One of my players dropped from the campaign today, stating a "conflict of interest". A bit dramatic, and not really accurate, IMO. He actually has been playing in another campaign for several years whose start time was originally after my game, but has just changed to 4 hours earlier (due to other players' work schedules changing). While I am not happy about his decision, I have to live with it ... to his credit, he came to explain his decision in person as compared to my finding out in another manner. Too, he told me in a relatively short period of time to his finding out ... I still had less than one-half hour's notice.

What does this have to do with the topic title you ask?

Well, the departing player's character is a Treasure Hunter. In the last session, as the group was sneaking out of a Dunedain Lord's citadel (see the thread The Lost Realm of Cardolan for details). While sneaking out, the heroes discovered a hidden cache of treasure (the lord's "emergency fund"). At the discovery of this large amount of treasure, I had the departing player's hero make a Corruption Test to see if he'd succumb to the temptation to snatch some of the treasure! He failed and he opted to take an amount approximately equal to Treasure Rating 4 (I told him he'd have to take some treasure, but let him decide the amount). Play resumed with the heroes going through an underground passage and out of the citadel.

Today, as he'd left the campaign and said he thought he'd not be returning, I had the player-hero succumb to his Shadow Weakness and sneak back into the citadel, through the escape tunnel, to try and grab more treasure. He did this during his turn on watch and, as everyone else was asleep, he was not noticed departing. In addition, I had him steal some of the jewelry of the noble woman (whom they call "the Lady") they were escorting (whose jewelry he'd noticed previously) AND the treasure some of the other player-heroes had also taken from the lord's cache.

At the discovery that the player-hero was gone, they also noticed the Lady's jewelry and their own loot was missing. The group decided that he'd gone back to get more loot. They fully expected him to be captured and that he'd, under torture, reveal their escape plans and rendezvous . So, they decided to get farther away from the citadel, sooner rather than later. They ultimately labeled him a dishonorable traitor and left him to his (supposed) fate.

So, now we come to the point of the topic. One of my remaining players has the departed player as his Fellowship Focus ... they're both Dwarves and they knew each other growing up. The remaining player-hero was willing to give the departing player-hero the benefit of the doubt, save for the stealing of the group's treasure and the Lady's jewelry. He feels the departing player-hero has acted very dishonorably and feels betrayed.

I am of the opinion that this makes for an truly excellent opportunity of roleplaying, as the remaining player-hero needs to cope with the betrayal. I am seriously considering giving him 3 Shadow Points (as if the Fellowship Focus had died) and having him work with sorting out what has occurred. Does this sound too harsh to you? What would you do? What do you advise? At what point can another Fellowship Focus be taken? (BTW, the player tells me he is OK with whatever I ultimately decide to do ... I just want to be fair about it and still run an enjoyable game.)

Thanks for the advice.

I would let them take a new Focus any time they want. Don't see a problem with that.

My only doubt about your Shadow rating for the betrayal is that it happened by GM fiat, rather than a PC action per se. As such I might be inclined to scale it back a bit.

OTOH, if the player is on board, and feels it accurately reflects the impact on their character, then why not?

I would probably wait until the next Fellowship phase to let him choose a different Fellowship Focus, unless some event occurs during the adventure that would lend itself to the character developing a strong attachment to another hero right away (say, one of the other characters risking his life for him). Alternatively, if there is another character who he was nearly as close with as the departing treasure hunter I'd be fine with him defaulting to that character as a Fellowship Focus.

As for the gaining of 3 Shadow points, I think that's entirely appropriate. It's just as much out of the player's control as if the Fellowship Focus had died (random chance vs a player leaving the game), and a betrayal like that would be sure to cause quite a bit of anguish.

Hi Throrsgold,
What an engaging turn of events!
From a safe distance, and without having to cope with any group traumas, it reads like great, high-drama stuff. This sort of thing can be done more strongly with departing or departed players than it can with ones who have an expectation of a long and essentially stable adventuring career. (My own group are generally upset by having high-drama reversals of fortune 'imposed' upon them.)

Glad to hear the departing player was happy to let you use him for this dramatic twist. In game terms his actions should be considered as a Misdeed or a Bout of Madness. (If he wasn't already carrying four Dragon-sickness flaws it would be too much to treat his defection as an actual Succumbing to the Shadow, even if his former companions overreact to the point of viewing it as such.)
I do think it's good for the event to be recognised by something tangible within the mechanics of the game, and for a 'Fellowship Focusser' to incur Shadow Points at such a betrayal is apt... But I'd say it should be done with their consent, as their roleplaying decision that their player-hero should be emotionally scarred in that fashion, rather than something imposed on them. But I think 3 Shadow Points might be too much. A full-blown Succumbing to the Shadow (which often includes a final spiral which ends in the character's death 'off-camera') might be that bad. But Misdeeds and Bouts of Madness are part of the game, and if everyone wanted to roleplay great angst at them every time, your game might experience an over-rapid slide into shadow! 1 or maybe 2 Shadow Points would be cool for me.

Alternately, simply continuing for a while without a Fellowship Focus -- and missing out on the Hope recharges that are normally received for the Focus's wellbeing -- might be enough of a game-mechanically tangible consequence.

As to adopting a new Fellowship Focus, that should be absolutely fine, as long as it's not done with 'indecent haste'.
Realistically speaking, members of a fellowship should be protective of and inspired by most or all of their companions to a greater or lesser degree. Treating everyone as only having a single absolute Fellowship Focus is something I think of as a TOR shorthand for sake of simple gameplay.
(Were the members of the Fellowship of the Ring only attached to Gandalf as a source of inspiration or only to Frodo the Ringbearer as the one needing protection? In my game we deliberately set up the three dwarves as having a triangular relationship to reflect the 'web' of Fellowship, and I've encouraged them to switch the 'direction' of the triangle around in between adventures.)
I'd agree with alien270 that it should be fine to adopt a new Fellowship Focus by the end of the next decent-length Fellowship Phase. But if the 'bereaved' player-hero wanted to stay emotionally scarred for longer than that, it's their call and that should be OK too.

I have been reading the advice, but had intended on waiting a few days before posting thanks, further commentary, etc. But, your post, Osric, pointed out some things I felt I needed to clarify ... things I wasn't very clear about.

BTW, I really DO appreciate the advice that has been given. Please don't stop!

First, I was being too dramatic when I wrote "Succumbing to Shadow". In fact, what I actually intended to describe WAS the departing player-hero ONLY committing a Misdeed ... so, you are quite correct!! His Hope was already drastically low, I just pushed him over the edge ... game-wise.

Second, the departing player gave me permission to do with the character what I felt best. The short notice of his dropping the game, coupled with his not being able to say if he would ever be playing this campaign again were the reasons. Too, he felt that, were he able to come back to the campaign, the time elapsed, coupled with the timing of his departure (in mid-journey), he might be better served by his introducing a new player-hero.

Third, the remaining player is the one who "tells me he is OK with whatever I ultimately decide to do". He is into the roleplaying aspect of the situation and figures he'll get more "quality time" with the LM if he has some hooks in his player-hero.

Hope that helps clarify.

Thanks, again!!!