Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[Mercule]

Considering I lured one of the PC in my current group into what basically amounts to an infernal pact, I find myself okay with the idea.

There are always going to be people who get off on using their characters as proxies for their own perversions. Including pacts in the PHB aren't going to make them more or less likely to do so. It will just influence the forms.

On the other hand, it may not be the best advertising for the game.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

"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.

You're correct; it's "feral" and not "fey". That was my mistake. Still, I'm strongly assuming it's linked to the Feywild and the fey, just as the shadow pact is likely to be linked to Shadowfell.

As for the implications, I'm seeing "feral" as chaotic neutral, wild, unfettered, occasionally scary but not malicious.

On the other hand, it may not be the best advertising for the game.

You know, I've seen this same sentiment in numerous posts, discussing warlocks and tieflings and the demons and devils, and it seems a bit odd to me. Didn't the D&D-related outrage of "concerned mothers" die a deserved death with the rest of the Satanic panic of the eighties?

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Watchmen - 1986.
The Dark Knight Returns - 1986.
Batman: Year One - 1987.
V for Vendetta - 1982.

All comics with dark themes and characters, with no perfect individuals, all made during the 1980s and cold war era.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

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

Perfectly viable. My first Third Edition campaign, the best game I've ever played in, was a Planescape campaign where a majority of the PCs were evil, and at times our loyalties were "up for auction" between a demon prince from the Abyss and an archdevil of Baator.

 

[Kobu]

You know, I've seen this same sentiment in numerous posts, discussing warlocks and tieflings and the demons and devils, and it seems a bit odd to me. Didn't the D&D-related outrage of "concerned mothers" die a deserved death with the rest of the Satanic panic of the eighties?

Maybe he means it will attract a new generation of Drizzt wannabes, only this time they will all be tiefling warlocks. I think that would be far, far worse.

I can handle irrational people who don't understand the difference between reality and make-believe, but I dread the next new player who shows up and says, "I've got this great character already rolled up!"

 

[The Little Raven]

Maybe he means it will attract a new generation of Drizzt wannabes, only this time they will all be tiefling warlocks. I think that would be far, far worse.

I think something far worse will happen. I think this will bring the D&D purist elitists out of the woodwork to disparage those that like things outside the normal "OMG I'M SO CHAOTIC GOOD" framework that "old school" players stick to.

And it looks like it's happening already.

 

[Imaro]

I have no problem with morally ambiguous or conflicted characters...but IMHO, this should be based on roleplaying your character. I don't want a hardwired evil/emo/goth/whatever character class from the get go. I want classes (at least in the basic set presented) that can encompass a variety of "styles", in fact I would go so far as to say neutral in their pre-disposition towards evil or good. Why is a warlock needed to play an ambiguous or conflicted character...I can do this with every class in the 3.5 edition (including the Paladin).

My second concern is younger players. I have a son who will be 10 next year and I want to start introducing him to D&D. I just don't like the feel off the Warlock class (as it has been presented thus far) for someone as young as him. IMHO, the first PHB isn't the best place for a class like this, I would have much less of an objection if it was presented in a supplement. Also given the fact that Devils in D&D have moved much closer to a judeo/christian concept, and an infernal pact is with these creatures...I could see this not going over so well when I'm trying to introduce other people or their kids (llike my son's cousin) to the game and they want to take a gander at the books first.

 

[Goobermunch]

This fight is kind of funny. Just last weekend, I ran a game with a paladin, a warlock, and a cleric . . . all from the same church.

And it worked great. As it turns out, it's entirely possible to play an infernally tainted character without being evil. All it takes is a willingness to think about the possibilities.

In my game, the church (it's a monothestic world) feels a duty to help rehabilitate those who find themselves empowered by infernal forces. In many cases, this happens to the very young either because of the acts of their parents, or because the child finds himself or herself in extremis and an alliance with a demon is the only way out. The church knows that the young are particularly vulnerable, and so brings them into monasteries to raise them and educate them about their condition.

The warlock out lawful-gooded the paladin.

--G

 

[Nifft]

Maybe he means it will attract a new generation of Drizzt wannabes, only this time they will all be tiefling warlocks. I think that would be far, far worse.

How can it be worse? I mean, at least there's many different character concepts which can be expressed using "Tiefling Warlock". There's only one Drizzt build (TWF, scimitars, Drow) and it is mechanically sucky.

At least a Tiefling Warlock has a chance at contributing in a regular D&D party, right?

(I don't have any emo players in my group, so it's not much of a problem for me, but if I did, I'd look for ways to channel that person's special needs into something constructive.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wormwood]

I think something far worse will happen. I think this will bring the D&D purist elitists out of the woodwork to disparage those that like things outside the normal "OMG I'M SO CHAOTIC GOOD" framework that "old school" players stick to.

And it looks like it's happening already.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.