Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[Bishmon]

On the subject of Paladins...

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good...loses all paladin spells and abilities." - 3.5 PHB, p. 44.

Loses. Not "has (them) taken away by her deity for failing to follow her oaths." After all, what is the deity getting from the Paladin?

The paladin is given powers by his deity, and when he loses them because he no longer acts according to his deity, you're trying to say his deity had no doing in that?

And what is the deity getting from the paladin? Service and faith, most obviously.

As far as the Shield of the Sun, I interpret that as a way for "the powers that be" to make sure it hasn't fallen into the wrong hands. The quest is a test to consistently prove your worthiness.

I don't see the distinction. Deities allow the shield bearer to use the shield as long as the bearer does something for them. Whether you call it 'questing' or 'proving his worthiness' doesn't change that.

And yes, I realize that in the real-world, "good" people make these kind of deals all the time. That doesn't mean that the deal itself isn't motivated by selfish concerns. Doing something for someone else and expecting them to pay you back is NOT selfless. Ergo, it's not good.

No, it's not altruistic. You're limitting 'good' to 'altruistic', and I think that's misguided.

Sticking with D&D, another example: the planar ally spell. This is literally a good spell, one in which you can request a good ally from a good deity, and yet you have to provide some sort of compensation to the ally that comes.

Again, I just don't see the basis in your comments. Unless you come at me with something different, I'm probably done responding, no offense.

 

[Cadfan]

I like the idea of a "divine warlock" or whatever we're going to call it.

I'm not sure it fits on the same chassis as the current warlock, which gets its powers from fey, shadow, and infernal sources. I won't know until I see the class, but I have my doubts.

In general, flavor and crunch interact. The warlock as it stands has a certain flavor, which is probably reflected to a certain degree in its crunch. A "warlock" which gets its power from a divine patron is a different flavor, and might not be well represented by the current warlock.

Maybe this is a good place for the Favored Soul to make a comeback. I always had a soft spot for that class.

 

[chitzk0i]

The way I see it, if you make a "pact" with a good-aligned power, you'll become either a cleric or a (good-aligned) paladin. The distinction may be that good deities grant Leader powers, not Striker powers.

About the 'aggro' mechanic: D&D has a human being that decides who the monsters attack. The DM (theoretically) weighs the goals of the monster versus the actions the party has taken so far and carries out attacks accordingly.

World of Warcraft doesn't have a human being running each and every monster, and they want the monsters to behave with a little more intelligence than attacking the first thing they see. Aggro itself is how World of Warcraft resolves this problem. Player abilities aside, the biggest damage-dealer will get the monster's attention, since that's the biggest threat. If there's a healer keeping everybody in tip-top shape, the monster may "realize" that it needs to attack the healer if it has a hope of surviving.

So I doubt 4e will add an 'aggro' mechanic. It seems they will give some classes a taunt ability, though.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Thing is, especially in a "points of light" setting, some church of good that wants to clean up the darkness-infested lands surrounding it might petition its patron to provide somebody to help them. Now, it's not that much of a stretch to say that one of the church's female followers who was pregnant at the time of the petition got visited by a servant of their deity, and the child was blessed with extraordinary powers, to awaken when it was old enough to use them to fight the darkness in the land.

With the warlock in place, it doesn't always have to be a paladin that's born from such a blessing anymore, huh? If the class is flexible enough, or the powers can easily be adapted to a "good" outlook (Cleansing Fires of Mithardir instead of Mires of Minauros for example, with fire instead of acid, but essentially similar effects), I see no reason why there shouldn't be any warlocks based on good extraplanar powers.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Eh, not really. I think I've been very clear that it would be a slight distinction (if such distinction even exists). It's not like I'm saying the fighter is only good at whack-a-kobold, and the paladin is only good at fighting demons and dragons and such; I'm just saying, a fighter might be at his best when you're fighting against multiple opponents, while a paladin might be at his best when fighting just one powerful opponent. No one is showing anyone else up; no one is getting the glory; there are just situations where one class might be (ever so slightly) better equipped than another.

No one remembers who tanked demon grunt #1-8. People remember who went toe to toe with Orcus.

If there's a difference of effectiveness, let the paladin handle the masses, since they can heal, channel divine energy, etc. This aside from their often great charisma that lets them contribute more in social situations. Currently, fighters can... umm... jump or make barrels or something else pretty useless.

I'm hoping that something is done to address the fighter's limited contribution from their class outside of combat, but not hoping my breath.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because "Good" creatures don't make pacts. It's not in their nature.

It's basically what paladins do. Their gods give them the power to smite and heal because they have sworn to uphold their code. They're being rewarded for being ultra-good by being provided with power.

Good is altruistic, not selfish.

"If you serve me by ridding the world of evil, I will reward your sacrifice. I cannot demand this of you, only ask it."

A good creature that wanted to give you power would just "give it" to you, not cut some quid-pro-quo deal for it.

A good creature isn't going to just dole out power to any old schmuck. It'll give it to someone it can trust not to use the power for evil...like someone who's sworn an oath to serve it and its ends.

Altruism involves giving, not trading favors.

Altruism involves giving aid, not power. A sane good entity is going to make sure that any power he hands out is wielded in the interests of good, and making a pact is a good way to ensure that this happens. You agree to crush the evil overlord, you get the awesome powers. You defy your patron and start killing puppies, you lose the awesome powers. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thing is, especially in a "points of light" setting, some church of good that wants to clean up the darkness-infested lands surrounding it might petition its patron to provide somebody to help them. Now, it's not that much of a stretch to say that one of the church's female followers who was pregnant at the time of the petition got visited by a servant of their deity, and the child was blessed with extraordinary powers, to awaken when it was old enough to use them to fight the darkness in the land.

