1 hour ago, Ender07 said:

So aside from the topic of if the player was being a whiny d*ck.... My main question now would be should I be capturing his character instead of killing him off as per his request? Capturing him and turning him to the Dark side would rob him off his "epic death" by saving the group... Because IMHO he wasn't saving anyone due to the fact that they are in this predicament due to his stupidity...

Seeing as it isnt really possible to force someone to play a character they dont want, no matter how whiny the reason they dont want it, you are going to have to change that character. At that point going for the capture is a good idea. Depending on how badly things are screwed up, if it were me I might roll back time a bit. That sort of player stupidity shouldnt screw the whole group. Another idea is to just skip it. Go on to the next bit saying that it was a miraculous escape and its too bad what happened to the character in question. Then have him come back later.

However, you should make it abundantly clear that his behavoir is unacceptable. The proper thing he should have done is discussed this with you outside of the game and given you a chance to plan out the death scene, not him being a whiny little b and derailing the game with his passive tantrum.

I will say tho, that when he started to act up, you should have stopped the game right there and talked it out, not let things get to the point where the game is derailed.

1 hour ago, Ender07 said:

My main question now would be should I be capturing his character instead of killing him off as per his request?

To heck with his 'request'. If he wanted to talk to you about what he wanted, he should have done it before he tried to torpedo the story by playing his character like a suicidal moron.

15 minutes ago, korjik said:

Seeing as it isnt really possible to force someone to play a character they dont want, no matter how whiny the reason they dont want it, you are going to have to change that character. At that point going for the capture is a good idea. Depending on how badly things are screwed up, if it were me I might roll back time a bit. That sort of player stupidity shouldnt screw the whole group. Another idea is to just skip it. Go on to the next bit saying that it was a miraculous escape and its too bad what happened to the character in question. Then have him come back later.

However, you should make it abundantly clear that his behavoir is unacceptable. The proper thing he should have done is discussed this with you outside of the game and given you a chance to plan out the death scene, not him being a whiny little b and derailing the game with his passive tantrum.

I will say tho, that when he started to act up, you should have stopped the game right there and talked it out, not let things get to the point where the game is derailed.

All very good advice, my main issue with the miraculous escape you mentioned is that it takes away player agency from letting them stay and fight...and it also deprives the PC who wanted to die of his "big fight of glory." I do like the idea, but I think my players might have a problem with it since they would essentially not have a say in what happens...the player in question dies (or so they think) while I describe them running away even though they probably wouldn't have done that.

I have talked to the player and he told me that he has been getting a bit bored with his character because he is very lightsaber heavy, has a Force rating of 1, and doesn't have many Force powers. I am guessing he thought that he would be using his lightsaber skills more often, so he feels like he is unable to expand the character to where he wants to go due to the XP he already sunk into things.

He also mentioned that he wanted to be "the monkey wrench" for once...I have another player that used to try to always mess with my game and do weird things outside of the box intentionally to screw with me (very player vs GM mentality). I talked to that player and that behavior has stopped, but he still does come up with weird things...it's just not as off the rails as it was before. So for some reason, even after voicing my displeasure with that player before, he decided he wanted to be the one to go off the rails. It didn't seem to be malicious, just that he wanted me to think on my feet and throw something else his way...that ended up happening because my whole session was scrapped for what they ended up doing, but at the same time it felt like a d*ck move on his part.

When he outright killed those 2 NPC's who were not threatening him, I stopped the game and asked why he did that. His response was that since he sustained life threatening injuries he was in a darker place than usual and didn't want to deal with arguing with people who wouldn't see reason. The encounter wasn't going very well for them because they thought they might be found out by the Imps but were failing their rolls against the 2 NPC's.

Since hindsight is 20/20 I can see where mistakes were made, but at this point I need to move forward and I think by capturing at least the PC in question is the best way to do so. In my mind it might be a bit passive aggressive because he did mess with me and tried to intentionally kill his character off, but at the same time I think it would be a big reveal later on down the line to have him show up as a fallen Jedi that the Sith have corrupted. I just don't want to take away player agency from the rest of the group considering if I make them run away...that's just steamrolling them into doing what I want...

32 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

To heck with his 'request'. If he wanted to talk to you about what he wanted, he should have done it before he tried to torpedo the story by playing his character like a suicidal moron.

