Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

Rechan said:
You forgot Chaotic Neutral, Nifft.
His words should be tasty enough with just three examples. :) But you're right -- there are more things you can do.

My favorite (ab)use of the Warlock is the Wartificier. Warlock 12 / Chameleon 2 -> he can make any magic item.

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nifft said:
Okay, just in 3.5e, using Tiefling and Warlock:

- Chaotic Good Tiefling Warlock, focused on "archery" (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Eldritch Spear, some Essence Invocations). Other Invocations will be for personal mobility.

Good one, mechanic-wise. Stretched on alignment.

- Lawful Evil Tiefling Warlock, focused on "social engineering" (Bluff maxed out, plus social skill enhancing Invocations, plus Charm).

This one is wasting his main weapon. A warlock who doesn't use its eldritch blast is like a pacifist fighter or an atheistic cleric: good for oddballers who want to play the handicapped character, silly characters mechanic-wise.

- Chaotic Evil area effect battlefield controller. Eldritch Shape invocations which grant area attacks, Chilling Tentacles, etc.

I don't see that much difference between what this warlock does and what the first one does. Slightly different ways to do the same thing, as a fighter who uses a sword or a pike, or as paladins of different deities.

And if the best you can say is "they can be good or bad", they are as limited, if not more, as the Drittz clones, which can be good or bad, use scimitars or short swords, be fighters or rangers. "Tiefling warlock" is a straight-up cliché. If you want to stretch that cliché, good for you, but they are all slight variations on the same theme.
 


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

Oh, certainly it is viable. A good idea? Only if the particular character is prepared for it.

One thing that has bugged me (in many games....not at all only D&D) is that some people seem to assume, "Hey..i'm evil or morally ambiguous or shady....therefore, this infernal being that hates mankind will certainly be more predisposed to work with me and won't stab me in the back as fast as that good guy over there."

Tthat statement is something I am sure to tell my players before any situation like pacts can come up in the game. Infernal pacts can happen, but alien entities that are born from abstracts such as malice and hate...where those abstracts are so strong that entire worlds and planes of existance spawn from them....These infernal entities are not about to offer someone something unless they are very confident and capable of narrowing the pact to two outcomes: 1 - they win. or 2 - they don't win, but you don't either, and they lose as little as possible. They hate you and wish nothing but horrid, malicious things for you....but, you might be able to help them out before then.

Regarding this topic and Warlocks in the game....I know i have fun with this quasi-benevolent antagonist in my games. 3e or 4e....they are the perfect "sleepers;" at one point, the devil will call its due. Should I switch to 4e , the class's backstory (based only upon Heinsoo's article and a scant few other tidbits i've read) will be impossible to ignore...the devil's apprentices and demon's consorts will have such a social stigma that any level of powers heaped on to them will just help to balance out the rough time the player will have playing that character. I look forward to someone going for it.
 

Betote said:
main weapon. A warlock who doesn't use its eldritch blast is like a pacifist fighter or an atheistic cleric: good for oddballers who want to play the handicapped character, silly characters mechanic-wise.
So I guess a Rogue who doesn't build their entire character around always exploiting their sneak attack is like a pacifist fighter. "Sorry, no Indiana Jones or James Bond for you".

I have a NE warlock in my Mystery/Investigation campaign who uses Beguiling Influence and Charm (and a hat of disguise) to the fullest extent. But then, she's working towards Mindbender. Opting to ignore her Eldrich Blast in exchange for charming that Umber Hulk to do the damage for her is a viable choice.

Oh, and pacifist fighter? Rurouni Kenshin.
 
Last edited:

Gloombunny said:
This is ridiculous. By your standards, Betote, any character of any class is the same as every other character of that class.

Not everyone, but yes, there are some classes/races which are so 'full of fluff' that they almost come with their concept. Paladin, Warlock and Monk are, maybe, the fluffiest ones.

Am I assuming too much when I say the warlock is meant to be an "evil sorcerer-like" class, the tiefling a "demon lite" or the paladin a "fighter empowered by Goodness to slay evil"? Sure, you can work around those clichés, but they are what they are.

And once again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. If you want to go generic or unique, you have classes generic enough to suit your tastes. If you want a certain fluff built into your character, you have specific classes which fulfill your tastes.
 


Betote said:
Oh, but that's so anime :D
I'm pretty sure the "warrior who is tired of fighting and bloodshed, and only picks up the sword when there is no other option" is a western literary archetype though.
 

Rechan said:
I'm pretty sure the "warrior who is tired of fighting and bloodshed, and only picks up the sword when there is no other option" is a western literary archetype though.
Rambo would tend to agree that that archetype is at home in the West.

Cheers, -- N
 

Rechan said:
I'm pretty sure the "warrior who is tired of fighting and bloodshed, and only picks up the sword when there is no other option" is a western literary archetype though.

Everytime someone has to explain a joke, a fairy dies. Do you really want that to happen? :P
 

Remove ads

Top