Curse your inevitable betrayal. These words carry a heavy weight, filled with anger, frustration, and perhaps a touch of sadness. They represent the feelings of betrayal, hurt, and disappointment that come with being let down by someone close to us. Betrayal is a cruel and painful experience. It can shatter the trust we once had in a person, leaving us feeling heartbroken and questioning everything we thought we knew. It is a violation of the bonds we formed with someone, a breach of the promises and commitment that were made.
One of the necessities of drama is the presence of danger. Yet whether the danger is actually present or not holds more relevance to the mechanics of your game system than the story itself. The appearance of danger, however, is a key narrative tool to heighten the drama of a situation. And one of the best ways to give the appearance of danger is to kill someone players associate as being as powerful as they are right in front of them.
While a Paladin can fall into wickedness, or a fell bargain can go awry, there are some characters whose role in the narrative is simply tied too tightly to being a hero. One of my players, after three sessions of playing their Thief, decided that he would rather play a Cleric, and he approached me after that session to discuss it with me.
It is a violation of the bonds we formed with someone, a breach of the promises and commitment that were made. There are different forms of betrayal. It could be a partner cheating on us, a friend gossiping behind our back, or a coworker stealing our ideas.
Curse your inevitale betral
Note: An older version of this article was originally posted on Dungeon’s Master.
Is Betrayal Inevitable?
Make sure to plan accordingly
There is a spoken contract at my gaming table which dates all the way back to when I first started Game Mastering. Characters brought to my table are a part of a story that we, being the players and I, are telling. And characters do not cease to exist while their player is absent. If you cannot make the session, arrangements can be made to either have your character elsewhere for the adventure or managed by another Player Character for combat and the like. However, while playing another person’s character is one thing, there is another aspect of the player-GM contract which I make clear:
If you are not enjoying your character, feel free to bring in a new one. If you are not having fun at my game, feel free to leave it. I will not think less of you.
Your old character, though, will now belong to the story I am telling with the other players, and your former character will invariably either die or turn evil.
Origins Of The Rule
The origin of this seemingly strange rule of mine comes from a long-running Ravenloft game of my teen years, during Second Edition D&D. One of my players, after three sessions of playing their Thief, decided that he would rather play a Cleric, and he approached me after that session to discuss it with me. As the party was currently playing through the module The Night of the Walking Dead and were about to go through its climax, I mentioned that there would be an opportunity for him to give up his character in the next session.
As promised, during the next game session the PCs confronted the villain of the module, and the villain made the classic offer of “Join me, and you will be rewarded greatly.” That player took the bait. He sided with the villain, transformed into a monster, and managed to escape in the ensuing battle. Thus was born the Red Shadow, a shapeshifting recurring nemesis who could steal the identities of any person he killed.
Over the next two years, the party would face many enemies, but none they hated more than the Red Shadow. They would chase him from city to city, domain to domain, and drop everything else the moment they caught wind of his trail. Red returned the favor, often striking in ways that would frame players’ characters as murderers and monsters. While they never got to the final confrontation with the Red Shadow due to my departure for college, the lengths to which my players would go to pursue him taught me a valuable lesson.
Just as the bonds of the party dynamic are founded on the trust and friendship of the players, the betrayal of that dynamic cuts deep. When it is another player who betrays that dynamic, there still exists the pressure of out-of-game relationship to keep things from getting ugly. The moment that character passes into the hands of the GM, however, all bets are off. The players become invested in destroying their new foe on a personal level and will go to amazing lengths to achieve it.
Why Keep Them Around?
Remember that time you were “working together?” So does he.
There are reasons beyond simple party dynamics to favor the former player character as an antagonist, though. Player characters are very often more fleshed out than your average NPC and have hopefully expanded the story by their presence within it. By keeping the character in the game universe, the GM preserves a narrative cohesiveness. The party knows what drives that character and can better predict his maneuvers. Likewise, that character knows what drives the PCs and can be a far more pernicious and deadlier threat as a result.
The former hero turned villain can also easily become a sympathetic antagonist through this understanding, and this can allow for a more tragic anti-villain than an antagonist who was never an ally to begin with. For such anti-villains, there might even be the possibility of redemption, which can sometimes bring an even greater satisfaction for the players than destroying their former teammate.
It is important to know, however, that not every PC set aside is suited to becoming a villain. While a Paladin can fall into wickedness, or a fell bargain can go awry, there are some characters whose role in the narrative is simply tied too tightly to being a hero. Although these characters can certainly make useful allies for the party in the future, they can serve a better narrative role than that of the occasional NPC assistant. This is done by ratcheting up the danger factor.
One of the necessities of drama is the presence of danger. Yet whether the danger is actually present or not holds more relevance to the mechanics of your game system than the story itself. The appearance of danger, however, is a key narrative tool to heighten the drama of a situation. And one of the best ways to give the appearance of danger is to kill someone players associate as being as powerful as they are right in front of them.
Handling a Former PC Death
Traumatic and possibly distracting
For a former Player Character, a vague death in the background is wasting its potential. A heroic, or even anti-heroic death in front of their former party members goes a long way to establishing a situation as dangerous. That said, the GM must avoid making this death a dues ex machina, or a hand waving of success. Doing so drags the narrative focus away from the PCs and is simply bad storytelling. What’s more, without the direct confirmation of seeing the character’s death, the threat you’re trying to instill will fail to seem as hazardous as it needs to be.
