The reaction from the group is understandable. In my experience evil characters in good groups are problematic, specifically because of situations like this.
Tsutomu is evil. He’s proud of it, and doesn’t do much to hide it. There are lawful good characters in the group which, depending on their outlook, would have either refused to travel with him or killed him on sight. In order to allow Mircea (Tsutomu’s player) into the group the other PCs put their true alignments aside and made an exception for Tsutomu. In doing so, we made an unspoken, implicit, out-of-character agreement with Mircea that he wouldn’t make us regret it.
Now Tsutomu betrays the party and delivers us into the hands of our enemy. ‘What the hell?’ the party members cry. It seems that our out-of-character good will has been abused. The argument that ‘it was in character’ is invalidated because had we also played in character from the start, Tsutomu would likely have been another notch on Kubo San’s naginata (’Hey look, An evil wizard! Lets kill him and take his teeth!’). Even worse, we only went to the castle where we fought Tsutomu’s quarry because it was Mirchea’s last evening, and he pointedly suggested going there. It was kind of a ‘last meal’. In-character we would have found a temple to get Takeo raised.
As I see it, the only thing that turns things around is the fact that Tsutomu’s treason is a dm-engineered railroad plot. Alex was looking for a way to put us in that situation, and Mircea’s departure was a nice opportunity to kill several birds with one stone. Tsutomu finishes the campaign in a suitable, in character fashion and the party still get delivered to the bad guys.
The problem here was two-fold. First, there was no explicit out-of-character agreement with Mircea that this should not happen. Second, nobody figured out we were being railroaded in meta-game terms.
– Marco 2007-12-17 10:39 UTC