So does that mean allow the entire group to fight and possibly see a TPK happen because I am sticking to my principles of this being a very difficult fight...or should I just hand wave it and force the group to run away and the PC in question to stay behind to "defend them against the Empire" but not describe what happens during the fight?

2 hours ago, Ender07 said:

So does that mean allow the entire group to fight and possibly see a TPK happen because I am sticking to my principles of this being a very difficult fight...or should I just hand wave it and force the group to run away and the PC in question to stay behind to "defend them against the Empire" but not describe what happens during the fight?

You seemed to be leaning towards the capture option but were hesitating because of the player's wishes. What I'm suggesting is that the player had a chance to make his wishes known in a proper manner and he blew it; so I'd go with the capture option if that is indeed what you're favoring at this time.

12 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

You seemed to be leaning towards the capture option but were hesitating because of the player's wishes. What I'm suggesting is that the player had a chance to make his wishes known in a proper manner and he blew it; so I'd go with the capture option if that is indeed what you're favoring at this time.

That's true, I think I will probably end up going that way...allow the fight to start and narrate that he turns on his lightsaber and starts deflecting incoming bolts from the enemy, yelling at the group to get away while they still can. Then cut to them in the ship getting away and start the real session from that point. It will take away the player agency to allow the group to respond, but at the same time, like you said, the player in question had his chance to make his wishes known and he blew it. Hopefully the group will see that and recognize the need to hand wave that section to get them back on track.

Now comes the part to find out how to bring the new PC into the game in a natural way...

4 hours ago, Ender07 said:

So aside from the topic of if the player was being a whiny d*ck.... My main question now would be should I be capturing his character instead of killing him off as per his request? Capturing him and turning him to the Dark side would rob him off his "epic death" by saving the group... Because IMHO he wasn't saving anyone due to the fact that they are in this predicament due to his stupidity...

You could say you kill him and then when he makes his dramatic re-emergence he's all like Grievous because of the injuries he sustained......and he has a much higher Brawn.....

5 hours ago, Ender07 said:

So aside from the topic of if the player was being a whiny d*ck.... My main question now would be should I be capturing his character instead of killing him off as per his request? Capturing him and turning him to the Dark side would rob him off his "epic death" by saving the group... Because IMHO he wasn't saving anyone due to the fact that they are in this predicament due to his stupidity...

Don't pull your punches. Incapacitate everyone who stands and fights. To do this, Focus fire on targets individually. You're the GM, you know which are the ones that need to be incapacitated first. Narrate the stupid PC watching all of his friends get executed before his eyes because of his stupidity and recklessness. Narrate him being taken as the sole survivor to an Imperial prison to be interrogated by an Inquisitor.

If they're all dead, start a new campaign. If they aren't all dead, continue with those characters if the group wants to but either way, do it with a bit of a time skip.

Surprise twist at a dramatic point: the stupid PC is now an Inquisitor hunting down their new group. If any other PC's survived but are not in use, they could be mentors to the new group.

3 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

To heck with his 'request'. If he wanted to talk to you about what he wanted, he should have done it before he tried to torpedo the story by playing his character like a suicidal moron.

This x100. I have had players come to me and tell me they want to kill off their character first, as a narrative thing and because they want to try something new. That is the way to do it, not intentionally do something so stupid it has drawbacks on the entire group.

I've had players do stupid things that resulted in their deaths but not because they got upset that they were injured, more just because they ran headfirst into a wampa den ahead of the party, the entirety of which had failed their Perception checks to find the wampas.

3 hours ago, Ender07 said:

He also mentioned that he wanted to be "the monkey wrench" for once...I have another player that used to try to always mess with my game and do weird things outside of the box intentionally to screw with me (very player vs GM mentality). I talked to that player and that behavior has stopped, but he still does come up with weird things...it's just not as off the rails as it was before. So for some reason, even after voicing my displeasure with that player before, he decided he wanted to be the one to go off the rails. It didn't seem to be malicious, just that he wanted me to think on my feet and throw something else his way...that ended up happening because my whole session was scrapped for what they ended up doing, but at the same time it felt like a d*ck move on his part.

