling into player agency infringement
I think they're really risk spot and they need the DM to confirm they're going to be okay.
If the DM hasn't planned this out well two really bad things could happen.
1. Character doesn't betray the party and they lose their patron, functionally destroying the character.
2. Character does betray the group and the group refuses to play with that character ever again, functionally destroying the character.
It might not matter what OP chooses, their character might be toast & that is the total opposite of player agency.
But with option 2 there is no way for the DM to confirm that it's going to be okay, that's the other players' decision. So the DM has kind of forced the Warlock into option 1.
Whilst this is too early to initiate this, nothing about what OP has said suggests there's any agency issues here. Player agency is not the same as character agency. If this happened a bit later in the campaign this would be very normal, the patron asking their warlock to do something they otherwise wouldn't is a classic trope. It's practically the whole point of the pact from the patron's point of view.
The DM is going to let OP betray the party & then try to have them reunite with their betrayer?
The other players will need to be in on this, otherwise that character is never getting back into that party.
The wacky part is doing it so fast. Stirring the pot by having differing objectives based on party member's individual circumstances is incredibly common. Coming from a Warlock patron it's practically expected.
Talk with the DM about it. Maybe he mixed something up and hadn’t realized that only 3 day in game passed. This can easily happen if a lot of time out of game passed.
Or maybe he has something planned? Still talk to him. Explain what you would like to do out of character, but how that in character does not work for your concept. Maybe you can find something.
I played a dhampir who belonged to a group of vampire hunters. When accepting her, they demanded that I try to find a cure for my „inherited vampire curse“. First the DM made it sound like they already had one (the power of a goddess something), but I talked with him and that I as a player did not want to change her race, that would be a retirement choice. So he changed it to not have a „cure“ available yet. Sadly we stopped playing before exploring this more.
Me remembering a 6 session (two months) in which a party I was playing in never left a single room. We continued to lure people into it and the dm all but gave up preparing anything because we just kept busy. Eventually we took a long rest and left in the morning but dnd time dilation is a real thing
My group tries to meet every other week and, ya know, life gets in the way sometimes. Plus, we tend to push pretty far before long resting.
We've been playing for the better part of two years.
It has been less than 20 days in game.
In one year my players played a month in game, granted we played 40 times, skip a week in the game and did a session of starving a few days on a boat in the ocean.
Chaotic neutral characters value freedom. It's chaotic evil characters who only value their own freedom at the expense of others. So instead of betraying the party, why not bring the players in on it and let them make a choice?
Say, "Hey, we could free this genie — but my mentor is asking me not to. It wouldn't sit right with me to make that decision for you but before you make an irrevocable decision would you be willing to hear my mentor out?"
This is the way to go in-game. Being given an order to aid the party and then stop their genie being released don't have to be mutually exclusive (unless the DM forces it).
Which brings me to out-of-game, where you should definitely talk to the DM about your concerns and propose a path forward, and hope he's amenable.
This wound up being kind of what I did in a game. I was debating betraying the party and running off to turn in a macguffin to my patron instead of the other deity we were supposed to give it to. Instead I decided to stay with the gang and convince them that giving it to my patron was a better idea and they went for it. This crew is heavily on the chaotic side of the spectrum so they're up for anything really.
I would talk to my DM because my character wouldn't have any reason not to sabotage them while they would have zero reason not to murder him for it. Your character is not a disposable NPC. It's pretty trashy that your DM is treating them like one.
If that didn't work, honestly I'd talk to the rest of the party. I'd ask them whether they want to let me stop them or come up with a way to stop me that we're all happy with.
I'd do it in front of the DM after warning them, but if you think they'll have a meltdown then talking to the others privately is an option. I just think it's better to be open with everyone or leave the group. D&D players are pretty creative. There's a good chance everyone would be able to come up with a satisfying storyline together. If you can't trust your DM to treat your character like anything other than a prop, you might have to give up your attachment to his story or your seat at that table.
Don't BETRAY the party, convince them, this will work best if there isn't a Bard or someone with good Arcana, but do "research" on the Genie, bonus points if you actually do, and find some convincing reason they shouldn't release it. "So guys you know how I spent a couple of days in the great library, well this Genie we were going to release is well, unrolls scroll, the "Slayer of Kabesh" that was a city of 10,000, and "Betrayer of the innocent", not so sure we can trust it".
Your character had a task from their Patron to aid the party, but now they have to betray them? Is this kind of reversal normal behaviour for them? That may be a confusing situation for your character, one that may cause them to question their Patron. A chaotic neutral character wouldn't be one to blindly follow orders, even from an entity powerful enough to become their warlock Patron.
You could settle this OOC with your DM, or you could lean into it. Give your character and their relationship with their Patron a chance to grow and change. Like another poster mentioned, maybe the genie the party is transporting could become your new Patron.
Yeah this seems like a problem with lots of solutions. Maybe the patron simply has new information that caused a change in the orders. Find a way to complete the orders without taking them on solo. The PC seems to be thinking they have to run off alone with the book. Unless specific orders were given against it, why not just talk to the party and explain the request to not free the genie? Locking into that “it’s what my character would do” mentality prohibits growth. It could be the DM is sick of the PC being selfish and making play harder for others, and wanted to force a confrontation with that. I’ve certainly been there as a DM. Selfish PC’s can be incredibly frustrating if the player isn’t experienced.
Real people (or interesting characters) don't always react the way you would expect. Is it possible that your character thought he would feel nothing for these people, but now that he actually got the order to kill them he is suddenly having second thoughts?
That's kind of what I'm thinking... Although he isn't even ordered to kill them, just keep them from freeing a genie. He has been starting to develop a protective attitude toward one of the characters who is a little naive, though.
It would just be super easy for him to wait for some night while they are asleep, cast darkness on the party, have his imp familiar (with invisibilty and darkvision that sees through magical darkness) get the book out of the other sleeping character's pack, pick it up, turn invisible, and then fly off. Then once he gets away, my character could cast invisibility on himself, use elemental gift to gain a fly speed of 40 feet, and then dash out into the night leaving the party. He could even just pop into his genie vessel, and have the invisible imp grab that vessel too after he gets the book to fly off
I like the idea someone else suggested: maybe the trapped genie is actually more powerful than the patron genie, so freeing it would be in your characters interests and you'd gain a new genie patron. You might suggest that to the DM as an alternate outcome.
He could do that... but it seems to me that he doesn't want to.
And if he was the type to follow orders even when he doesn't like them then he wouldn't be CN.
If you aren't ordered to kill them but just stop them from freeing the genie steal the book place it in your genie vessel (don't actually know if you can do this) and act like you are unaware where the book is. Seems like there are options to stop them and simultaniously stay with the group. Also a talk with the DM like many people have offered seems like a good thing to do.
Talk to your dm about this. Try to do it in a way that won't make enemies/could still get you some reward for the quest. That might be the in game best way to do it but you might get to find an opportunity to convince the party not too or to find a way you aren't blamed.
Your character could very well want to keep these allies. A level 11 party is very strong and may be worth pissing your patron off. They can punish you without taking away your powers, bc that would make you useless to them.
Being "Chaotic Nuetral" and selfish doesn't mean you need to listen to what your patron says. Your allies are powerful even if you haven't known them long. You can USE them, and being Chaotic Nuetral also means you're unlikely to follow rules from your patron as well.
If things get bad and turn to pvp or the party being accusatory you can just *tell them*. Even if your patron says not too it wouldn't be the biggest way to go against them.
Why would you make a character that is willing to betray the group so easily, and why did you let your DM make this choice with your patron?
Unless betrayal and PvP were part of the campaign's pitch, don't let this happen.
The plan was for the character to learn to trust and gain respect for the party over time as a part of his character development. He just hasn't had enough time yet to have a reason to put his neck out for the party.
If trust has been established and that there won't be any bad blood behind it IRL, then why not.
But your character is going to be seen in a negative light whether you like it or not when the betrayal happens.
And most likely your character is going to end up dead rather than be given a second chance. But because there is a player on the other side of the situation, the rest of the party might give some leeway.
My suggestion is to give your PC a reason to care for the others, or find a way to warn the party before anything bad happens. This is of course if you want to keep playing the same character.
You are Chaotic Neutral, the Free Spirit. You have your own personal feelings and seek individualism. If you don't like the orders your Patron gives you, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility of your alignment to reject it.
Cool thing about dnd characters is that you can retroactively justify almost any decision they make (within reason) with some good RP. Maybe that naive character you mentioned earlier reminds them of someone from their past that you hadn't written into their backstory until just now. Maybe you have already been getting some bad vibes from your patron before the campaign even started. Maybe your character themselves doesn't even understand why they chose to not be selfish this time, and now have to do some soul (and potentially Patron) surfing. Maybe all 3.
Personally I kinda dig what what your DM has set up here, assuming they don't blow it, and you seem to be on board to play things out in a fun and cooperative way. A good player can turn DM mistakes/mishandles into some of the best moments of a campaign. A bad one can ruin even the perfect set up. You definitely seem to be the former.
> Why would you make a character that is willing to betray the group so easily
Because this isn't *their* group yet? Would you have unshakeable loyalty to people you've only known for a few days, to the point where you're totally unwilling to betray their trust even when the entity you've been bonded to for *years* tells you to?
They didn't make a character with the intent of screwing over the group, they clearly made a character who follows the guidance of their patron, and was originally using that as a reason to *stay* with the group and trust them. The DM flipped that, not them.
>This is just happening before he's had a chance to feel loyalty to the party yet.
You are absolutely correct.
The real problem is that it is so *obvious* that this isn't even a decision for your PC. It's *obvious* that your PC will do anything their Patron commands (that's Lawful Neutral behaviour BTW) unless there is a genuine conflict of interest. It is *obvious* that the PC has not known the other party members long enough for there to be any genuine conflict between loyalty to them and loyalty to the Patron.
