Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[pemerton]

Why doesn't he multiclass, then?

This came up on an earlier thread. The answer I gave over there still applies: just because the mechanics of the game permit the player to choose to multiclass, it doesn't follow that the PC has any choice as to his or her destiny.

Becoming a Warlock (taking first level as a Warlock) is the equivalent in-game as making a pact with a fiend. Taking further levels as a Warlock means keeping oneself true with that pact and doing things in favor of that fiend.

What is your basis for saying that "taking further levels . . . means keeping onself true with that pact"? D&D has never had a very clear meaning of exactly what levels mean in-game, other than that the character is getting stronger. Why can't the player of the warlock stipulate that taking further levels in the class represents, in-game, the devil tempting the PC with ever-greater power in order to try and bring the PC's soul into the devil's clutches?

In the past paladins were shining knights and compared to today not many questioned how paladins have to behave themselves. But today more and more players are dissatisfied with paladins because they are too restricting with their "no evil" code.

1st ed AD&D had just as many paladin debates (and alignment debates in general) as later editions - as evidenced (for example) by letters to the Forum in Dragon, and an article by Roger E Moore extracted into Best of Dragon vol 3.

 

[DarkKestral]

Are you kidding me...the mermaid traded her voice for the ability to have legs. I'm sorry but this is nothing like sending enemies to hell or actually being in servitude to a dark power that places demands upon you in return for growing power.

It's funny since there was a recent uproar about some of the Harry Potter books.

Actually, in the ORIGINAL, the deal was, got legs, but the legs gave her pain as if she was stepping on knives with every step she took. And then, if she wanted to go back to her family, instead of living with the knowledge that she was ignored by person she loved, she would have to kill that person. Sound like your average infernal pact?

Now, the story didn't actually end with her killing him, but that's just one route. If she had, (and with the way HCA and Grimm fairy tales were originally, that was a possibility) then we'd have a story that would actually make her slightly MORE creepy than most warlocks' bargains.

Fairy tales are great sources for infernal pacts. I'd definitely imagine that a commoner who doesn't know much about demons and devils might make a deal not expecting that it was REAL, then get a shock to find out that it was.

 

[Betote]

"You can't make me two different warlocks. Oh, you made 3. Well, the other ones are so totally lame nobody would play them. And they're all the same, too. So it proves I'm right."

... :\

I didn't say "you can't make two different tiefling warloks". I said "if you make more than one different tiefling warlock, the second one will be a stretched concept". An that's what has happened.

 

[Henry]

The I-accidentally-made-a-pact-with-the-Devil-but-now-I-repent cliché is better handled with a feat (a one-time thing) than with a class (a whole commitment to a profession/cause).

To play Devil's Advocate a bit, wouldn't that trivialize something as serious as a pact with infernal forces a bit? To turn it into something that just stains you versus something that dominates your path for your whole life? Good example in my opinion is the "Reaper" TV show on the WB. The protagonist didn't even CHOOSE to have his soul sold, someone else did it for him. It's a comedy with some dramatic elements, but the way it's played is pretty neat. Despite his having some demonic powers occasionally (and he's got curses on him all the time until he does what he's supposed to do), he's basically FORCED into the job he's got and his easiest path is to be the Devil's lackey.

Translating that, a PC with levels in "infernal" Warlock could have made his pact, and things happen that force him to keep relying on those powers to stop greater and greater evils. To be true to concept, he could even have levels in other classes (maybe one level of cleric, one level of fighter, etc.) but he keeps relying on those Diabolic powers because they WORK when teh chips are down.

(Remember that multiclassing in 4E is supposed to work "with all class combos", so assuming it's true then you're not mechanically handicapping yourself unreasonably even with one level in some completely opposed class.)

 

[Charwoman Gene]

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

My most Emo Character is a Paladin.

 

[Anthtriel]

I didn't say "you can't make two different tiefling warloks". I said "if you make more than one different tiefling warlock, the second one will be a stretched concept". An that's what has happened.

Explain how the current, rough character concepts are "stretched". And if you do, give me two different takes on a human paladin that are not "stretched".
(If you critize Paladins just as much as you critize Warlocks, take Rangers instead, or some other class, except the Cleric and the Wizard. Those two classes always covered a lot of ground, in 3.5 arguably too much ground, given their mechanics.)

I'm not confusing anything. Becoming a Warlock (taking first level as a Warlock) is the equivalent in-game as making a pact with a fiend. Taking further levels as a Warlock means keeping oneself true with that pact and doing things in favor of that fiend ('sending marked souls to their afterlife reward to get boons of souls from their master').

Unless they specifically write "Do xy, otherwise you cannot take levels as Warlock", then I agree with you, that would be a terribly stupid decision. Which is why it probably won't be done that way.

As long as it is not there, advancing as a Warlock only means that your abilities become stronger. The flavor could be that your patron gives you more power for your loyal service, but he could just as well give more power to tempt you more to use it, since you stubbornly refused; or it could represent how the abilities become more and more intuitive as you use them, just as a Sorcerer's abilities increase.

The Warlock who outright refuses to use his abilities and instead does something else should probably advance in something else, yes. But I specifically wrote that he continues to use his abilities for survival, so I'm covered.

The 'Boon of souls' ability hinted on its preview doesn't fit very well with this.

Well, when I said "tries to keep others out of it", I didn't mean "will refuse to use it against his enemies". That would be stupid, the power wouldn't help him in that case.
What I meant were innocents.

 

[Wulfram]

So are you trying to say that scary = evil?

No. I'm saying that when you look at the tone and content of the Warlock article it's pretty clear that it's not being written with good guys in mind.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I didn't say "you can't make two different tiefling warloks". I said "if you make more than one different tiefling warlock, the second one will be a stretched concept". An that's what has happened.

Or, more correctly, the warlocks were well-distinguished from one another, and also functioned well inside the limits of the class.

You're dodging. When someone shows you how to make multiple unique concepts from the class, you say, "well, that's not really how the class is supposed to work. You're stretching it." It's just the Not A True Englishman fallacy.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No. I'm saying that when you look at the tone and content of the Warlock article it's pretty clear that it's not being written with good guys in mind.

Well, except for scary good guys. They're pretty well covered.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

What is your basis for saying that "taking further levels . . . means keeping onself true with that pact"? D&D has never had a very clear meaning of exactly what levels mean in-game, other than that the character is getting stronger. Why can't the player of the warlock stipulate that taking further levels in the class represents, in-game, the devil tempting the PC with ever-greater power in order to try and bring the PC's soul into the devil's clutches?

Additionally, it could mean the character is learning to use their initial gifts more effectively, like a fighter getting weapon specialiation with a cursed blade he is forced to use. Or perhaps the warlock has rejected his initial power source but discovered that the talents he learned when they were fueled by infernal might could, with a little more effort, draw on his own personal power....

PS to an earlier poster, I've played an atheist cleric, they are viable as long as there aren't setting or house rules against it.