OK so this.... this is just entirely unacceptable for a player to do. I don't care if it was done 'In Character' there is simply no reason for a player to ever do this in a game. The GM is a player at the table too, and no player should take intentional action that overtly lessens the fun of another player at the table. It is just passive aggressive and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

I would probably talk to the player in question outside of game time and tell them if they want their character to make a dramatic exit from the campaign you can work with him on it, but I would also share that you are very reluctant to have it go down the way this player wants; that is, the rest of the PCs are in serious danger as well, and they are in that boat because of rather foolish decisions the player in question made up till this point. Perhaps it would be better to craft a different exit strategy, one that you both can collaborate on and enjoy.

Also, you are under no obligation to let this player start with a new character with the same XP as the old. In fact, I would considering cutting that XP total in half. You can always award him more per session so he can catch up with the rest of the group. The nice thing about this system is characters can be pretty competent at their primary 'skill set' right out of the gate.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Don't pull your punches. Incapacitate everyone who stands and fights. To do this, Focus fire on targets individually. You're the GM, you know which are the ones that need to be incapacitated first.

The GM might know which characters 'need to be incapacitated first' but the NPCs don't necessarily know this. Don't fall into the trap of making this personal. If it becomes GM vs. player(s) then everybody loses.

21 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Don't pull your punches. Incapacitate everyone who stands and fights. To do this, Focus fire on targets individually. You're the GM, you know which are the ones that need to be incapacitated first. Narrate the stupid PC watching all of his friends get executed before his eyes because of his stupidity and recklessness. Narrate him being taken as the sole survivor to an Imperial prison to be interrogated by an Inquisitor.

If they're all dead, start a new campaign. If they aren't all dead, continue with those characters if the group wants to but either way, do it with a bit of a time skip.

Surprise twist at a dramatic point: the stupid PC is now an Inquisitor hunting down their new group. If any other PC's survived but are not in use, they could be mentors to the new group.

This x100. I have had players come to me and tell me they want to kill off their character first, as a narrative thing and because they want to try something new. That is the way to do it, not intentionally do something so stupid it has drawbacks on the entire group.

I've had players do stupid things that resulted in their deaths but not because they got upset that they were injured, more just because they ran headfirst into a wampa den ahead of the party, the entirety of which had failed their Perception checks to find the wampas.

So your response is more on the side of letting the group fight instead of "hand waving" them away while the other PC dies...in your view does allowing the others to die justify this enough? I mean I want to keep my players entertained and happy, but I also don't want people doing stupid things like this player did. I am not sure if killing the rest of the group off solves anything besides creating resentment against either myself or the player that lead them into the situation.

I have never been the kind of GM that kills off his players unless they ask to narratively or it's a very bad decision on their end. For example if I rolled a 149 instead of a 129 then I probably would have altered it behind the GM screen because the way he would have went out would have been too pointless. I am for having consequences for actions, but not outright death because of a couple bad rolls or one person being dumb.

48 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

OK so this.... this is just entirely unacceptable for a player to do. I don't care if it was done 'In Character' there is simply no reason for a player to ever do this in a game. The GM is a player at the table too, and no player should take intentional action that overtly lessens the fun of another player at the table. It is just passive aggressive and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

I would probably talk to the player in question outside of game time and tell them if they want their character to make a dramatic exit from the campaign you can work with him on it, but I would also share that you are very reluctant to have it go down the way this player wants; that is, the rest of the PCs are in serious danger as well, and they are in that boat because of rather foolish decisions the player in question made up till this point. Perhaps it would be better to craft a different exit strategy, one that you both can collaborate on and enjoy.

Also, you are under no obligation to let this player start with a new character with the same XP as the old. In fact, I would considering cutting that XP total in half. You can always award him more per session so he can catch up with the rest of the group. The nice thing about this system is characters can be pretty competent at their primary 'skill set' right out of the gate.

I agree, and I tried to talk to him right afterwards but I didn't manage to get my point across that well. I posted on here after thinking about it for a little while and I sent him an email because it gave me time to organize my thoughts on what I was annoyed about. I am going to call him tonight and talk to him about his exit and that he is not going to get the big exit he wanted because of the way that he went about doing this. I feel that since this is the first time he's ever done something like this, I am not going to half his XP since he already has the least amount of the group because he missed some sessions. But he will know if in the future he does something like this then there will be penalties...and I will probably bring this up with the entire table before we start next time as well.