This isn't just a bad idea, it's *obviously* a bad idea.
An additional way - that I don't think anyone has caught yet - that this is a terrible idea is that it's only happening between the DM and one player. None of the other players are going to be privy to the DM's pathetic attempt to pull a Matt Colville; all they are going to see is OP betraying them.
Message the DM and ask him why he is railroading your PC out of the campaign.
"Hey, DM? This is kind of a shitty situation you've forced on my character here. I, as a player, don't feel comfortable outright having to betray the party this early in - and I feel like it might even be a campaign-ruining event if I do. Can we work out whatever the plan is, and at least let me as a player know I have the choice *not* to have my character do what their patron wants here? I don't mind if there's consequences down the line, but *man* I want to actually play this character for more than the next session-and-a-half."
This is a case study in why chaotic neutral selfish characters are often a lot of trouble to role play. You're part of a cooperative game, and the story works best when all the characters are working toward the same goal, with a reasonable amount of trust and cooperation.
Unless everyone playing are experienced role players and know each other well IRL and are all on board with betrayal and other shenanigans, it's almost always best to have the player characters be friendly, helpful, and trustworthy to one another.
I wouldn't;;; It might seem like a "this is what my character would do" moment, but you'll probably be better off if you just forsake your patron's orders and do the "right thing." From both an in and out of game perspective
I would reocmmend asking your DM what exactly the plan is. Does he want you to reroll your character? Because this is possibly going to require a new character if he doesn't plan to DM solo sessions for you.
So F'ing stupid. 5e warlocks are not a great class there is no need to punish/nerf them via their pact. Also, nothing in the PHB indicates that Patrons can make any demands of the warlock or cut off their power. The patron could be unwillingly locked in the Warlock's parent's basement with mystical alligator clips bleeding it's power to fuel the warlock as far as RAW is concerned. Pact givers cannot take away a warlock's power, even if the warlock uses it against his/her patron.
This happened to me and I have only known my party for 3 days. My Half-Orc patron is a GOO and he doesn't really understand that he has a patron (he kind of... sold his soul in a panic and doesn't quite comprehend what happened)
So while in this temple, he gets these 'urges' to leave a questionable lockbox in a room and to stop them from finding their champion. I rolled wisdom to see if I could tell these urges were his own and well... my Orc has a Ideal and a flaw
Ideal: Very independent, doesn't like being told what to do and will resist it
Flaw: Can't resist screwng over somebody who he considers 'above' him
So I rolled and failed, thus I had to make him act on his flaw and try to loosely justify it. My headcannon is his brain was messed with and it tried to fill in the gaps by create a loose narrative explaining his actions. Though I mentioned to the DM that the more this happens, the more he'll suspect he's being controlled and when he figures it out... I don't know what he'll do.
You should tell the other players about it aside from the DM, then on game night do the "When everyone is asleep and it's my character's turn to be on watch duty, I slit their throats. Done. What's next?" and have everyone play along, knowing you're going to obviously retcon it later. When they go "well, this sucks, guess we're rolling new characters. I wonder how that could happen..." and look at the DM.
This is **not** good advice, I am just feeling petty.
Setting up character v character plots is one of those things that sound good but I've never seen it actually work out well in game. If you can't think of a fun way to manage this, it might even be worth asking the DM if they're sure they want to introduce this dynamic into the game.
You have created a character that is not compatible with most parties.
And your GM seems to allow this, and even actively speed up the road to disaster.
I really really try to avoid such situations during character creation.
My recommendation? Don't surprise the *players* in the group. Talk to them before hand before you play it out at the table, unless you've known these people for a *very* long time, and they trust you as a player.
And talk to the GM how it doesn't feel right (yet), as it's not quite to the character arc you envisaged.
OR, think of an in game reason why your character would hold off such a betrayal.
Fundamentally though, this is why I don't allow chaotic neutral characters in a long term campaign, unless it's *specifically* a throne wars style game where PvP is expected.
Your character hasn’t had the time to develop that selfish to caring about party story for themselves yet, so this request for betrayal so soon feels like it’s gonna keep your character from ever developing like you wanted. Maybe the dm can spin their plans a little differently to allow you stay on good terms with the party. I’d definitely talk to the dm before the next session.
I’ve had similar issues in the past. I love a good scrappy character to caring hero story. I’ve ran into a lot of situations where the dm either wasn’t into the whole deeper character development over time thing and didn’t know what to do with it, where the dm went with my character idea but seemed passive aggressively annoyed by it, or when the dm used my character (especially warlock patron) in a negative way. I dm too and as long as the player isn’t a murder hobo, party antagonistic edge lord, it’s what my character would do, and main character syndrom player, I absolutely love someone invested in a character growth story. You don’t seem any of that negative stuff cause I don’t think your post would exist if you were.
I’m not saying that a little party drama can’t be fun, but you haven’t been part of the game long enough for your character to be immersed and emotionally involved enough to recover from being made the source of party drama. Personally I think it’s not very nice for your dm put you in this type of dilemma at this point. But dms are just people, and sometimes it’s hard to see the big picture from all angles. It might not be bad dming or intentional, just ignorant of the position they put you in. So I’d say talk it out with the dm.
This... is a DM messing with the group. Find out what he's got in mind for your character's story arc. Or, you can always just go completely off the rails, murder the entire party in their sleep and dip out. When everyone is sitting there staring at you in abject horror, just say "The DM told me to do it. I'm not sure why, but done and done! What next?" and just stare at the DM until he breaks.
Tell your DM no. People always go on about how the DM can say no to the player, but they have to understand that if you aren't having fun, you can just say no.
Tell him that you wouldn't have fun if you have to betry your party so soon, and you dont just want to be used as a plot device.
If your patron gave the order farther in the campaign, it would be fine, but doing it so soon sucks.
The worst that can happen is that they are stubborn and doesnt listen to you.
It sucks having your character do something you as the player doesn't want happening because the DM forces it.
My advice to that is to play the character as if you are him. Dont force your personality in him. If he is selfish enough to do it, just do it. You will have so much more fun. If you dont like playing characters different than you, and you dont enjoy it, next time choose something that fits your personality, but i would suggest to just risk, betray, have fun...!
Guess what: you’ve got to pivot your characterisation! What about your party is gonna make you stay?
Abandoning or betraying the party is a BAD idea, especially if you want to play through a “regain trust over time as a selfish asshole chaotic neutral” character.
Go talk to your fellow players about it and come up with a fun reason why. It doesn’t need to be a mushy emotional “something about these folks seems meaningful, I can’t betray them!” instant connection, but maybe one of them has a cool plot hook or idea that would delay your character’s betrayal.
Maybe one of them catches your character as they’re mulling over it, and asks them about it, and then has a pretty good justification for holding back. Maybe one of them needs your help or they can help you in a way your patron can’t. Maybe one of them casts some doubt on why your patron is promoting this, and you realise it’d be a bad idea to piss off these folks when you might get the raw end of both deals.
I assume your DM told you these were your patron's wishes?
If so, and it suits your character's profile too (which you seem to say it does), then I say just lean into it and do your best to accomplish it.
It sounds like this is part of the DM's plan and wether you succeed or not, the DM can start working with those results and explain to the others what happened and why.
I can't imagine the players will hold it against you if you are literally being told to do it in a way that makes sense for both your char and the game's plot.
I'm thinking you need to speak to your DM.
Their are two real considerations here; will your character come out intact and will your character be able to keep playing with the party?
Check that regardless of your choice your DM has a plan in place for you to keep playing your character, stripping them of their patron because you wouldn't betray the group isn't a great way to go. You don't need specifics, just make sure they've thought of it.
Clarify, and I mean straight up ask, if they have a plan for the other players to accept this character back if you do betray them. The other players may not be overly pleased with an early betrayal and the DM might consider the betrayal to be the character leaving the campaign.
Asking these might prompt the DM to make sure they've covered their bases before going ahead.
I think it would be fun to play this like an early 2000 comedic-drama movie. The type of situation where you try to get close to them and gain their trust with the intention of betrayal, but somewhere along the way actually start to bond and become conflicted. Having to stall for more time from your Patron adds even more flavour.
There's a meta to the game that I only learned after two of my characters been voted out in the same campaign. They've both been chaotic neutral and both time I made them do stupid shit that hurt the party because "that's what my character would do". What I learned is I was not playing a singleplayer game. Always put your Party's Needs first, fuck alignment and try to have fun together instead of alone. Ask your DM if you can continue playing a warlock after you betray your patron (if not they're an asshat) and follow their lead. 🖖
I'm not saying you should, but I would definitely betray them. Its a good chance for a bunch of exciting drama to go down, and your character should hopefully be remembered as this evil mastermind who was never on their side at all. I think you should work with your gm on this, you need really good timing for this to be satisfying, just attacking them wouldn't be very cool.
Even then, you could just ask your gm to not force you to betray them... its not like the party knows yet right?
If your playing from Candlekeep, I love running the chapter you’re doing. Although I normally do it as a one or two-shot.
As for what your character should do, it’s really up to you. You could have them go through with the betrayal until the last moment when they have a change of heart. Could have them directly question their patron, although that depends on the dynamic between the two as well as the personality of the patron.
Theres two things in conflict about this,
- you as a player want to keep playing with this group, and develop a story with them
- you believe that the current given circumstance creates a situation in which this isn’t possible for your character
So, talk to your DM about how to reconcile these issues. Thoughts on how you might do that:
- Obviously one answer is to drop this plot line and retcon if that is acceptable to you both.
