Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[WhatGravitas]

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

So Faust was emo?

On the other hand:

This chap might agree!

(for those who cannot place that picture in a context: It's Mephisto, not Faust.)

Cheers, LT.

 

[Derren]

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.

It depends on how you define recently. During the cold war era heroes were mostly perfect individuals who battle against evil. Just look at some media from that time. After the 80s the heroes in the culture became gradually less perfect. Perfect heroes were regarded as boring and they needed a dark secret to become interesting again.
Also the "For the greater good" thinking became much more widespread in media. To rescue someone it is ok to "break some bones". 24 displays this probably best. Also look at the differences between the old Battlestar Galactica and the new one. Or Lost. And while I haven't seen the latest Bond movie I heard that Bond also got back to his "roots" as government assasine and not gentlemen spy.
All that shows that dark heroes are currently "in".

You see the trend that heroes need to have dark secrets and that you can consort with evil beings to stop a greater evil is relatively new in the mass media and D&D is not different. Just look at the paladin class. 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.

And saying that design decisions in D&D are not made to give what the people currently want (in this case dark heroes) is nonsense. D&D is still a product that has to sell so it gets changed to what the people want. The evolution of the drow a probably the best example of this.

 

[Wormwood]

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

Uh huh.

Aaaaanyway . . . morally ambigious, conflicted characters are a staple in literature.

 

[ferratus]

In this instance I am concerned that it might turn out the way of CN alignments in 2nd edition. It is hard enough to get 5 nerds to get along enough to walk from the tavern to the front gates in a D&D game, so having overtly evil flavor for the warlock class could be a problem.

Different flavors of warlock can help, but I would say the best thing to do would be to point out the truth. If a character is acting on the impulses that the devil is promoting, he is going to be going to the hells, and sooner than he would like. Warlocks to be viable long term PC's will have to be engaged with a struggle with that extraplaner being and be actively resisting it. You might even put in a mechanic which makes a character less effective when he gives in to the dark side, or allow a limited amount of transgressions before the devil is allowed to claim him.

 

[ThirdWizard]

My long running Planescape campaign features a NE, LN, N, and CN party makeup. They made an agreement with a demon (Glabrezu) a few sessions ago. The campaign is filled with moral gray areas. I love gray campaigns.

 

[Kobu]

I have a feeling that someone at WotC is really into the Harry Dresden books. Wizardly implements, the Hellfire Warlock, and now fey and demonic pacts all ripped right from the pages of the Dresden Files.

These are not new concepts, but they seem to be back with a vengeance. Harry is a good example of how someone deals with the continuing temptations of power.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

Viable? Yes, both for "dark" campaigns and traditional "foolish deals made for the best reasons" backstories.

The only backstory available to a core class? Not in my game.

Naturally, the reverse doesn't work well either. Relatively few people can handle talking about realistic tortue and other things completely evil characters do.

See my sig.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

It depends on how you define recently. During the cold war era heroes were mostly perfect individuals who battle against evil. Just look at some media from that time. After the 80s the heroes in the culture became gradually less perfect. Perfect heroes were regarded as boring and they needed a dark secret to become interesting again.

I disagree with you about the "perfect heroes" during the cold war, but agree about the boringness of that kind of characters. This doesn't mean I oppose heroes or heroism, quite the opposite. In my opinion, a character without any dark shades, moral doubts, weak spots etc. cheapens the value of goodness; where is the virtue, if you are never tempted?

(Of course, people have all too often gone overboard in the other direction; for example, the so-called Iron Age superheroes who are just as ridiculous and much less interesting or appealing as their too-shiny predecessors.)

Also look at the differences between the old Battlestar Galactica and the new one.

The chief difference there is that the nBSG has production values and acting worlds above the original series, and actually looks at how the survivors of an apocalypse might react.

And while I haven't seen the latest Bond movie I heard that Bond also got back to his "roots" as government assasine and not gentlemen spy.

Bond in the books (and in the few earliest movies) is a sexist, snobbish and quite brutal bastard, whose job includes killing very often. (That's the whole point of his 007 classification; he is willing to, capable and licensed to kill.)

In the past paladins were shining knights and compared to today not many questioned how paladins have to behave themselves.

I really doubt that; stories about Lawful Stupid, stick-up-their-ahem paladins are as old as the class. In the older editions, however, the paladin's code was spelled out in more depth (or at least bredth) than in 3.*, which may have helped with the corner cases.

But today more and more players are dissatisfied with paladins because they are too restricting with their "no evil" code.

In my experience, people are dissatisfied with paladins since the players and GMs tend to have very different opinions of where, exactly, the paladin's limits are. (That, and clerics tend to be mechanically better as spellcasting holy warriors anyway.) Furthermore, the inflexibility of paladin's code brings out the worst in many gamers, leading to never-ending threads about orc babies etc.

And saying that design decisions in D&D are not made to give what the people currently want (in this case dark heroes) is nonsense. D&D is still a product that has to sell so it gets changed to what the people want. The evolution of the drow a probably the best example of this.

I'm not denying that people now like and want dark(er) heroes and themes; what I disagreed with was your implication that this is somehow a new issue (or a sign of shallowness). As for the drow, they are if anything even nastier these days. It's just that a lot of people want to play the non-NE or CE outlier individuals.

The only backstory available to a core class? Not in my game.

Good thing that there are going to be at least shadow and fey pacts as well, isn't it?

I have a feeling that someone at WotC is really into the Harry Dresden books. Wizardly implements, the Hellfire Warlock, and now fey and demonic pacts all ripped right from the pages of the Dresden Files.

Well, those are pretty good books. And, as you yourself mentioned, they are not new ideas by any means, and have a basis in folklore and myth; if anything, we should wonder why a thing like a wizard's staff has been portrayed as little more than a grenade launcher in D&D for years?

 

[Kobu]

Well, those are pretty good books. And, as you yourself mentioned, they are not new ideas by any means, and have a basis in folklore and myth; if anything, we should wonder why a thing like a wizard's staff has been portrayed as little more than a grenade launcher in D&D for years?

They're great books and I'm all for it D&D being influenced by them. They hark back to more traditional wizardly themes and away from what I think of as silly "high fantasy" cliches.

 

[Wulfram]

(sorry for picking at one line of your post, but it's something that has come up a lot and your post was handy)

Good thing that there are going to be at least shadow and fey pacts as well, isn't it?

"Feral" not "Fey" is what we know at the moment, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it will end up amounting to the same thing, but to me it has quite different implications. Fey says a trickster type, capricious perhaps, but potentially well compatible with at least the more annoying end of (chaotic) Good. Feral says wild and savage, who probably wants to kill and probably eat me.

I feel the context is fairly significant too. We're not just told that these are the three possible patrons. We're told

And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons?
(my emphasis)

Not getting much suggestion of this being an appropriate class for the good guys here. Absolutely not getting the impression that they'll be good team players.