Hi guys, in an adventure I ran a little while back I had one of the bosses controlled by a player (he was new and checking the game out, so I didn't want him to have a character that they'd get attached to). He posed as a regular new PC, but revealed his deception at an apt time. This made for a really interesting fight, as even on his own he shaved off a few fate points from my players. The regular players were a little upset at first, but after the cussing they admitted that it was fun.

Because this went so well I've bee toying with the idea of having one of my regular Players become a recurring villain. A while back under a different name I posted an idea where my players would go undercover in a Black Crusade campaign to engineer their rise to Ascension level (through some time travel). My biggest concern back then was that one of my players straight up doesn't care about corruption and insanity, which could be bad when infiltrating a chaos cult.

Now I wonder if I should let him go bad, he isn't opposed to becoming a villain, and it would make for some intriguing Ascension play with two of us devising plots. This could be much more fun than just becoming "unplayable" as the rules state. I also think it would make the combat much more intense, as there is just so much to keep track of as GM and with someone else controlling the horde it would be much more difficult for the "good" players.

I'm wondering if anyone has done this before, if anyone can see any glaring problems, or if you just have something you want to say about this. Let me have it, 'cuz I wanna hear it.

In my experience, regular players react rather negatively to the perspective of a traitor in their midst. It's one thing if they're betrayed by an GM-controlled NPC, and quite another if a player character goes AWOL on them. Moaning and complaining aside, such an occurence really kills the team spirit, which could bring the following consequences:

1. The party could just die out because other players will get demotivated to continue. Now fluff-wise it's great: disillusioned acolytes heinously betrayed by their comrade either flee or take their lives to avoid the wrath of the Inquisitor. But on the other hand, you must remember the game is ultimately about having fun, so the "great betrayal" option must really be handled with care.

2. Every player, not sure who to trust, will plot and conspire against his fellow colleagues. Which effectively means that between game sessions you - as a GM - will be bombarded by player ideas, each one being a secret project of some kind. Trust me, it could really fry a brain of the unwary

The bright side is, with so much scheming and distrust between different groups of players, the GM can relax in terms of quest writing. You can just process the players' ideas and let the opposing groups to deal with the consequences of their rivals' creativity

I was a player in a DnD game where an evil PC unexpectedly used a magic item to turn us to stone, then took us to a sacrificial pit, to which he slowly tortured us and was about to kill us before the DM finally stepped in and had some Deus Ex Machina save us. That whole time of torture was completely upsetting and boring (since we were helpless), and the game ran for only one more session after that.

Not to shoot down your idea, but with that experience in mind.. I strongly agree with Erborn.

If you're really dead-set on going through with it, I think the best way to go about it would be with social scenarios, and by setting some ground rules. The villain player should also be a mature player that is more interested in creating a narrative than acting out his/her depraved fantasies at the expense of the other players. It's true that the sense of competition will make the enemies more difficult, but that's because the player isn't the GM. If the result is a Total Party Kill, then he will feel that he won. If a GM causes a TPK to "win", that game is pretty much over.

So in my opinion, the rule should be that the villain needs to have some power… enough to hinder and threaten, but not enough to kill the party. He should live in fear of the other players, and that would be your job to limit behind the scenes.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the others… other PCs playing bad guys is a no-no as it will tend to kill your game.

With that said, this includes players who tend to take things too seriously… or players who don't take things serious enough.

I wonder at any player's motivations for playing a character that would be so contrary to the other player's goals? Why would he do it and what would he have to gain as a player?

I have found that almost invariably, when you allow for PCs of widely varying viewpoints on goals to be in a group, then things will end badly. Please note that your suggestion of a PC bad guy is among the worst example of things, but this would also include PCs who are completely at odds with their Inquisitor (such as a Puritan trying to serve Skane for example).

I think that this largely depends on the maturity level of your players. You'll want to avoid this if you have any childish players, but if you game with a group of smart folks who are interested in unique experiences, have at it.

I've done something similar (A warhammer fantasy priest of sigmar got possessed by a daemon and eventually ended up slaughtering the rest of the party). It can work and it can be fun, but there are some important guidelines. Number one, the betrayal should serve some sort of purpose in the story; it can't be random (This serves to create the impression in the loyal players minds that the betrayer is acting to help make their gaming experience interesting and memorable, rather than be a jackass). Also, it helps if you provide some warning for the players to pick up on. Avoid sudden and completely unpredictable betrayal. This could take the form of a blanket statement that not everything may be as it seems at the beginning of a campaign. Or it could take the form of hints the players can pick up on as the game progresses. (They intercept a transmission to an enemy they are observing that is obviously from the point of view of one of the team members.) If the players have some time to digest the idea that there might be a traitor among them, they're much less likely to be upset, and more likely to consider it part of the experience.

A character of mine got killed by the other players…..or so they thought after GM proposed the idea about collaborating on him becoming a villain instead of burning my last fate point.

While it seems initially an interesting twist thinking of really juicy, dramatic scenarios to reappear and a series of outcomes, others' will inevitably think of an absurdly impossible death trap of which all/most PCs die in sweet revenge, both of which may contradict your opinions and ideas.

The player like I did will most likely still view the character as THEIR character and if no feedback in terms of yes, no, maybe, yes but with a chance that the PCs won't automatically die a gruesome death, time for some rolling to see how well your plans are coming to fruition or just a lot of NOs or ideas of your own perceived as contradicting they'll get annoyed that THEIR character isn't being allowed to attempt/achieve what they want as I did and thought it a waste of an enjoyable character dying.

In hindsight of this I'd suggest if you're going to bring an acolyte back as villain, Its better to give them as little or no power or say possible and altogether leave them in the dark about it or if discussed with the player initially on seeming death with their view on it, treat it like they're signing away the rights to their character. State that you are the GM and that the character is essentially under your control and express to them that while they may suggest ideas to you, it wont actually be discussed and there will be no feedback and they may not even come back for one reason or another (i.e dont pester me about it). This simply saves you disappointing the player and the player annoying you.

What about reserving the "Acolyte becoming a Villain" for a PC who you would nominate to become a DM? Rather than try and control his mechanics as a traitor, let him create a campaign (or help him) where his betrayal doesn't bring about the immediate doom of the group, but rather is the tipping point for an investigation/adventure that puts him behind the DM screen. You could map out any number of potential endings depending on how the group plays it: death of the villain, doom of the group, or even with their Inquisitor in a Denouncement hearing and pitting the group and villain against each other on the witness stand.

ckenp said:

By the way, to lighten the mood in the aftermath of the whole experience, another FFG game - Aye! Dark Overlord - could be used to roleplay such a court martial