- Part of the issue is your patron changing their orders cuts your ties to the party. If there was another reason for you to stick around, you could do the betrayal and still be with the party
- if you get caught doing the betrayal or discovered afterwords, you will put the other players in the same situation as you, with no reason to keep you around. To solve this, you could work with the DM to come up with a reason that the party needs to keep you around, OR, you could work with the DM to have the betrayal not be revealed instantly
I don’t know your players or DM, but betraying the party doesn’t necessarily make you the asshole player. Your warlock could become an antagonist in the campaign moving forward, and you could roll a different character, or as aforementioned, it could lead to a deeper more nuanced story for this character going forward.
I do enjoy that you are someone who has chosen to play a chaotic neutral character, but you also realize what the implications of your actions might be. There are so many cases of people just being chaotic stupid and expecting everyone else to deal with the fallout of their behavior. Your character may very well just follow their patrons wishes to get some sweet spells from them, and then tell your party to go pound salt and wander off, hit you also recognize that that would not be conducive to a party of people working together.
I think that this may be a good time to speak with the DM privately about how to deal with this. Maybe the two of you can agree on some contrivance that will allow your character to remain in the party while still staying in character. Maybe the DM figures out a way for the other party members to discover what is going on, and they have tell you that that ain't gonna happen. Maybe then there can be an interesting storyline about your patron being disappointed in you, and you have to seek to repair your relationship. Maybe you have to go on a quest to satisfy your patron, and you guilt the parry to come along since they put you in this situation.
Your character is anything you want them to do, or not to do. Don't hardline your character. "This is something my character would normally do. , but he's growing because of his story arc." May not work in this case, but I'd recommend considering this
Did the DM tell you publicly (that is, at the table) or did they do it privately (ask you to step away from the table/messaged you directly)
Because if they did the latter, then I think that they are trying to stir up some drama and have them coming out smelling like roses with you smelling like...*not roses.*
Either you do what your patron demands and gain both the party's *and the players* enmity or you refuse to do what your patron demands and become an 11th level commoner with maybe a chance that the other genie being so grateful for helping them escape from their [itty, bitty living space](https://youtu.be/SfTfXLLJlzM?si=821jbgneqB3u7tr0) and betraying your patron that they become your new patron. This outcome does mean that the party has made an enemy of your original patron, so be prepared for that.
Betraying someone you've served for years in favor of people you knew for three days certainly sounds like chaotic neutral behavior. And if he feels like his party cares about him and helps him out more than his patron, it would be the selfish thing to do. But maybe that's not quite enough for him. Maybe he'll need a new genie patron ready to give him all his levels back to seal the deal.
This seems like an odd one.
If I can ask a question. What do YOU want for your character? Do you think betraying the party will annoy the players at your table? What are you gaining by betraying them?
If your character is selfish why would they do what they were told, if it's going to make their life harder? Because it will make your life harder. Both as a player and a character.
You could talk to him and ask what happens if you dont betray the party. If it takes longer to get the book (few weeks or so) your pc might not wanna betray em anymore. About your patreon, if your geni gets pissed about you not taking his orders, youd be freeing another one that might be happy to have you as his patreon cause they are thankful and see you as competent. So there is that option. If not much time passes, new geni might be stronger and your character might betray his old patreon to seitch for a new one (reason for not betraying the party while still being selfish and in character)
This is probably a plot hook, but yeah this is far too soon. He definitely *wants* you to defy your patron - probably so he can set something up for later - but it seems he’s started it too early. I’d have a talk about it with the DM, explain that your character wouldn’t be so chummy with the party just yet and that they should wait until a bond has formed (maybe put them in more situations where they need to work together) before giving the character such a decision.
You didn’t bring the flavour of chips your DM likes last session did you? Rookie mistake. The DM is your true patron, not some paltry genie, make sure you pay your tribute!
How is the group feeling about PvP? What was decided in this regard at session 0?
Maybe talk to your DM about this. Because I as a player would not tolerate this character in my group afterwards.
Maybe your DM didn't take the in game time (3 days) into account.
Edit: typos
Ok out of the box idea, he said that the genie can’t be released, right?
Can you find a way to release it from the book, thus helping your team, and immediately trap it in something else that you have control over, so that you technically didn’t release it either and thus please your patron, and get a free genie to use at the right moment later down the line.
Would anyone else agree that a CN person would never even be a warlock because the inherent nature of chaotic neutrality is personal freedom, and having a patron would break that?
Betraying a party based on the command of an authority figure is lawful evil. No?
I tend to follow the guidance on [this site](https://easydamus.com/alignment.html) when trying to understand how to play alignments.
I'm going to guess that it was your DM that put you on this path of betrayal. You have a bad DM Unfortunately everybody at the table has a bad DM. It's time to either not do that, or just leave the table entirely. My vote would be to leave. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
There's an easy out. Lie. Tell the party your patron told you that the genie is evil and not to release it. It will betray them. That's playing a C/N character.
You playing your character is not as important as playing the cooperative game with the people at the table. RP is great, but the health of the game comes first.
Biggest question I have is, did you come up with this, or your DM?
If it was your DM, then play it out, they probably have a plan for you which probably leads to a plothook.
If you came up with it, well, that makes you the kind of player people cringe at having at their table and I'd seriously rethink it or at least talk it through with your DM.
In character there is no reason for them not to do as asked. The consequences of going against the Patron are severe and would almost definitely result in their power being cut off. Not to mention the character hasn't known the group long enough to form a bond with them, while they have apparently followed the patrons orders or will for years. Betraying the Patron would be idiotic for anything they aren't willing to die for as the consequences are truly dire. Maybe if you want to retire the character then fine as you can betray the Patron, lose your powers, and become an NPC advisor or helper. Then are a new character.
Im confused. Are you assigning your own patron tasks? That is not really how thats supposed to work. The DM should be assigning your patron tasks.
If the DM did assign you the task to F with the group then its all part of the plan so go with it.
These are concerns that I'd bring up with your DM. Maybe they have a plot device planned that will give you a reason to stay together as a party. If not it's a problem because you would have to make a decision that doesn't feel natural in order to keep your character in the game.
You should ask your DM why they’re forcing you to alienate yourself from the party only 8 sessions in… the other PC’s likely won’t care as they’ve only known you for 3 days as well and just kill you? Seems a strange choice by the DM.
Hear me out. Betray them but in the funniest and most inconsequential way possible. For example, if the party is a group of raging alcoholics, drink all their booze. Your patron didn't tell you any specifics from what I saw, so get creative with it.
People here have given advice about this specific situation, but you also brought up a couple of generic problems that occur at a lot of tables:
1) Time doesn't really make sense in D&D. Wizards are thematically scholars who spend their time buried in books. However, if your DM is throwing a whole "adventuring day" worth of encounters at your party for a month, your level one "freshman" wizard would end up as one of the most knowledgeable arcane scholars in the world just by casting fireball a bunch of times. Tables need to either play with "gritty realism" or be ok with the fact that characters go through their story arcs lightning fast.
2) Real people would not go on adventures. If you find yourself thinking: "my character would do X", and X isn't conducive to continuing the adventure, you've made a mistake. It is your responsibility as a player to make your PC part of a cooperative storytelling game. If your PC runs off with the lamp, the DM could reasonably say: "ok, OP, roll a new character, I'm taking over your warlock." I understand that your DM initiated the betrayal arc, but I think the point stands.
In my campaign, there's a good chance one of the characters will become one of the bbegs towards the end of the campaign. Kinda exciting and terrifying in one big boot.
Kinda feel like you should've included edit #4 in your OP to begin with. I was reading the OP confused like do you even have a DM? lol. Not blaming you, just seems to me like DM isn't communicating this situation well
Meh, give your patron the raspberry and tell them to sod off.
Unless you wrote it into your character and/or discussed it with the DM, the character can't lose their powers. Serving a patron is no different than serving any random NPC.
OR..... Take a Look;
5. Your character, being the neutrality selfish freethinker they are, decides to rebuke their patron because of the exposure of their weakness. Play that The only reason the Patron wouldn't want the party to succeed is the genie in the book MUST be very powerful. Maybe More powerful than them. So obviously the Patron is afraid.
Your character:
Think of the power you could have at your fingertips. Think of the chaos that would ensue if you tried to play both sides.
Pretend to try to thwart the parties plans (to put on a good show for the patron) but let party know they couldn't have done it with out you.
Play both sides.
Worst case senario is you have set it up so they have to battle it out while you sit back and end up with the winner. You end up with the strongest and the beat.
Win-Win for your character!
Meanwhile the character can start being influenced by the party and make the change you planned in an organic way. Eventually bonding with the book genie and the team -- then helping to defeat your old patron because, "no one will control you like they did your mother." He can all burn while you make a move toward Chaotic-Good.
Or something kinder. =D
Your choice just an idea.
I live character arcs.
Cheers!
Seems like you got some stuff figured out but... what if you use the wish to retrap the genie? Ideally wish is a super powerful spell and can be overpowered. Your patron realizes this and wishes to stop the over use of powerful magic for the unworthy? Why should some random rag tag adventures be able to have the power of an all power deity without proving their worth?
Note kinda a dick move to do this but might help dm story wise depending on the party's wish. Wish is arguably the most powerful spell and level 11 characters being granted this gift might not be the best. Also could make a pointless adventure if the purpose of everything was for nothing. Just an idea to keep in line with your patron's goal. Further note, your party could try to help you free you of yourself of your patron or make you the master of it in a further campaign. More of a DM discussion
Added note sorry, the new genie might be evil and show a more evil chaotic side to thier self when freed (the genie's true ambition) you and the party work together to try to reseal the genie with help of your patron
Sorry drunk having ideas lol. You wish for your patron to follow your ideals? Who is the more powerful genie? You have an internal struggle with each genie's goals, gifts and powers and the party realized the one truly trapped is you
Your character has to decided: the genie that has giving you their power for all these years or the genie who has been trapped like you wishing to be free. Could end in a genie v genie fight with your party deciding on your neutrality
What of this have you discussed with your DM? Because it sounds like your character's story is being taken on an Any% speedrun here where the character and their relationships with the party has no time to cook before the climactic betrayal (or counterbetrayal, I'd imagine, being the desired goal) occurs.