I'd say kill of his character and let that death provide a way for the other PCs to escape. I'd want to maintain some internal campaign consistency but outside player problems causing problems in the game/story will always warp things. I think it's just better to move on with a new PC. Bringing the current character back as a dark Jedi nemesis sounds cool but it also seems like the sort of thing that will push the player into passive-aggresively sabotaging the game again.

I'd also have more discussion with the player away from the table - and explain that such passive-aggressive behavior at the table drags the game down for everyone and that you expect him to play the new PC with that in mind and not passively aggressively sabotage the game.

Let the player make a new character if he wishes to do so. It needs to be understood that, once he does, the old character becomes an NPC. You can now use him in any manner you wish. One suggestion is that, rather than have him simply killed off or become a villain, have him become a pathetic wash-out that serves as a cautionary reminder that no one's destiny is guaranteed. WEG had the "Failed Jedi" as an archetype, and this might be a place to start. The character can also be used as a mentor of sorts--not to show new Force users the way forward, but to point out the price of failure.

I like the idea of him falling to the Dark Side, not because it effs with the player's wishes, but because it fits narratively. This is a character who has utterly failed the Trial of the Flesh. He suffered a nasty wounds, and rather than suck it up and soldier on, he fell into despair. If the player hopes to have a character become a Jedi Knight, he's going to have to cross the same bridge again.

There have been countless 'deaths' only to have the dead return as the next main bad guy. I'd say kill the char in game and behind the scenes pull a Palps and rescue him.

On 6/21/2017 at 2:58 PM, HappyDaze said:

The GM might know which characters 'need to be incapacitated first' but the NPCs don't necessarily know this. Don't fall into the trap of making this personal. If it becomes GM vs. player(s) then everybody loses.

This is a fair point. If your Imperials are smart, they might focus on the "weaker looking ones" which may or may not actually be the weaker ones.

On 6/21/2017 at 3:09 PM, Ender07 said:

So your response is more on the side of letting the group fight instead of "hand waving" them away while the other PC dies...in your view does allowing the others to die justify this enough? I mean I want to keep my players entertained and happy, but I also don't want people doing stupid things like this player did. I am not sure if killing the rest of the group off solves anything besides creating resentment against either myself or the player that lead them into the situation.

I have never been the kind of GM that kills off his players unless they ask to narratively or it's a very bad decision on their end. For example if I rolled a 149 instead of a 129 then I probably would have altered it behind the GM screen because the way he would have went out would have been too pointless. I am for having consequences for actions, but not outright death because of a couple bad rolls or one person being dumb.

When one runs headlong into a den of apex predators away from their group, they shouldn't expect things to go as they plan.

I think if your group is stupid enough to fight off hoards of Imperials then they deserve to reap the consequences of that, whether it be imprisonment, torture for information or death. Have you ever seen a Star Wars movie where every battle involved the characters all fighting to the last man standing? I haven't. A lot of the times, the main heroes run when they are outnumbered, as that is the smart choice in the moment. You aren't allowing them to die, they are choosing to die if they stick around to fight a battle they are likely going to lose.

I would consider it a bad decision what this one player did and play things out how you've had it setup. Imperials are there to capture/kill him and anyone who gets in the way is just more obstacles towards their goal. Now that may or may not mean they target the rest of the group depending on who seems to be the larger threat to them at the moment, as that seems to be how Imperials act.

I also would never alter a roll, I personally view that as cheating, whether it is in or isn't in the player's favor.

This is all my personal choices and beliefs, which you asked about. What you choose is up to you and your group and I won't say you HAVE to do anything one way or the other because, look, it's your group not mine. Run it how you think is best but in my opinion, a character dying because they were stupid isn't too mean, it's logical and sometimes can still be epic, legendary, hilarious, fun, etc...

Yeesh - there's a whole bunch of, well, not bad advice, but certanly emotional advice. And believe me, I understand the desire to do a Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies when a Player starts giving you stick. But let me see if I can throw my two cents in here. . .

On 6/20/2017 at 1:55 PM, Ender07 said:

He ended up murdering 2 defenseless NPC's in cold blood with his lightsaber because he was frustrated.

