Infernal pacts - appropriate for player characters?

[Aristotle]

I enjoy morally gray but I'm not a fan of inherently evil. If the class allows for morally gray, cool. If not, I won't use it and I'd prefer it not be there personally. My players are often forced to choose between lesser and greater evils, placing the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few, and so on. They are no strangers to dark deeds done for the greater good. Sometimes they even make the "wrong" choice... but I like to think of my games as movies, and I prefer even my darkest heroes have some basic desire to ultimately see good prevail.

*shrug* I never got the need for everything to be playable, or at least outlined as so prominently, just for the sake of openness. Then again I find most overly "evil" campaigns just as boring as some of you find overly good ones.

 

[Rechan]

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

I was more trying to kill the "pacifist fighter doesn't work" notion.

However, some of my best friends are fairies; I don't want them to die.

 

[Anthtriel]

Name two. The second one will be stretched.

That doesn't mean "tiefling warlock" is a bad concept. The best (IMO) D&D games are built upon clichés

Just asking for two is way too easy for this kind of class.

Guy 1: Entered the pact involuntarily, or while he was heavily disturbed. Tried to get out of it ever since, but couldn't. Rational enough to see that he is got to use his abilities to survive, adventures to get some way out of the whole thing, just wants to leave in peace.

Guy 2: Driven by some semi-noble, outright noble goal, revenge, "greater good" or what have you. Freely uses his abilitie to accomplish that goal, doesn't care what will happen to him afterwards, but tries to keep others out of it.

Guy 3: Arrogant, believes he can benefit from the pact without paying. Is motivated by fame, glory and demonstrating his own superiority over the beings he made the pact with.

Guy 4: Giving in entirely, letting himself get used. Will from time to time, or when asked to do really depraved things, break down and realize what he is actually doing.

And there are any number of other ways. Deriving powers from an outside source (and yes, nearly always morally ambigious, very rarely celestial) is about as common in fantasy, and certainly in folklore as learning from books.

The flavor behind the Warlock powers might turn out to be more specific (I'm thinking of that maw thing in particular), but the flavor behind the class itself is not anymore limited than the flavor behind the Wizard class.

 

[Imaro]

You know I stiil haven't seen anyone address the issue of the warlock & infernal pacts as far as younger gamers go. The basic set was marketed for ages 12 and up (4th ed is suppose to be targeting younger gamers in paticular). Do most posters feel that an average 12 year old is mature enough to deal with this character and it's abilities (again bringing up the whole new cosmology being closer to judeo/christian myth). What about 11 or 10? Part of me thinks WotC is looking for the publicity something like this might reignite (you know the 80's satan scares), but I really hope they are better than that.

I also don't see how the inclusion of the warlock (or tiefling) in 4e suddenly made ambiguous or conflicted heroes available for play. They always have been, if you choose to roleplay and build such a story around your character. I don't understand those who need it hardcoded into the rules and fluff to play a gray or evil character.

I'd much rather have a baseline warlock and then take particular feats or talents to flavor him the way I want. I also think the best way to accomplish the widest variety and usefulness for the class is to have a good/evil/neutral version. I don't see how an evil or evil & neutral based warlock opens more possibilities than one that can run the gamut of alignments.

 

[Betote]

Just asking for two is way too easy for this kind of class.

Guy 1: Entered the pact involuntarily, or while he was heavily disturbed. Tried to get out of it ever since, but couldn't. Rational enough to see that he is got to use his abilities to survive, adventures to get some way out of the whole thing, just wants to leave in peace.

Why doesn't he multiclass, then?

Guy 2: Driven by some semi-noble, outright noble goal, revenge, "greater good" or what have you. Freely uses his abilitie to accomplish that goal, doesn't care what will happen to him afterwards, but tries to keep others out of it.

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

Guy 3: Arrogant, believes he can benefit from the pact without paying. Is motivated by fame, glory and demonstrating his own superiority over the beings he made the pact with.

Guy 4: Giving in entirely, letting himself get used. Will from time to time, or when asked to do really depraved things, break down and realize what he is actually doing.

Those two, I see more factible. OK, maybe "two" was exaggerating, but "guy who gets magic powers making a pact with a fiend and gets rewards as he kills those the fiend doesn't like" is not as wide concept as "fighter" or "wizard".

And there are any number of other ways. Deriving powers from an outside source (and yes, nearly always morally ambigious, very rarely celestial) is about as common in fantasy, and certainly in folklore as learning from books.

The flavor behind the Warlock powers might turn out to be more specific (I'm thinking of that maw thing in particular), but the flavor behind the class itself is not anymore limited than the flavor behind the Wizard class.

I think, based on the 3.5 class and the hints given on the preview, it'd be way more specific and, thus, limited than the wizard (or cleric, fighter or rogue) class. And it ought to be that way, IMO, because that makes easier for newcomers to accomodate their playstyle to their favourite fantasy cliché.

See, when a grognard wants to stat up, say, Conan, they give him levels at rogue, dread pirate, fighter, even maybe marshal or ranger. When a newcomer wants to be that guy Arnie played on that film, he just rolls up a human barbarian. Same thing with Elric: he'd be a wizard/fighter/marshal or something like that, but it's way easier to say "Eladrin (Melnibonean) Warlock". That's what classes apart from the basic four (fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue) are for and, IMO; if WotC wants to make a game that appealed to newcomers, that's the road they should take.

 

[Betote]

You know I stiil haven't seen anyone address the issue of the warlock & infernal pacts as far as younger gamers go. The basic set was marketed for ages 12 and up (4th ed is suppose to be targeting younger gamers in paticular). Do most posters feel that an average 12 year old is mature enough to deal with this character and it's abilities (again bringing up the whole new cosmology being closer to judeo/christian myth). What about 11 or 10? Part of me thinks WotC is looking for the publicity something like this might reignite (you know the 80's satan scares), but I really hope they are better than that.

One thing is to target the marketing for ages 12 and up and another one is to create a product suitable for ages 12 and up. Ask the cigarette companies about it

I also don't see how the inclusion of the warlock (or tiefling) in 4e suddenly made ambiguous or conflicted heroes available for play. They always have been, if you choose to roleplay and build such a story around your character. I don't understand those who need it hardcoded into the rules and fluff to play a gray or evil character.

It doesn't make ambiguous or conflicted characters: it makes cool and dark characters.

I'd much rather have a baseline warlock and then take particular feats or talents to flavor him the way I want. I also think the best way to accomplish the widest variety and usefulness for the class is to have a good/evil/neutral version. I don't see how an evil or evil & neutral based warlock opens more possibilities than one that can run the gamut of alignments.

If they go that way, they should get rid of the class's name, because "warlock" screams "evil wizard".

 

[Umbran]

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

Viable? Sure.

Common? Not if you want to keep it interesting. And that may be a problem for the Warlock, depending how it is presented. If, say, a full third of warlocks have packs with infernal beings, it is no longer an interesting, edgy, compelling story. It becomes commonplace. Familiarity breeds contempt, and all that.

 

[Nifft]

You know I stiil haven't seen anyone address the issue of the warlock & infernal pacts as far as younger gamers go.

Hardly news anymore.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Why doesn't he multiclass, then?

Don't confuse the player with the character.

Unless dudes in your world can see numbers hovering over each other's heads, there's no reason to think the character is even aware such things as classes exist.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Betote]

Don't confuse the player with the character.

Unless dudes in your world can see numbers hovering over each other's heads, there's no reason to think the character is even aware such things as classes exist.

Cheers, -- N

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').

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).