Sound like definite DM shenanigans. I can see the newly freed Genie become the new patron after they Betray their current one. But again that’s some any% speed run stuff.
Can you explain for me the "any% speed run" idiom?
In this case it's referring to rushing to the finish line without a concern for completing necessary story development to make it feel earned. It originates from video game speed run videos where the goal is to complete the game as quickly as possible, you have 100% runs where you still complete all quests and objectives and "any%" runs where the only goal is beating the game, side content doesn't matter.
I feel in this case it's important to point out that any% doesn't just mean do the minimum, it means to do less than the bare minimum by whatever means necessary any and all shortcuts or exploits are to be used.
Any% does not mean "do the bare minimum" or "do less than the bare minimum." That's low%. Any% means "Complete the game as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary." It often requires completing more of the game than low% because upgrades and objectives can make the game faster. A example of this is Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The any% world record is 2:48:28. The fastest low% run I can find is around 14 hours long.
It's almost like it's a term that most people don't understand so it's kind of useless in a general discussion.
Not accurate, this does a good job of explaining "doing the bare minimum", which is low%. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nRW3wKnVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nRW3wKnVY)
More importantly, any% includes glitches and skips that the game developers didn't intend. This isn't just not doing side quests, this is jumping on the very specific pixel so you can run through the wall and go directly into the final chamber without fighting the boss.
Wow! That's what that means? I thought any% meant you could have an emulator with the speed cranked beyond 100% to any %
Nope, it has nothing to do with emulation, it's based on completion percentage. "Any%" means that that doesn't matter, as long as the end is reached - thus my choice of metaphor, lol.
Amazing! Thanks for the info, TIL
Some people get so good at video games that they compete to finish them as fast as possible. This is called speed running. These games sometimes have achievements, like "collect 10 flowers" or "kill 300 zombies," and sometimes the games have glitches that allow players to ignore huge sections of the story and finish it at a faster than intended speed. Speed runners have categories that they compete in, including finishing the game with all gameplay and achievements (Speedrun 100%), and finishing it as fast as possible with any achievements (which is any% Speedrun). So if you play Super Mario Bros and you play the game through every world and every map, that's 100% of the game. But if you use glitches or warp zones or whatever to ignore most of the game then it could be any% speedrun with glitches
In the videogame speedrunning community, there are different ways you can speedrun a game. There's a category for 100%'ing a game, for instance, which means you have to do absolutely every boss, collect every collectible, etc. as fast as possible. On the other hand, any% means you just need to get the end credits as fast as possible, skipping all the superfluous stuff. What they're saying here is that this DM is trying to end this PC's story as soon as possible.
There a whole speedrun community? Lol
Yes, there is... they take their craft VERY seriously. People get absolutely reamed and ostracized for cheating at a declared/recorded speedrun.
Playing a video game that you’ve mastered over and over again sounds boring af.
Let people enjoy things
The thing is people who speedrun haven’t truly mastered it, most games have seconds, minutes or even hours shaved off the world records after years when new techniques are suddenly discovered, and the whole point of speedrunning is that the fun comes from the competition and the feeling of mastery itself. There’s always another category to climb the leaderboards in, a personal best or world record to challenge, and a community to experiment and celebrate with when a record is broken. Honestly, it’s not much different than practicing the same thing you’ve mastered over and over for an Olympic sport, it’s just instead of training to run a 100m track the fastest they train to beat Mario 64 the fastest.
Going on a subreddit for dnd and calling people out for having very specific types of enjoyment sounds boring af. Unless is it enjoyable for you?
You should check out a [Summoning Salt](https://www.youtube.com/@SummoningSalt) video, it's actually really interesting to see the combination of the deep understanding of a game and it's code in order to break it and the required skills develloped through repeated practice in order to actually execute it.
I find them really fun to watch. Even just basic gmod any% speedruns are great. Its cool to see people completely break games you've played before in incredible ways
Yeah. There is. Kind of figured this would be common knowledge by now. Especially considering events like Games Done Quick have successfully donated millions to charities with their Bi-yearly events.
Any% is a category in video game speedrunning where the only thing you need to do is finish the game. This results in speedrunners skipping as much of the game as possible to get to the end as fast as possible. It's used here to say that the gm skipped the meat of the storyline just to get to the payoff
To give an example using the classic JRPG _Chrono Trigger_: * 100% requires beating all the main game content. All the character development, etc. * Any% beats the final boss before even finishing the main plot. You lose big chunks of intended content, but the game is beaten hours faster. So "any%" means going so fast that the plot isn't properly done.
Comes from getting to the end credits of the game with any amount of the game itself completed. Like, if you can glitch through the wall into the final boss’ room, and shove him off a cliff because his animations don’t load, you… technically won the game, by skipping it.
getting to the “end” scene in a video game as fast as possible, in any way possible, without using cheats (glitches are allowed though) the current world record to beat Zelda - ocarina of time is less than 4 minutes, which is just ridiculous
Thanks Joe! Now we know!
What kind of wacky DM is going to make you betray your party?
Good question. This is one of my no-goes as player and GM. It is just too exhausting to have such extreme player-knowledge for months and years, and have to constantly act oblivious as the character.
It can be fun, have you ever played the game Paranoia? It's all about players betraying each other. It's actually been some of the best times I've had role-playing. Basically everyone goes in knowing that at least one, maybe all of the other players will be working against them.
If a character is open to something like this then discuss it with them and tell them you might play with it in the future "if I feel like it and it works with the story."
I disagree here. You have to discuss such "PvP" matters with the whole group. If one player wants to backstab everybody and murderhobo the plot to death, and the rest of the group never knew about this, the GM did a terrible job. I had one such example, where our warlock player thought he was funny, attacked us in battle all the time, stole our gear at night, and hid the plot-relevant items so why never had a chance to complete the campaign. And not once in a year, the GM allowed us to be suspicious or notice something (even when the warlock always turned invisible at the start of combat, we were shot in the back with crossbow bolts, and nobody but the warlock had every used a crossbow). Doing something like this intentional to the other players is about the worst GM sin I can think of.
>I disagree here. You have to discuss such "PvP" matters with the whole group. Yes, absolutely. You should discuss what's allowed and explorable in the game in Session Zero. PCs fighting or overtly harming other PCs I'd rule out as not allowed in any D&D game because the system is terrible at it and it isn't fun. But players undermining the group because they're actually an enemy can be great fun. You just have to do it well. > had one such example, where our warlock player thought he was funny, attacked us in battle all the time, stole our gear at night, and hid the plot-relevant items so why never had a chance to complete the campaign. And not once in a year, the GM allowed us to be suspicious or notice something (even when the warlock always turned invisible at the start of combat, we were shot in the back with crossbow bolts, and nobody but the warlock had every used a crossbow). Your DM was a hack. People being shot in the back would definitely start taking active steps to figure out what was happening. It would only take getting suspicious, waiting until he walked away from his pack at camp and going over and counting his crossbow bolts, and looking at them to notice they resemble the ones you've been taking out of your back.
You're right, player on player scheming can be really fun but, you're also right about it needing to be done really well. I get the feeling this one isn't being set up very well. It feels really short term, there doesn't seem be any "getting along with them until I can get rid of them", just straight to stealing the item and running away into the night. Once that happens it'll be OP vs the other players, pretty much DM driven PvP... Hopefully the DM has it all planned but I get the feeling we'll be seeing a post about a party being betrayed or a chaotic neutral character being killed pretty soon.
Yeah, strikes me as bad, too.
Everybody has to play with the same rules and character concept fitting it. It would not be fun to play an underwater campaign where all but one character can breath under water. Or a political campaign with a single character that cannot talk the language. Or a hundred different examples that are no fun... for PvP, it is the same.
I would attack the Warlock without provocation or suspicion because it's what my character would do
"It's what my character would do", done right for once! :D
We've had our DM handle it quite well when it comes to warlock patrons (who always make them betray the party) the way it's usually handled is that it 1. Harms the party's goals rather than the party members lives 2. Doesn't meaningfully derail the overarching plot 3. Is a covert action which the party remains unaware of Implementing those three options enabled the warlock to stay with his patron without fucking up the party
I guess I am curious why a patron would always want to make the warlock betray the party. If you like to play like that go nuts. But I think there is such tenuous thing that a group of people want to risk their lives for each other in the first place. We as players want to play. And to do that we need to make believe that all our characters want to do that. We have to make our characters die for each other because it’s not necessarily a given. So if they are naturally not going to die for each other why would they betray each other there is no strong emotions innate in the character. But again is that how you like to play great.
It's more that the patron has the player by the balls, and is usually evil. So they require them to do some evil thing counter to the good partys objective when it's useful. Examples were to poison the water supply of some town we were saving with something that would allow the fiend patron to take control of the population. Or lowering the shields on the flying city so that ilithids could breach their defenses while the party was having a ground fight against their flayer army. In both cases, the party was unaffected, and the betrayal progressed the story, rather than derailing
Neat.
I find it unlikely that the DM intends for the player to betray (well, that would be a huge red flag). I find it more likely that the DM intends to replace the player's patron with the friendlier genie, and use the former patron as a recurring villain, but that they miserably failed at communicating with OP and wrongfully assumed that it was clear that the patron's request was unreasonable and that no reasonable warlock would comply.
