Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8323992" data-attributes="member: 58197">See, that framework right there is the problem. Let's say you are presented with this choice, and you choose to do what is right. Then what? Are you suddenly stripped of all class powers? Or denied the ability to gain levels? I think &quot;kicked in the jimmies&quot; is a damn good description of those outcomes.This is really the fault of the warlock flavor text, which suggests they are essentially edgelord clerics, with powers that can be withdrawn any time they get crosswise with the boss. But there is a key difference: Clerics are generally on the same page as their deity. If a cleric has to choose between &quot;do what is easy&quot; and &quot;do what is right,&quot; their god is urging the latter. Taking the easy path is a temporary lapse, for which the cleric can atone. For the warlock, choosing the right path puts you in a state of permanent conflict with your patron.And, to be clear, I don't have any objection to warlocks coming into conflict with their patrons! I think it has tons of potential for awesome games. But the conflict should be planned as a thing that will happen, and the player should not be deprived of the ability to play their character as a result. &quot;Your patron wants you to murder a kitten! What do you do?&quot; is not a good way to set up the conflict.I much prefer to regard a warlock's pact as: You made the deal, got your powers, and now they are yours to use as you see fit, growing as you gain experience with them. That decision is now in the past. If there are elements of the price remaining to be paid, the patron will not ask when the bill comes due--they will simply show up and collect. If you can find a way to prevent them collecting, you get to keep your powers and cheat your patron... but that's easier said than done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8323992, member: 58197"] See, that framework right there is the problem. Let's say you are presented with this choice, and you choose to do what is right. Then what? Are you suddenly stripped of all class powers? Or denied the ability to gain levels? I think "kicked in the jimmies" is a damn good description of those outcomes. This is really the fault of the warlock flavor text, which suggests they are essentially edgelord clerics, with powers that can be withdrawn any time they get crosswise with the boss. But there is a key difference: Clerics are generally on the same page as their deity. If a cleric has to choose between "do what is easy" and "do what is right," their god is urging the latter. Taking the easy path is a temporary lapse, for which the cleric can atone. For the warlock, choosing the right path puts you in a state of permanent conflict with your patron. And, to be clear, I don't have any objection to warlocks coming into conflict with their patrons! I think it has tons of potential for awesome games. But the conflict should be planned as [I]a thing that will happen[/I], and the player should not be deprived of the ability to play their character as a result. "Your patron wants you to murder a kitten! What do you do?" is not a good way to set up the conflict. I much prefer to regard a warlock's pact as: You made the deal, got your powers, and now they are yours to use as you see fit, growing as you gain experience with them. That decision is now in the past. If there are elements of the price remaining to be paid, the patron will not [I]ask[/I] when the bill comes due--they will simply show up and collect. If you can find a way to prevent them collecting, you get to keep your powers and cheat your patron... but that's easier said than done. [/QUOTE]

Verification