Two angles I would have taken on this

1) I don't care what the morality mechanics say, how much conflict you get for murder. Doing that and *BAM* enjoy your new Morality of 32, period, full stop, end of story. Right then and there - no waiting until the end of the game.

2) Talk to the player away from the group, find out if that was player or character mentality. If it's the player, find out how you can rectify that. If it's character, work with him on a story to find the character's equilibrium.

On 6/20/2017 at 1:55 PM, Ender07 said:

At this point it's not looking good for the group, if they don't run away they will probably end up dying or getting captured, and the one PC who had his stat reduced has his mind set on getting killed in action.

I would have stopped the game right there and then to find out what the hell is up with that disruptive behavior. But what's done is done - so we continue.

On 6/20/2017 at 1:55 PM, Ender07 said:

Idk if this makes me a bad GM for thinking like this, but I want to give them a hard fight and NOT focus my fire on him or pull my punches...they got themselves in this situation, and it was mostly that one PC's fault. In my eyes I should fight them hard and if they die along with him, then that's what they ended up choosing instead of running away...

If that's what the player truly wants - if there's no way to fix the issue by working with you to craft a story of redemption and recovery, then pull the trigger. I also wouldn't do it in a combat - way too many variables, other players wanting to pull the cart the other direction, that sort of thing. Come up with a narrative ending and let him describe his "I shut the escape pod behind them, hit the trigger, and they last thing they see of me is a valent fight on the bridge through the viewport against a dozen Storm troopers." moment.

On 6/21/2017 at 9:31 AM, Ender07 said:

All very good advice, my main issue with the miraculous escape you mentioned is that it takes away player agency from letting them stay and fight...and it also deprives the PC who wanted to die of his "big fight of glory." I do like the idea, but I think my players might have a problem with it since they would essentially not have a say in what happens...the player in question dies (or so they think) while I describe them running away even though they probably wouldn't have done that.

I have talked to the player and he told me that he has been getting a bit bored with his character because he is very lightsaber heavy, has a Force rating of 1, and doesn't have many Force powers. I am guessing he thought that he would be using his lightsaber skills more often, so he feels like he is unable to expand the character to where he wants to go due to the XP he already sunk into things.

He also mentioned that he wanted to be "the monkey wrench" for once...I have another player that used to try to always mess with my game and do weird things outside of the box intentionally to screw with me (very player vs GM mentality). I talked to that player and that behavior has stopped, but he still does come up with weird things...it's just not as off the rails as it was before. So for some reason, even after voicing my displeasure with that player before, he decided he wanted to be the one to go off the rails. It didn't seem to be malicious, just that he wanted me to think on my feet and throw something else his way...that ended up happening because my whole session was scrapped for what they ended up doing, but at the same time it felt like a d*ck move on his part.

When he outright killed those 2 NPC's who were not threatening him, I stopped the game and asked why he did that. His response was that since he sustained life threatening injuries he was in a darker place than usual and didn't want to deal with arguing with people who wouldn't see reason. The encounter wasn't going very well for them because they thought they might be found out by the Imps but were failing their rolls against the 2 NPC's.

Since hindsight is 20/20 I can see where mistakes were made, but at this point I need to move forward and I think by capturing at least the PC in question is the best way to do so. In my mind it might be a bit passive aggressive because he did mess with me and tried to intentionally kill his character off, but at the same time I think it would be a big reveal later on down the line to have him show up as a fallen Jedi that the Sith have corrupted. I just don't want to take away player agency from the rest of the group considering if I make them run away...that's just steamrolling them into doing what I want...

My view when GMing is that when a player goes off the rails, at that point the game is already disrupted and the most direct and quick method to fix it is appropriate. The GM is supposed to have fun too, and having to ad lib and readjust stuff due to someone being an *** isnt fun to me. So as far as I am concerned, at the point you are at, retconning isnt a horrible idea.

If you have a good idea for capture and what happens after, then go for it. Blast everyone, dont even roll dice, just say they take X damage when someone shoots at them. If they complain, tell them dont piss off the GM. If they still complain then point out that one of the things a GM gets to do is make powers for NPCs, like the 'This guy gets as many successes and triumphs as the GM wants on any roll he makes.' power that the bad guys have. If they still complain, ask them who is running the next game.

The point is, dont be nice, dont be subtle, and make it excessively clear that this sort of behavoir is not acceptable in your game.