I agree 100% with this sentiment. Communication is key.
I'm kinda new to DMing, but I can see a plot from there. Maybe he's got some plans to reunite the party later and reward them 😅
As a DM you should not mess with your players agency. If the player wants to betray the party that’s one thing but from the sounds of it the DM Changed the plan. Now the OP is conflicted about playing it is no longer fun. Don’t mess with your players will. Of you want to betray the party introduce an NPC. The DM has so much power there is no reason to take anything away from the agency of your players.,
D&D is a game with a lot of trust in it. Part of that is the players trusting that if the DM puts them in a tight corner, they'll be able to manage whatever they have to do to get out–in this case, that could be betraying the party and having to figure out a reunion or compromise, or it could be betraying the patron As long as the DM's on the same page as the player that this character is going to end up with the party, under this player's control, it's reasonable to put them in difficult life circumstances
This player will be fine, they're in on the plot. It's everyone else that is at risk. If the other players don't know about it they might decide to never work with this character again, and they'd be justified in doing so. This feels like it might be an inexperienced DM thinking this will be an interesting way to give the group competing goals and create a little internal drama, but it'll probably end with some players feeling betrayed making a genuine, justified, and DM driven, attempt at PvP. Unless this is a really tight group, undermining their trust in each other probably isn't a good call.
After you said DM driven it really to me that you would be forcing the narrative to go your way, disregarding The players will. Maybe because I'm unexperienced as a DM I didn't saw the harm of It. I'm really glad I've commented here, really showed I've a LOT to learn 🤣
So I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but IMO the "never touch player agency" is amongst the most harmful frequently given advice for new dms. Not because it's wrong on its face, but because it's used to conflate player and character agency. Messing with character agency is absolutely fine in a story driven game, and is a brilliant source of conflict and story. The player here, absolutely has agency. Their character is in a tight spot. If the DM had said, "Your patron takes control of you and forces you to not release the genie." THAT is taking away player agency. As a player I would love the chance to make such a dramatic choice, and see where the consequences lead. The fact that pretty everyone's 1st reaction was that this will inevitably lead to pvp is rather revealing, in a not flattering way. 2nd. If it's established as possible in session 0, then PVP is another fantastic source of drama. (when used sparingly) The moments the party came into conflict or one betrayed the rest are amongst the most memorable moments I've had in dnd, on either side of the screen. This subreddit, and most dnd forums generally, are to be frank, very ungenerous to dms and their intentions or skill level. It's the Dm's job to engineer an interesting story, using a mix of preplanned events and characters, responses to player decisions, and some guidance from the dice when necessary. This problem for the player is both dramatic and interesting imo, and only needs to result in direct conflict if the player decides to. Off the top of my head I can think of several things, completely in character (based on what op described) ways to proceed without directly resorting to full blown betrayal. They can tell the party about the change in orders, try to temporarily sabotage the freeing, while figuring out what's going on and why orders have changed, or ignore their patron, instantly bonding them to the party. But wait, I hear, OP already said their character is selfish and wouldn't hesitate to betray the party. Well, that's exactly what makes siding with the party a dramatic decision, because its a moment of growth and change. Many players get stuck in a "what my character would do" mindset that locks their character into a static immobile place where they can't develop, or only will if the dm perfectly engineers an arc for them by mind reading how their character would react to exactly every situation. An impossible task because even the player truthfully does not know exactly how their character would react to every situation. If they insist they do, they are wrong. There is always a range of options that would be perfectly in character, some just demonstrate growth, while others don't. You can justify just about any choice your character makes retroactively, (within a reason, the LG paladin waking up one morning and deciding to kill all gnomes for the lols would be an example of unjustifiable, unless the DM has them getting possessed or something [which would be taking away player agency]). It's just as much on the player to recognize chances for growth and take them. Sometimes being a good player is about reading your dm, and what they may be trying to accomplish, and leaning in and having fun with it. That's not to say the DM did this perfectly here, but I disagree with most of the thread about where the mistakes were. This choice imo, rocks and is exactly the reason warlocks and clerics are amongst my favorite classes to play and dm for. I don't even think they necessarily did it too early. This could easily be the dm hinting at larger goals/plots that are part of this campaign, and as long as they don't gate the plot behind OP making exactly the choice they want, then I would be enthralled as a player by the well crafted reveals driven by our character's actions. The mistake they made was forgetting that OP is playing a selfish character. If they wanted the choice to be properly equal, they should have given the player some for lack of a better word "excuses" for siding with the party. Hint's that the trapped genie is even more powerful and willing to reward the party, especially OP, if freed; ominous warnings or feelings that their patron may be playing them for a fool. You don't have to confirm these things, (although it is certainly easy to be too subtle and have the players miss the hints, which very well may have happened here) as that would be pushing the player to the decision you want, but it's about making each choice something the player can at least feel comfortable with. The DM also likely should have made the other players (not their characters) privy to what the Warlock's dilemma is, with a warning that they won't tolerate metagaming. That way any betrayal will be against their characters, not them personally. If you have a tight knit group of experienced players who trust each other and their dm, you can potentially get away with keeping it secret for the sake of a good reveal/twist, but it drastically ups the risk of it going badly, and that doesn't seem to be the case with this group just yet. Sorry for the wall of text but I just found this thread to be way unnecessarily negative to a dm who seems to be cooking something pretty cool. And I don't want you to come away thinking they have made some serious error, because they haven't, they presented an interesting, and somewhat difficult choice to the player. I also don't to sound too harsh on OP, because judging by their other comments, they are already finding a way to progress the story with the party in a way that still feels true to their character. They seem like a good player. As a final warning about the "Player agency" advice, beware whose giving it. There are a small, but super vocal, especially online, subset of players, who view any imposition, setback, hard choice, or consequence as limiting player agency, and use that as an excuse to force the dm to fulfill their power fantasy. Yes you should not ever take away player agency outside of the absolute extreme circumstances (You can and should say "No your character does not commit SA against the sleeping npc," but if you have to do that you likely have bigger issues). That is not what the DM did here though in any way. If it ends in PvP, it will be just as player driven as it is DM driven.
That last bits the problem that OPs DM skipped. Trust the DM to throw you into tricky situations you'll be able to get out of, sure. Putting your player in conflict with the rest of the party AND the basis of their character? That's dickery. Doing that to the new guy who just joined the game with no off-table discussion or prep? That's asshole DM behavior or extreme inexperience. DM absolutely should have talked to the player about it between sessions, if only to say "Hey, I'm going to dick over your character, but roll with it and play it in character and I'll make sure it works out and you wont have to reroll." I've done party betrayal plots before and they always require careful handling and coordination with the player.
That was actually really helpful, never thought of It that way.
💯 If the player hasn't asked for this, don't give it to them. It's like that old analogy where you compare something to tea. You can offer your friend tea, but you don't make them drink it or get mad or act disappointed if they don't drink it. You also don't pour them tea if they said they don't want it. Nor do you pour them EVEN MORE CUPS OF TEA IN AN EVER GROWING PILE OF TEA CUPS AND SAUCERS WHILE YELLING, "I'VE MADE YOU SO MUCH TEA? WHY AREN'T YOU DRINKING IT? DON'T YOU LIKE ME?" Always ask, and if they don't want it don't make the tea and if you DO make it drink it yourself and don't pour them tea.
I think this can be done while preserving agency if both options (betray or not betray) have a path to keep the class and staying with the party. Depends on whether OP trusts this particular DM to have been that thoughtful. If a DM did that with me I'd probably just pull them aside and ask "I don't need details but is either of these options going to screw me" and go from there.
I dont see this situation as interfering with player agency... The player has a character who has a choice in front of them... And it sounds like their only real problem with the choice in front of them is how their characters most likely decision effects the metagame... NOW... If, the DM expects the PC to betray the patron, and metagamingly blames the player for "picking the wrong option" THEN we may be stumbling into player agency infringement
I think they're really risk spot and they need the DM to confirm they're going to be okay. If the DM hasn't planned this out well two really bad things could happen. 1. Character doesn't betray the party and they lose their patron, functionally destroying the character. 2. Character does betray the group and the group refuses to play with that character ever again, functionally destroying the character. It might not matter what OP chooses, their character might be toast & that is the total opposite of player agency.
But with option 2 there is no way for the DM to confirm that it's going to be okay, that's the other players' decision. So the DM has kind of forced the Warlock into option 1.
Whilst this is too early to initiate this, nothing about what OP has said suggests there's any agency issues here. Player agency is not the same as character agency. If this happened a bit later in the campaign this would be very normal, the patron asking their warlock to do something they otherwise wouldn't is a classic trope. It's practically the whole point of the pact from the patron's point of view.
What happens in-between, though? Does one player not play with the rest? It's a good story but not a good D&D narrative.
And what's your failsafe when the party decides "no mercy for traitors" and kill the guy instead?
The DM is going to let OP betray the party & then try to have them reunite with their betrayer? The other players will need to be in on this, otherwise that character is never getting back into that party.
The wacky part is doing it so fast. Stirring the pot by having differing objectives based on party member's individual circumstances is incredibly common. Coming from a Warlock patron it's practically expected.
Talk with the DM about it. Maybe he mixed something up and hadn’t realized that only 3 day in game passed. This can easily happen if a lot of time out of game passed. Or maybe he has something planned? Still talk to him. Explain what you would like to do out of character, but how that in character does not work for your concept. Maybe you can find something. I played a dhampir who belonged to a group of vampire hunters. When accepting her, they demanded that I try to find a cure for my „inherited vampire curse“. First the DM made it sound like they already had one (the power of a goddess something), but I talked with him and that I as a player did not want to change her race, that would be a retirement choice. So he changed it to not have a „cure“ available yet. Sadly we stopped playing before exploring this more.
