Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[Kobu]

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.

Yes, you got me. I am a complete, uh, "purist elitist" in the worst fashion. I only play "OMG I'M SO CHAOTIC GOOD" characters (they're to right and a bit above the standard alignment grid if anyone is looking for them). That's right, no real "old school" player would think of playing anything else! Also, I am left handed and my favorite color is red, but I'm sure you also figured that out with your first level warlock power "Read Way Between the Lines". Or is it a tiefling racial ability? I always get those mixed up.

Anyway, it will take a brave soul to show up us old fuddy-duddies by thinking outside the box and playing an edgy and dark character, say maybe a tiefling warlock.

 

[Kobu]

(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.)

I don't either (I think). The borderline case grew out of it, although his characters are still pretty one-dimensional. I'm the most likely one in my group to play a tiefling warlock and I'd probably enjoy it quite a bit.

My post was facetious by the way, but seriously, I am going to be a bit leery of new players who come to the game with thoughts of evil pacts and being the edgy goth outsider dancing in their heads. I predict they, like the legions of Drizzt clones, will tend to not work well in a group environment.

 

[Kobu]

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.

And that's just the 3.5 version. 4E should open up a lot more possibilities like pacts with celestials.

 

[Seeten]

If sunshine and lollipops is all thats acceptable in a campaign, I'll generally take a pass on it.

 

[Imaro]

If sunshine and lollipops is all thats acceptable in a campaign, I'll generally take a pass on it.

If that's the only type of D&D game you can play without a warlock...is it really the game's fault?

 

[Baron Opal]

Imaro hits exactly my opinion. Heroes should be grey by choice, not by class. Warlocks should have the same breadth as clerics, their ideological cousins.

 

[Nifft]

Eberron Clerics can be downright evil despite deriving their powers from an ostensibly good source.

No reason Warlocks can't do the opposite.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gloombunny]

"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.

Scary doesn't mean evil. Making pacts with a vicious but ultimately morally neutral power is no different from learning how to kill people with a sword, IMO. I mean, stabbing people is pretty vicious too, but no one complains that warriors are evil, because it's all about who you use your stabbing capabilities on and why. As long as a pact isn't requiring a warlock to do evil things to get his power, I don't see why it's a problem.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

We can drop the argument. That doesn't mean you've convinced us it's not true. I hardly think that "shiny knights" are the only way you can play an emotionally mature character, but ... well, I did say I'd drop it, so I will.

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

Based on what we know so far (admittedly incomplete), I am currently pretty sure the answer is "No." I hope that's not the case, but I don't like what I've heard. As others have mentioned, it depends on whether the "EVIL!!" (tm) is fluffy or hard-wired into the class abilities. If the class can be re-themed into a non-evil variety (if it even needs to be), it may find its way to my table.

At this time though, when I hear "Infernal, Shadowy or Feral" I think clerics of Bane, Vecna and Malar (to use FR deities). Since I wouldn't allow PC clerics of those natures, I wouldn't allow the Warlock either.

But I certainly have an open mind. Here's hoping the class is not irredeemably evil as written.

To address the "conflicted characters make good novels", I do agree (a little - it has to be handled well), but what makes a good novel doesn't always make a good PC at a gaming table. The group dynamics have to be accounted for too.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think it's a little early to even bother debating this, really. We've gotta learn a lot more about the mechanics of the class and the nature of Warlock pacts.

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

I passionately hate emo music and subculture, and even I'm annoyed at the persistent misuse of the term all over the Internet.