Then the PCs wake up in their cell patched up and ready to go, and the problem is solved. If someone wants to have hard feelings, tell them to get over it, or run the game themselves. It boils down to a player wasting the GMs time and effort is a very bad thing.

Which brings us to the 'monkey wrench' thing. Tell him no. Tell him oh hell no and that if he tries it you will boot him from the table immediately. Players play their characters against the challenges provided by the GM. If a player is playing against the GM directly, he is not playing the game, he is just being an ***. The same thing applies with a player who plays against the rules set. The GM already has too much to do just to make the game he wants to play to have the players actively trying to mess that up. Dont allow it and dont tolerate it. If they try, just say 'Meteor hit you, take 20 damage and a (roll dice) crit.' Remind them that you dont play by the same rules they do.

Unless he came to you beforehand and asked to redo his character, he was just being passive aggressive and he did mess with you. That isnt in question. Your idea is a good one tho. I dont think you should try to finesse it tho. Wildly abuse the power of a GM to get passed the fight. I wouldnt give the guy a shining moment of sacrifice tho. That smacks of rewarding bad behavoir to me. Give him his new character and go on from there.

Have you dealt with the situation now, Ender07 ?

I'm curious as it sounds to me as if this player may have already been a little disheartened - you mention he had less XP than the others due to missing sessions. As a player, real life always comes first of course but if it's fairly regular occurrence I might investigate that - were they already losing interest? Some players just aren't that emotionally invested and so don't mind missing a session here and there & falling behind at all but it sounds like he might not be that kind of guy given the context.

No doubt he's pulled a bad move in the game but there might be a deeper cause worth getting to the root cause of is my only thought. Maybe rolling a new character is all he's after but maybe he's just not that into the game any more, which happens and is normal. People frequently feel guilty about it, stick around out of a sense of obligation or what-have-you but that can fester into this sort of disruptive behaviour and then some bad feeling. It's just a game after all and the primary objective is for everyone to have fun

So I have since talked to the player and aired my grievances about the way he handled the last session. He told me that he has some personal issues going on right now and needs to get that stuff sorted first before he can come back, so he has decided to take a month or two off and see what the best course of action will be for him at a later point. I would really miss having him at my table as a friend, but at the same time since he is going through some things he said it would probably be best to step away for now and re-visit it later.

We shall see what the future holds...

The subject is resolved, but I still felt like putting my opinions out there.

Turning a character against the party is a dangerous thing to do. It's their character. They understand his/her motivations. Every time I've seen this done, the character is doing something that the original player just wouldn't tolerate and it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Usually, the GM just ends up looking petty.

In this players situation, he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, but he instigated the very event that was putting his party at threat. This is not heroic, nor does it make sense for a jedi or a sith. If the player no longer wants to play the character, it will only make everyone miserable. Kill the character, but not in a heroic way. Use stun weaponry, capture the group, then allow for an escape...but before they can get to the character with a death wish, he gets executed in the least heroic way possible. It becomes a meaningless death. The character is gone, but not in a heroic way that rewards poor play/behavior. I'd have one exception to this....which I'll get to later*.

As for critical hits that cause permanent negative effects. At first I kind of hated the idea, but it's a fairly common occurrence in Star Wars. People lose arms, have cybernetic implants, and get nasty injuries fairly regularly. You kind of need to be open to the idea. A player of mine literally had one of his arms ripped off by a space monkey due to a crazy crit roll. He barely survived the encounter and due to finances had to be a one armed bandit for awhile. He eventually got the replacement limb, and the tinkerer of the group built in some hidden weaponry. All in all the player adapted to the situation. His character adjusted his play style to fit the situation, he became more risk adverse and decided to take some talents that reduced crit rolls to protect himself. His character grew and changed.

*Life can suck. People get hit by a car, or injured in war. They are crippled or affected in some way. There tends to be PTSD and/or severe depression that goes hand in hand with these types of incidents. His character was actually playing this fairly well. In this scenario, I'd talk to the player and point out how he was supposed to protect the group and instead was putting them in danger. I'd give him once last chance, in his cell, to come to a realization that his character was straying from the path. Then allow him to redeem himself by growing as a character and leading the escape. In this way it becomes an interesting journey for the character. A redemption plot like this could actually find that the player gets more invested in the character.