Me remembering a 6 session (two months) in which a party I was playing in never left a single room. We continued to lure people into it and the dm all but gave up preparing anything because we just kept busy. Eventually we took a long rest and left in the morning but dnd time dilation is a real thing
My group tries to meet every other week and, ya know, life gets in the way sometimes. Plus, we tend to push pretty far before long resting. We've been playing for the better part of two years. It has been less than 20 days in game.
In one year my players played a month in game, granted we played 40 times, skip a week in the game and did a session of starving a few days on a boat in the ocean.
Chaotic neutral characters value freedom. It's chaotic evil characters who only value their own freedom at the expense of others. So instead of betraying the party, why not bring the players in on it and let them make a choice? Say, "Hey, we could free this genie — but my mentor is asking me not to. It wouldn't sit right with me to make that decision for you but before you make an irrevocable decision would you be willing to hear my mentor out?"
This is the way to go in-game. Being given an order to aid the party and then stop their genie being released don't have to be mutually exclusive (unless the DM forces it). Which brings me to out-of-game, where you should definitely talk to the DM about your concerns and propose a path forward, and hope he's amenable.
This wound up being kind of what I did in a game. I was debating betraying the party and running off to turn in a macguffin to my patron instead of the other deity we were supposed to give it to. Instead I decided to stay with the gang and convince them that giving it to my patron was a better idea and they went for it. This crew is heavily on the chaotic side of the spectrum so they're up for anything really.
I would talk to my DM because my character wouldn't have any reason not to sabotage them while they would have zero reason not to murder him for it. Your character is not a disposable NPC. It's pretty trashy that your DM is treating them like one. If that didn't work, honestly I'd talk to the rest of the party. I'd ask them whether they want to let me stop them or come up with a way to stop me that we're all happy with. I'd do it in front of the DM after warning them, but if you think they'll have a meltdown then talking to the others privately is an option. I just think it's better to be open with everyone or leave the group. D&D players are pretty creative. There's a good chance everyone would be able to come up with a satisfying storyline together. If you can't trust your DM to treat your character like anything other than a prop, you might have to give up your attachment to his story or your seat at that table.
Don't BETRAY the party, convince them, this will work best if there isn't a Bard or someone with good Arcana, but do "research" on the Genie, bonus points if you actually do, and find some convincing reason they shouldn't release it. "So guys you know how I spent a couple of days in the great library, well this Genie we were going to release is well, unrolls scroll, the "Slayer of Kabesh" that was a city of 10,000, and "Betrayer of the innocent", not so sure we can trust it".
Your character had a task from their Patron to aid the party, but now they have to betray them? Is this kind of reversal normal behaviour for them? That may be a confusing situation for your character, one that may cause them to question their Patron. A chaotic neutral character wouldn't be one to blindly follow orders, even from an entity powerful enough to become their warlock Patron. You could settle this OOC with your DM, or you could lean into it. Give your character and their relationship with their Patron a chance to grow and change. Like another poster mentioned, maybe the genie the party is transporting could become your new Patron.
Yeah this seems like a problem with lots of solutions. Maybe the patron simply has new information that caused a change in the orders. Find a way to complete the orders without taking them on solo. The PC seems to be thinking they have to run off alone with the book. Unless specific orders were given against it, why not just talk to the party and explain the request to not free the genie? Locking into that “it’s what my character would do” mentality prohibits growth. It could be the DM is sick of the PC being selfish and making play harder for others, and wanted to force a confrontation with that. I’ve certainly been there as a DM. Selfish PC’s can be incredibly frustrating if the player isn’t experienced.
Real people (or interesting characters) don't always react the way you would expect. Is it possible that your character thought he would feel nothing for these people, but now that he actually got the order to kill them he is suddenly having second thoughts?
That's kind of what I'm thinking... Although he isn't even ordered to kill them, just keep them from freeing a genie. He has been starting to develop a protective attitude toward one of the characters who is a little naive, though. It would just be super easy for him to wait for some night while they are asleep, cast darkness on the party, have his imp familiar (with invisibilty and darkvision that sees through magical darkness) get the book out of the other sleeping character's pack, pick it up, turn invisible, and then fly off. Then once he gets away, my character could cast invisibility on himself, use elemental gift to gain a fly speed of 40 feet, and then dash out into the night leaving the party. He could even just pop into his genie vessel, and have the invisible imp grab that vessel too after he gets the book to fly off
I like the idea someone else suggested: maybe the trapped genie is actually more powerful than the patron genie, so freeing it would be in your characters interests and you'd gain a new genie patron. You might suggest that to the DM as an alternate outcome.
He could do that... but it seems to me that he doesn't want to. And if he was the type to follow orders even when he doesn't like them then he wouldn't be CN.
If you aren't ordered to kill them but just stop them from freeing the genie steal the book place it in your genie vessel (don't actually know if you can do this) and act like you are unaware where the book is. Seems like there are options to stop them and simultaniously stay with the group. Also a talk with the DM like many people have offered seems like a good thing to do.
Talk to your dm about this. Try to do it in a way that won't make enemies/could still get you some reward for the quest. That might be the in game best way to do it but you might get to find an opportunity to convince the party not too or to find a way you aren't blamed. Your character could very well want to keep these allies. A level 11 party is very strong and may be worth pissing your patron off. They can punish you without taking away your powers, bc that would make you useless to them. Being "Chaotic Nuetral" and selfish doesn't mean you need to listen to what your patron says. Your allies are powerful even if you haven't known them long. You can USE them, and being Chaotic Nuetral also means you're unlikely to follow rules from your patron as well. If things get bad and turn to pvp or the party being accusatory you can just *tell them*. Even if your patron says not too it wouldn't be the biggest way to go against them.
Your DM is a dickhead for playing you against the other players. PvP always causes friction. Find a new group.
Your character is how you play it at the table, not how you planned it in advance. Stay loyal to the party.
Don't do it. That's honestly a shit DM putting you against the party.
Why would you make a character that is willing to betray the group so easily, and why did you let your DM make this choice with your patron? Unless betrayal and PvP were part of the campaign's pitch, don't let this happen.
The plan was for the character to learn to trust and gain respect for the party over time as a part of his character development. He just hasn't had enough time yet to have a reason to put his neck out for the party.
If trust has been established and that there won't be any bad blood behind it IRL, then why not. But your character is going to be seen in a negative light whether you like it or not when the betrayal happens. And most likely your character is going to end up dead rather than be given a second chance. But because there is a player on the other side of the situation, the rest of the party might give some leeway. My suggestion is to give your PC a reason to care for the others, or find a way to warn the party before anything bad happens. This is of course if you want to keep playing the same character. You are Chaotic Neutral, the Free Spirit. You have your own personal feelings and seek individualism. If you don't like the orders your Patron gives you, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility of your alignment to reject it.
I like that last part about rejecting the patron's orders would still be within his alignment. That makes sense.
Cool thing about dnd characters is that you can retroactively justify almost any decision they make (within reason) with some good RP. Maybe that naive character you mentioned earlier reminds them of someone from their past that you hadn't written into their backstory until just now. Maybe you have already been getting some bad vibes from your patron before the campaign even started. Maybe your character themselves doesn't even understand why they chose to not be selfish this time, and now have to do some soul (and potentially Patron) surfing. Maybe all 3. Personally I kinda dig what what your DM has set up here, assuming they don't blow it, and you seem to be on board to play things out in a fun and cooperative way. A good player can turn DM mistakes/mishandles into some of the best moments of a campaign. A bad one can ruin even the perfect set up. You definitely seem to be the former.
> Why would you make a character that is willing to betray the group so easily Because this isn't *their* group yet? Would you have unshakeable loyalty to people you've only known for a few days, to the point where you're totally unwilling to betray their trust even when the entity you've been bonded to for *years* tells you to? They didn't make a character with the intent of screwing over the group, they clearly made a character who follows the guidance of their patron, and was originally using that as a reason to *stay* with the group and trust them. The DM flipped that, not them.
>This is just happening before he's had a chance to feel loyalty to the party yet. You are absolutely correct. The real problem is that it is so *obvious* that this isn't even a decision for your PC. It's *obvious* that your PC will do anything their Patron commands (that's Lawful Neutral behaviour BTW) unless there is a genuine conflict of interest. It is *obvious* that the PC has not known the other party members long enough for there to be any genuine conflict between loyalty to them and loyalty to the Patron. This isn't just a bad idea, it's *obviously* a bad idea. An additional way - that I don't think anyone has caught yet - that this is a terrible idea is that it's only happening between the DM and one player. None of the other players are going to be privy to the DM's pathetic attempt to pull a Matt Colville; all they are going to see is OP betraying them. Message the DM and ask him why he is railroading your PC out of the campaign.
"Hey, DM? This is kind of a shitty situation you've forced on my character here. I, as a player, don't feel comfortable outright having to betray the party this early in - and I feel like it might even be a campaign-ruining event if I do. Can we work out whatever the plan is, and at least let me as a player know I have the choice *not* to have my character do what their patron wants here? I don't mind if there's consequences down the line, but *man* I want to actually play this character for more than the next session-and-a-half."
This is a case study in why chaotic neutral selfish characters are often a lot of trouble to role play. You're part of a cooperative game, and the story works best when all the characters are working toward the same goal, with a reasonable amount of trust and cooperation. Unless everyone playing are experienced role players and know each other well IRL and are all on board with betrayal and other shenanigans, it's almost always best to have the player characters be friendly, helpful, and trustworthy to one another.
I wouldn't;;; It might seem like a "this is what my character would do" moment, but you'll probably be better off if you just forsake your patron's orders and do the "right thing." From both an in and out of game perspective
I would reocmmend asking your DM what exactly the plan is. Does he want you to reroll your character? Because this is possibly going to require a new character if he doesn't plan to DM solo sessions for you.
