Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[Anthtriel]

This is something I wondered about. People were up in arms about the flavor of the new Warlock class, some saw a pure NPC class. Where I saw a perfectly viable, more clichee than Cleric, player character class.

Of course, this is a matter of opinion. I never liked the group of the glorious Paladins. Well, I like having one of them, but if all conflict in the group consists of how to best help the poor and defenseless, then it always seemed to get old very quick.
"But Sir Alan, if we give half our gold to the Church of Lathander, it will be spend a lot better than in the hands of the local government ... wait I know, lets give one half of our gold to he Church, and the other to the government. What a splendid idea!"

Naturally, the reverse doesn't work well either. Relatively few people can handle talking about realistic tortue and other things completely evil characters do. Fewer can actually play that kind of individual. And only a tiny subset can actually enjoy it on a regular basis.

The Fighter who justifies being a mercenary with needing to survive, the Necromancer who wants animates Undead for purely scientific reasons, or to protect people from other threats, the assassin who only murders the bad guys, the Wizard who dabbles with devils to accomplish something, believing he can control it as long as he remains very careful, and even just the guy who doesn't want to sacrifice himself, but still isn't capable of killing innocents.

Those are the kind of characters I have found interesting to run, and to DM for. Sure, noble characters thrown in there make it more interesting, that's where the conflict comes in. But if you have nothing but noble characters, without inner conflict, without either realistic, or very arguable morals, then I for one wouldn't want to play it.

As such, I'm very supportive of any kind of move to get the "strictly evil" acts just morally ambigious instead. There is no need to restrict Undeads and Devils to NPCs, when both are so very interesting to interact with.


Where do you stand? Is a character making a contract with an Infernal being viable, or is it completely out of the question?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Where do you stand? Is a character making a contract with an Infernal being viable, or is it completely out of the question?

Of course it is viable. For all the uproar about how D&D is "heroic fantasy" and whatnot, the reality is that D&D is a mercenary game, in which we kill intelligent creatures and take their stuff. In my ordinary, daily life I try to be a moral being. When I play D&D I want to be Han Solo (before he joined the Alliance, heh heh): not a villain, but not exactly a hero either. An adventurer. As a DM I don't allow players of evil alignments. But at the same time, I wince when players want to play a lawful good character, since it rules out at least half of what makes D&D fun. In my opinion, the best alignments for RPG purposes are chaotic good, true neutral, and chaotic neutral. Jettison the rest.

Frankly, the whole "infernal pact" thing has potential for great roleplaying. And I'm not convinced that it means a PC *must* be of evil alignment. That, I suspect, remains to be seen from the upcoming 4e Player's Handbook. But it's a fantasy game, people: there is something very "fantasy kewl" about a pact with an infernal outsider. But not if it turns the PC into a drooling sociopath. But if it makes the PC "ride the edge" and struggle with his cost/benefit ratio, I'm all for it.

I only wish the class was called the Diabolist.

 

[Nifft]

Faust -- a protagonist.

Yep, I'm thinking they're appropriate for PCs.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Who's up in arms? And why weren't they up in arms about the 3.0e spell planar binding?

 

[Exen Trik]

Like I said in another thread , you can retheme the nature of the pact. One I like is the inherited pact, where an ancestor sealed away a powerful devil by binding it to him, and to his descendants. The warlock has to use its power to control it, else it will kill him and be freed.

The demon/angel thing is a fun one too, but works better when the DM includes it as part of the campaign. But the basic idea of the pact being forced or coerced on the warlock is fairly flexible.

 

[Henry]

In over twenty-five years of gaming, I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER seen a completely altruistic party (maybe at a convention table, but I don't think so) . The players themselves are not completely altruistic people, and human nature means it shows through even when playing a role. You have some that play noble beings, some who play the mercenary who does more good than harm, and then some who play nice within the bounds of the party and nowhere else.

I don't think if we play 4E that we'll have any problem with finding players to give the new warlock a try.

 

[pawsplay]

Characters with infernal pacts come with built in adventure hooks and backstory. However unremittingly evil they might be, they also must obey a power under the control of the GM, another plus. Way easier to deal with than unpredictable do-gooders who might threaten a party member for doing something dubious.

 

[Gloombunny]

It kinda depends on the nature of the pact. And more importantly on what mechanics back up that nature, since they're a lot harder to change for one's game than the fluff part.

If pacts require actually continually serving a demon's ends to get any power, then it'd be hard to play a warlock who isn't a pretty evil jerk. But there's plenty of other possibilities that could keep a warlock in the "dark but ultimately a good guy" zone.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'd say yes. Nothing like having one character who you can continuously tempt in difficult situations with whispers of "Take control! Just use that Charm Person and make him your friend, and he'll cave in on your demands." (for devils) or "Destroy them all if they don't bow to your wishes. And if they do, destroy them afterwards, and they won't stand in your way again!" for demons.

Depends on the group, though...I'd never try to pair anybody with an infernal pact with a paladin in the same group, simply because there are SO few players I know who would try to play the redeemer instead of the crusader. :\

And just to toss this out, Harry Dresden just got cooler after Death Masks, with all the internal conflicts and temptations of power in dire need.

 

[Derren]

"Dark" and "Emo" are currently hip and cool so in this edition those pacts will be appropriate.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

"Dark" and "Emo" are currently hip and cool so in this edition those pacts will be appropriate.

Could we give this argument a rest? It has an unpleasant undertone that 4e is pandering for the kids, and that anyone playing a tiefling, a warlock, or in fact anything beyond a shining knight of purity and justice is shallow and immature.

Besides, the idea that darker themes such as people who struggle with their past choices (or lack thereof), or use dubious methods to pursue good aims, are somehow only recently or currently "hip and cool" is nonsense.