While some GMs will occasionally use the killing of a current player in the party to establish this level of threat, using a former player character demonstrates the same level of danger without costing the party the resources represented by that character. Furthermore, if the former PC was indeed a friend of the party, this gives players the opportunity to avenge their fallen foe. In overcoming the danger that destroyed their former party member, the players get to feel a real sense of worthwhile accomplishment.
The Path Of Choice
Not always the best choice.
The catch to this approach, however, is that these two invariable former character outcomes are not exclusive. If the former team member becomes a recurring villain, the PCs will be driven to defeat them. For many villains, this means death at the hands of the party. By killing a previous Player Character, the remaining players will have brought that chapter of their narrative to a close.
Conversely, a former PC who dies in front of their ex-party members may not have their story end there. For instance, the party could decide to have them returned from the dead – although refusal or retirement is often more appropriate. However, in certain circumstances, such as the body being lost to a villain with necromantic talent or where the former character dies as a result of the party’s actions, bringing the PC back from the dead as an antagonist can get you twice the storytelling mileage.
If a GM chooses to go down this path, though, do so sparingly. While death or betrayal can provide a heightened level of drama, doing both to any given character more than a few times weakens the narrative strength and emotional impact of this styled approach.
The reasons we play RPGs are many, but central to every roleplaying experience is a sense of participation and affecting a greater narrative. As gamers, we want to see a story grow and change as a result of our actions. For players, this is unsurprisingly done through their character. Player Characters are the lens through which the world is experienced, and as such, they are invested heavily by their players.
Yet even when a former character is set aside through a player changing their mind or dropping out of a game entirely, that investment needs to be rewarded by a good Game Master. Otherwise it becomes a lost opportunity. This is why I will invariably kill or turn retired characters bad, and I highly recommend to any other GM out there to do the same.
David Gordon is a regular contributor to the site. A storyteller by trade and avowed tabletop veteran, he can be reached at [email protected].
You can discuss this article and more on our social media!
Photo Credits: Astronomical Clock Located in Prague; Death of Ceasar by Vincenzo Camuccini care of Wikipedia; Loki from Avengers by Marvel’s Studios; Toon-Shoe from Who Framed Roger Rabbit by Touchstone Pictures; Raising Calculon from Futurama .
If a GM chooses to go down this path, though, do so sparingly. While death or betrayal can provide a heightened level of drama, doing both to any given character more than a few times weakens the narrative strength and emotional impact of this styled approach.
Regardless of the form it takes, betrayal leaves behind emotional scars that are not easily healed. We often curse the person who betrays us, wishing ill upon them or hoping they feel the same pain we are experiencing. It is a natural reaction, fueled by our hurt and desire for justice. However, it is important to remember that cursing someone will not undo the betrayal or bring us peace. In the aftermath of betrayal, it is crucial to focus on healing ourselves and rebuilding our lives. We must learn to trust again, although it may take time and effort. It is important to surround ourselves with supportive and trustworthy individuals who can help us navigate through the pain. Although it may be tempting to hold onto bitterness and resentment, it is essential to let go of these negative emotions. Holding onto them will only weigh us down and prevent us from moving forward. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting or condoning the betrayal; it means freeing ourselves from the poisonous grip of anger and resentment. While betrayal can be devastating, it also presents an opportunity for growth and self-reflection. It forces us to reevaluate our relationships, our boundaries, and our own actions. It teaches us valuable lessons about trust, empathy, and resilience. With time, we can emerge stronger and wiser from the experience. In conclusion, cursing our betrayers may offer temporary satisfaction, but it will not bring us true healing. Instead, we must focus on healing ourselves, learning from our experiences, and moving forward with grace and resilience. It is through this process that we can find strength and peace in the face of betrayal..
Reviews for "From Betrayal to Empowerment: Transforming the Curse into a Catalyst for Growth"
1. Emily - 1 star
I don't understand why anyone would enjoy reading "Curse your inevitale betral". The plot is scattered and incoherent, making it incredibly difficult to follow the story. The characters are poorly developed and lacking any depth, making it impossible to connect with them on any level. The writing itself is full of grammatical errors and awkward sentence structure, making it a painful read. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
2. Jonathan - 2 stars
"Curse your inevitale betral" had potential, but it fell flat for me. The story was filled with clichés and predictable twists, making it uninteresting and uninspiring. The dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it hard to believe in the characters' interactions. The pacing was also off, with moments of intense action followed by long periods of nothing happening. Overall, I found this book to be a disappointment.
3. Sarah - 2 stars
I had high hopes for "Curse your inevitale betral", but it didn't meet my expectations. The writing style was confusing and lacked coherence, making it difficult to understand what was happening. The characters were unlikable and their motivations were unclear, making it challenging to care about their fates. The plot also felt disjointed and poorly constructed, leaving me feeling unsatisfied. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this book to others.
4. Michael - 1 star
I found "Curse your inevitale betral" to be a complete waste of time. The plot was convoluted and lacked any logic, making it impossible to engage with the story. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their struggles. The writing was also riddled with errors and inconsistencies, further detracting from the reading experience. I would strongly advise against picking up this book.