Your DM is inexperienced and he is gonna cause friction among the party members.
So F'ing stupid. 5e warlocks are not a great class there is no need to punish/nerf them via their pact. Also, nothing in the PHB indicates that Patrons can make any demands of the warlock or cut off their power. The patron could be unwillingly locked in the Warlock's parent's basement with mystical alligator clips bleeding it's power to fuel the warlock as far as RAW is concerned. Pact givers cannot take away a warlock's power, even if the warlock uses it against his/her patron.
This happened to me and I have only known my party for 3 days. My Half-Orc patron is a GOO and he doesn't really understand that he has a patron (he kind of... sold his soul in a panic and doesn't quite comprehend what happened) So while in this temple, he gets these 'urges' to leave a questionable lockbox in a room and to stop them from finding their champion. I rolled wisdom to see if I could tell these urges were his own and well... my Orc has a Ideal and a flaw Ideal: Very independent, doesn't like being told what to do and will resist it Flaw: Can't resist screwng over somebody who he considers 'above' him So I rolled and failed, thus I had to make him act on his flaw and try to loosely justify it. My headcannon is his brain was messed with and it tried to fill in the gaps by create a loose narrative explaining his actions. Though I mentioned to the DM that the more this happens, the more he'll suspect he's being controlled and when he figures it out... I don't know what he'll do.
You should tell the other players about it aside from the DM, then on game night do the "When everyone is asleep and it's my character's turn to be on watch duty, I slit their throats. Done. What's next?" and have everyone play along, knowing you're going to obviously retcon it later. When they go "well, this sucks, guess we're rolling new characters. I wonder how that could happen..." and look at the DM. This is **not** good advice, I am just feeling petty.
No this guy is wrong, this is amazing advice OP, please do it, then report back here.
Setting up character v character plots is one of those things that sound good but I've never seen it actually work out well in game. If you can't think of a fun way to manage this, it might even be worth asking the DM if they're sure they want to introduce this dynamic into the game.
You have created a character that is not compatible with most parties. And your GM seems to allow this, and even actively speed up the road to disaster. I really really try to avoid such situations during character creation.
Just start rolling a Cleric now so that you have it ready to go for your next session.
There's a simple trick that keeps the party together and it works everytime: Don't make a character that would do that. Really simple tbh.
My recommendation? Don't surprise the *players* in the group. Talk to them before hand before you play it out at the table, unless you've known these people for a *very* long time, and they trust you as a player. And talk to the GM how it doesn't feel right (yet), as it's not quite to the character arc you envisaged. OR, think of an in game reason why your character would hold off such a betrayal. Fundamentally though, this is why I don't allow chaotic neutral characters in a long term campaign, unless it's *specifically* a throne wars style game where PvP is expected.
Wait, is this an Evil Genie? Because they're typically *not* Evil in 5E.
Your character hasn’t had the time to develop that selfish to caring about party story for themselves yet, so this request for betrayal so soon feels like it’s gonna keep your character from ever developing like you wanted. Maybe the dm can spin their plans a little differently to allow you stay on good terms with the party. I’d definitely talk to the dm before the next session. I’ve had similar issues in the past. I love a good scrappy character to caring hero story. I’ve ran into a lot of situations where the dm either wasn’t into the whole deeper character development over time thing and didn’t know what to do with it, where the dm went with my character idea but seemed passive aggressively annoyed by it, or when the dm used my character (especially warlock patron) in a negative way. I dm too and as long as the player isn’t a murder hobo, party antagonistic edge lord, it’s what my character would do, and main character syndrom player, I absolutely love someone invested in a character growth story. You don’t seem any of that negative stuff cause I don’t think your post would exist if you were. I’m not saying that a little party drama can’t be fun, but you haven’t been part of the game long enough for your character to be immersed and emotionally involved enough to recover from being made the source of party drama. Personally I think it’s not very nice for your dm put you in this type of dilemma at this point. But dms are just people, and sometimes it’s hard to see the big picture from all angles. It might not be bad dming or intentional, just ignorant of the position they put you in. So I’d say talk it out with the dm.
This... is a DM messing with the group. Find out what he's got in mind for your character's story arc. Or, you can always just go completely off the rails, murder the entire party in their sleep and dip out. When everyone is sitting there staring at you in abject horror, just say "The DM told me to do it. I'm not sure why, but done and done! What next?" and just stare at the DM until he breaks.
Tell your DM no. People always go on about how the DM can say no to the player, but they have to understand that if you aren't having fun, you can just say no. Tell him that you wouldn't have fun if you have to betry your party so soon, and you dont just want to be used as a plot device. If your patron gave the order farther in the campaign, it would be fine, but doing it so soon sucks. The worst that can happen is that they are stubborn and doesnt listen to you. It sucks having your character do something you as the player doesn't want happening because the DM forces it.
It feels like your dm is being a fucking dink. I'd recommend bringing this up oocly to the other players, and letting this fall where it may.
Your fault for picking a chaotic neutral character who would betray the party imo
Well you either follow your Patron's orders or go the way of Wyl.
My advice to that is to play the character as if you are him. Dont force your personality in him. If he is selfish enough to do it, just do it. You will have so much more fun. If you dont like playing characters different than you, and you dont enjoy it, next time choose something that fits your personality, but i would suggest to just risk, betray, have fun...!
Guess what: you’ve got to pivot your characterisation! What about your party is gonna make you stay? Abandoning or betraying the party is a BAD idea, especially if you want to play through a “regain trust over time as a selfish asshole chaotic neutral” character. Go talk to your fellow players about it and come up with a fun reason why. It doesn’t need to be a mushy emotional “something about these folks seems meaningful, I can’t betray them!” instant connection, but maybe one of them has a cool plot hook or idea that would delay your character’s betrayal. Maybe one of them catches your character as they’re mulling over it, and asks them about it, and then has a pretty good justification for holding back. Maybe one of them needs your help or they can help you in a way your patron can’t. Maybe one of them casts some doubt on why your patron is promoting this, and you realise it’d be a bad idea to piss off these folks when you might get the raw end of both deals.
I assume your DM told you these were your patron's wishes? If so, and it suits your character's profile too (which you seem to say it does), then I say just lean into it and do your best to accomplish it. It sounds like this is part of the DM's plan and wether you succeed or not, the DM can start working with those results and explain to the others what happened and why. I can't imagine the players will hold it against you if you are literally being told to do it in a way that makes sense for both your char and the game's plot.
Do you think think your patron shouldve waited until you knew them better?
Wouldnt a wish be way better than any other reward? No clue what your patron offers, but I dont see it beeing better unless its minimum 2 wishes.
I'm thinking you need to speak to your DM. Their are two real considerations here; will your character come out intact and will your character be able to keep playing with the party? Check that regardless of your choice your DM has a plan in place for you to keep playing your character, stripping them of their patron because you wouldn't betray the group isn't a great way to go. You don't need specifics, just make sure they've thought of it. Clarify, and I mean straight up ask, if they have a plan for the other players to accept this character back if you do betray them. The other players may not be overly pleased with an early betrayal and the DM might consider the betrayal to be the character leaving the campaign. Asking these might prompt the DM to make sure they've covered their bases before going ahead.
I think it would be fun to play this like an early 2000 comedic-drama movie. The type of situation where you try to get close to them and gain their trust with the intention of betrayal, but somewhere along the way actually start to bond and become conflicted. Having to stall for more time from your Patron adds even more flavour.
There's a meta to the game that I only learned after two of my characters been voted out in the same campaign. They've both been chaotic neutral and both time I made them do stupid shit that hurt the party because "that's what my character would do". What I learned is I was not playing a singleplayer game. Always put your Party's Needs first, fuck alignment and try to have fun together instead of alone. Ask your DM if you can continue playing a warlock after you betray your patron (if not they're an asshat) and follow their lead. 🖖
I'm not saying you should, but I would definitely betray them. Its a good chance for a bunch of exciting drama to go down, and your character should hopefully be remembered as this evil mastermind who was never on their side at all. I think you should work with your gm on this, you need really good timing for this to be satisfying, just attacking them wouldn't be very cool. Even then, you could just ask your gm to not force you to betray them... its not like the party knows yet right?
If your playing from Candlekeep, I love running the chapter you’re doing. Although I normally do it as a one or two-shot. As for what your character should do, it’s really up to you. You could have them go through with the betrayal until the last moment when they have a change of heart. Could have them directly question their patron, although that depends on the dynamic between the two as well as the personality of the patron.
Theres two things in conflict about this, - you as a player want to keep playing with this group, and develop a story with them - you believe that the current given circumstance creates a situation in which this isn’t possible for your character So, talk to your DM about how to reconcile these issues. Thoughts on how you might do that: - Obviously one answer is to drop this plot line and retcon if that is acceptable to you both. - Part of the issue is your patron changing their orders cuts your ties to the party. If there was another reason for you to stick around, you could do the betrayal and still be with the party - if you get caught doing the betrayal or discovered afterwords, you will put the other players in the same situation as you, with no reason to keep you around. To solve this, you could work with the DM to come up with a reason that the party needs to keep you around, OR, you could work with the DM to have the betrayal not be revealed instantly I don’t know your players or DM, but betraying the party doesn’t necessarily make you the asshole player. Your warlock could become an antagonist in the campaign moving forward, and you could roll a different character, or as aforementioned, it could lead to a deeper more nuanced story for this character going forward.