With the warlock in place, it doesn't always have to be a paladin that's born from such a blessing anymore, huh? If the class is flexible enough, or the powers can easily be adapted to a "good" outlook (Cleansing Fires of Mithardir instead of Mires of Minauros for example, with fire instead of acid, but essentially similar effects), I see no reason why there shouldn't be any warlocks based on good extraplanar powers.

I really can't see why you can't have warlocks based on any damn thing in the universe.
Animistic warlock powered by the mountain spirits
Persian warlock who makes a pact with desert djinns
Psionic warlock who gets his power from a pact made with his own superego
Devout warlock who gets his power from ascetic self-denial
Revenge-themed warlock who gets his powers from the ghosts of those who were wrongly murdered

The possibilities are endless. It has all the customization potential of the Witch or Totem Warrior from Arcana Evolved. Expect to see plenty of alternative warlocks in Dragon, if not actually a "how to build your own warlock" sidebar in the PHB.

 

[JohnSnow]

No, it's not altruistic. You're limitting 'good' to 'altruistic', and I think that's misguided.

Sticking with D&D, another example: the planar ally spell. This is literally a good spell, one in which you can request a good ally from a good deity, and yet you have to provide some sort of compensation to the ally that comes.

Again, I just don't see the basis in your comments. Unless you come at me with something different, I'm probably done responding, no offense.

*Shrug* Your call. I don't honestly care if you agree or not.

I'm not limiting 'good' to be 'altruistic' - D&D is. The only other things it mentions under the definition of good in the PHB are "respect for life, concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and "(making) personal sacrifices to help others."

The first two are pretty irrelevant to any concept of "pacts." That leaves us with "Good implies altruism" and "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." The second is pretty much the same as the definition of "altruism" I quoted in my previous post. Moreover, every single "good" alignment has a line about "helping others" or "benevolence" so that seems to be the pretty universally accepted D&D definition of what "good" is.

So if you don't like it, don't take it up with me, take it up with the people who defined "good" in the PHB.

And I have no need to justify my position since it's perfectly in-line with that of the designers and developers at WotC. As far as we know, there's no provision for "good" entities who make pacts with warlocks. If you're still involved, I'd love to hear a philosophical rationale (not a D&D rule, all of which can be interpreted differently) that equates "good behavior" with the "trading of favors."

I realize the flavor could be rewritten as a "boon" the character is born with, but to me the notion of "pacts" is more in-keeping with devils, fey, and other creatures of a questionable (usually selfish or evil) nature.

And I can't say any more on this subject without touching on violating the CoC. Personally, I'm happy with Infernal, Fey and Shadow Warlocks. I don't need shiny ones too.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's basically what paladins do. Their gods give them the power to smite and heal because they have sworn to uphold their code. They're being rewarded for being ultra-good by being provided with power.


"If you serve me by ridding the world of evil, I will reward your sacrifice. I cannot demand this of you, only ask it."

A good creature isn't going to just dole out power to any old schmuck. It'll give it to someone it can trust not to use the power for evil...like someone who's sworn an oath to serve it and its ends.


Altruism involves giving aid, not power. A sane good entity is going to make sure that any power he hands out is wielded in the interests of good, and making a pact is a good way to ensure that this happens. You agree to crush the evil overlord, you get the awesome powers. You defy your patron and start killing puppies, you lose the awesome powers. It makes perfect sense.

Everything you're talking about here is more "lawful" than good. Why would a chaotic entity consider a pact binding?

Do recall that paladins don't NEED a patron deity. You can be a paladin without a god. And yet, you STILL lose your powers if you violate your code. So it's not "precisely" a pact. It's more like "karmic consequences."

I agree that you CAN justify it. But it requires the entity in question to have some selfish agenda. I admit there's some merit to the notion of "a gift" you can lose if you misuse it...

But I regard a pact as something that is of more direct benefit to the entity granting the abilities. There should be more to your part of it than just "being good." That's a pretty loose pact (although, as demonstrated by the number of ex-paladins, not always easy). I think they're imagining the Warlock's pact as more..."quid pro quo" than that.

However, you make some good points about the responsibilities of power...

 

[PeterWeller]

No one remembers who tanked demon grunt #1-8. People remember who went toe to toe with Orcus.

If there's a difference of effectiveness, let the paladin handle the masses, since they can heal, channel divine energy, etc. This aside from their often great charisma that lets them contribute more in social situations. Currently, fighters can... umm... jump or make barrels or something else pretty useless.

I'm hoping that something is done to address the fighter's limited contribution from their class outside of combat, but not hoping my breath.

What if it's the same two guys who fought through demon grunts #1-8 and then went toe to toe with Orcus. The first guy (fighter) had a slightly easier time of wading through the demon hordes, the second guy (paladin) had a slightly easier time of tanking Orcus. No one is stepping on anyone else's toes, and both guys get the glory. That's probably how it will play out in the game. The fighter won't be ineffective against the bbm and the paladin won't be ineffective against the hordes. Neither is going to sit out the fight because the difference isn't really that much at all (if there even is a difference in the first place).

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that I'm using diminutives to describe a potential difference I see arising between fighter and paladins, or do you seriously believe that even an ever so slight distinction in focus is going to all of a sudden turn the fighter into a chump (or more of a chump)?

Also, I think pallies are more likely to try and hunt down and challenge the evil overlord, while fighters are more likely to start by culling his hordes. Thus, in my point of view, it makes sense for paladins to be [ever so slightly] geared towards single combat, and fighters [ever so slightly] geared towards more mass combat.

On the subject of fighters doing stuff outside of combat, I totally agree. They need to at least have access to stuff that doesn't directly involve physical ability or beating stuff up (or threatening to beat stuff up).