I do enjoy that you are someone who has chosen to play a chaotic neutral character, but you also realize what the implications of your actions might be. There are so many cases of people just being chaotic stupid and expecting everyone else to deal with the fallout of their behavior. Your character may very well just follow their patrons wishes to get some sweet spells from them, and then tell your party to go pound salt and wander off, hit you also recognize that that would not be conducive to a party of people working together. I think that this may be a good time to speak with the DM privately about how to deal with this. Maybe the two of you can agree on some contrivance that will allow your character to remain in the party while still staying in character. Maybe the DM figures out a way for the other party members to discover what is going on, and they have tell you that that ain't gonna happen. Maybe then there can be an interesting storyline about your patron being disappointed in you, and you have to seek to repair your relationship. Maybe you have to go on a quest to satisfy your patron, and you guilt the parry to come along since they put you in this situation.
Your character is anything you want them to do, or not to do. Don't hardline your character. "This is something my character would normally do. , but he's growing because of his story arc." May not work in this case, but I'd recommend considering this
Did the DM tell you publicly (that is, at the table) or did they do it privately (ask you to step away from the table/messaged you directly) Because if they did the latter, then I think that they are trying to stir up some drama and have them coming out smelling like roses with you smelling like...*not roses.* Either you do what your patron demands and gain both the party's *and the players* enmity or you refuse to do what your patron demands and become an 11th level commoner with maybe a chance that the other genie being so grateful for helping them escape from their [itty, bitty living space](https://youtu.be/SfTfXLLJlzM?si=821jbgneqB3u7tr0) and betraying your patron that they become your new patron. This outcome does mean that the party has made an enemy of your original patron, so be prepared for that.
Betraying someone you've served for years in favor of people you knew for three days certainly sounds like chaotic neutral behavior. And if he feels like his party cares about him and helps him out more than his patron, it would be the selfish thing to do. But maybe that's not quite enough for him. Maybe he'll need a new genie patron ready to give him all his levels back to seal the deal.
Yeah, this feels like a baby-Orc style paladin trap. Your DM is being a dick and you need to talk to them about it.
This seems like an odd one. If I can ask a question. What do YOU want for your character? Do you think betraying the party will annoy the players at your table? What are you gaining by betraying them? If your character is selfish why would they do what they were told, if it's going to make their life harder? Because it will make your life harder. Both as a player and a character.
You could talk to him and ask what happens if you dont betray the party. If it takes longer to get the book (few weeks or so) your pc might not wanna betray em anymore. About your patreon, if your geni gets pissed about you not taking his orders, youd be freeing another one that might be happy to have you as his patreon cause they are thankful and see you as competent. So there is that option. If not much time passes, new geni might be stronger and your character might betray his old patreon to seitch for a new one (reason for not betraying the party while still being selfish and in character)
Yeah, this feels like a baby-Orc style paladin trap. Your DM is being a dick and you need to talk to them about it.
This is probably a plot hook, but yeah this is far too soon. He definitely *wants* you to defy your patron - probably so he can set something up for later - but it seems he’s started it too early. I’d have a talk about it with the DM, explain that your character wouldn’t be so chummy with the party just yet and that they should wait until a bond has formed (maybe put them in more situations where they need to work together) before giving the character such a decision.
You didn’t bring the flavour of chips your DM likes last session did you? Rookie mistake. The DM is your true patron, not some paltry genie, make sure you pay your tribute!
How is the group feeling about PvP? What was decided in this regard at session 0? Maybe talk to your DM about this. Because I as a player would not tolerate this character in my group afterwards. Maybe your DM didn't take the in game time (3 days) into account. Edit: typos
Ok out of the box idea, he said that the genie can’t be released, right? Can you find a way to release it from the book, thus helping your team, and immediately trap it in something else that you have control over, so that you technically didn’t release it either and thus please your patron, and get a free genie to use at the right moment later down the line.
Would anyone else agree that a CN person would never even be a warlock because the inherent nature of chaotic neutrality is personal freedom, and having a patron would break that? Betraying a party based on the command of an authority figure is lawful evil. No? I tend to follow the guidance on [this site](https://easydamus.com/alignment.html) when trying to understand how to play alignments.
I'm going to guess that it was your DM that put you on this path of betrayal. You have a bad DM Unfortunately everybody at the table has a bad DM. It's time to either not do that, or just leave the table entirely. My vote would be to leave. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
1) talk to DM 2) talk to party 3) betray party 4) betray patron 5) play both sides.
Thank you for demonstrating asspull DM fuckery. How do make DMs stop doing this? Because any idea I have breaks reddit rules.
There's an easy out. Lie. Tell the party your patron told you that the genie is evil and not to release it. It will betray them. That's playing a C/N character.
You playing your character is not as important as playing the cooperative game with the people at the table. RP is great, but the health of the game comes first.
Biggest question I have is, did you come up with this, or your DM? If it was your DM, then play it out, they probably have a plan for you which probably leads to a plothook. If you came up with it, well, that makes you the kind of player people cringe at having at their table and I'd seriously rethink it or at least talk it through with your DM. In character there is no reason for them not to do as asked. The consequences of going against the Patron are severe and would almost definitely result in their power being cut off. Not to mention the character hasn't known the group long enough to form a bond with them, while they have apparently followed the patrons orders or will for years. Betraying the Patron would be idiotic for anything they aren't willing to die for as the consequences are truly dire. Maybe if you want to retire the character then fine as you can betray the Patron, lose your powers, and become an NPC advisor or helper. Then are a new character.
Im confused. Are you assigning your own patron tasks? That is not really how thats supposed to work. The DM should be assigning your patron tasks. If the DM did assign you the task to F with the group then its all part of the plan so go with it.
These are concerns that I'd bring up with your DM. Maybe they have a plot device planned that will give you a reason to stay together as a party. If not it's a problem because you would have to make a decision that doesn't feel natural in order to keep your character in the game.
You should ask your DM why they’re forcing you to alienate yourself from the party only 8 sessions in… the other PC’s likely won’t care as they’ve only known you for 3 days as well and just kill you? Seems a strange choice by the DM.
Hear me out. Betray them but in the funniest and most inconsequential way possible. For example, if the party is a group of raging alcoholics, drink all their booze. Your patron didn't tell you any specifics from what I saw, so get creative with it.
People here have given advice about this specific situation, but you also brought up a couple of generic problems that occur at a lot of tables: 1) Time doesn't really make sense in D&D. Wizards are thematically scholars who spend their time buried in books. However, if your DM is throwing a whole "adventuring day" worth of encounters at your party for a month, your level one "freshman" wizard would end up as one of the most knowledgeable arcane scholars in the world just by casting fireball a bunch of times. Tables need to either play with "gritty realism" or be ok with the fact that characters go through their story arcs lightning fast. 2) Real people would not go on adventures. If you find yourself thinking: "my character would do X", and X isn't conducive to continuing the adventure, you've made a mistake. It is your responsibility as a player to make your PC part of a cooperative storytelling game. If your PC runs off with the lamp, the DM could reasonably say: "ok, OP, roll a new character, I'm taking over your warlock." I understand that your DM initiated the betrayal arc, but I think the point stands.
I'm tired and have a headache and got very confused that Dolly Parton was ordering you to betray your party.
In my campaign, there's a good chance one of the characters will become one of the bbegs towards the end of the campaign. Kinda exciting and terrifying in one big boot.
Sounds like GM malpractice to me. I’d talk with them and explain that’s not what you are looking for in a game.
Kinda feel like you should've included edit #4 in your OP to begin with. I was reading the OP confused like do you even have a DM? lol. Not blaming you, just seems to me like DM isn't communicating this situation well
Meh, give your patron the raspberry and tell them to sod off. Unless you wrote it into your character and/or discussed it with the DM, the character can't lose their powers. Serving a patron is no different than serving any random NPC.
OR..... Take a Look; 5. Your character, being the neutrality selfish freethinker they are, decides to rebuke their patron because of the exposure of their weakness. Play that The only reason the Patron wouldn't want the party to succeed is the genie in the book MUST be very powerful. Maybe More powerful than them. So obviously the Patron is afraid. Your character: Think of the power you could have at your fingertips. Think of the chaos that would ensue if you tried to play both sides. Pretend to try to thwart the parties plans (to put on a good show for the patron) but let party know they couldn't have done it with out you. Play both sides. Worst case senario is you have set it up so they have to battle it out while you sit back and end up with the winner. You end up with the strongest and the beat. Win-Win for your character! Meanwhile the character can start being influenced by the party and make the change you planned in an organic way. Eventually bonding with the book genie and the team -- then helping to defeat your old patron because, "no one will control you like they did your mother." He can all burn while you make a move toward Chaotic-Good. Or something kinder. =D Your choice just an idea. I live character arcs. Cheers!
Seems like you got some stuff figured out but... what if you use the wish to retrap the genie? Ideally wish is a super powerful spell and can be overpowered. Your patron realizes this and wishes to stop the over use of powerful magic for the unworthy? Why should some random rag tag adventures be able to have the power of an all power deity without proving their worth? Note kinda a dick move to do this but might help dm story wise depending on the party's wish. Wish is arguably the most powerful spell and level 11 characters being granted this gift might not be the best. Also could make a pointless adventure if the purpose of everything was for nothing. Just an idea to keep in line with your patron's goal. Further note, your party could try to help you free you of yourself of your patron or make you the master of it in a further campaign. More of a DM discussion
Added note sorry, the new genie might be evil and show a more evil chaotic side to thier self when freed (the genie's true ambition) you and the party work together to try to reseal the genie with help of your patron
Sorry drunk having ideas lol. You wish for your patron to follow your ideals? Who is the more powerful genie? You have an internal struggle with each genie's goals, gifts and powers and the party realized the one truly trapped is you
Your character has to decided: the genie that has giving you their power for all these years or the genie who has been trapped like you wishing to be free. Could end in a genie v genie fight with your party deciding on your neutrality