Wizards hate warlocks

[Gargoyle]

At least, according to the newest Legends and Lore article:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Sorcerers and Warlocks)

Anyone else bothered by this generalization? It reminds me of campaigns where elves hate dwarves. Good players know that rivalries in the party make for good roleplaying, but newer or less mature players will see this and may head straight into some unwanted (by most) pvp.

On the other hand, maybe this is just fine? Perhaps not all player classes and races have to get along with each other and it's time to start encouraging conflict and see where it goes?

Obviously, this is in regard to the descriptions of classes and races in the core rules, YMMV in specific campaigns.

 

[tuxgeo]

At least, according to the newest Legends and Lore article:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Sorcerers and Warlocks)

Anyone else bothered by this generalization? It reminds me of campaigns where elves hate dwarves. Good players know that rivalries in the party make for good roleplaying, but newer or less mature players will see this and may head straight into some unwanted (by most) pvp.

On the other hand, maybe this is just fine? Perhaps not all player classes and races have to get along with each other and it's time to start encouraging conflict and see where it goes?

Obviously, this is in regard to the descriptions of classes and races in the core rules, YMMV in specific campaigns.

So far, I am quite underwhelmed by the 5ENext take on Sorcerers and Warlocks. In one sense, Mike is right: there isn't any long-standing D&D lore about those classes; in another sense, he's just presenting the point of view of the Wizard class, so of course there is going to be resentment displayed. (Some Wizards even resent other Wizards.)

One of the oldest tropes about Dwarves was the notion that they mistrusted all arcane magic, whether it be the magic of a Wizard, a Witch, a Warlock, a Sorcerer, or a Bard. In that light, it shouldn't be too surprising that mistrust of the arcane remains a feature in the game, either displayed by Dwarves or displayed by other arcanists. In my opinion, he's focusing too much on the dangers and not enough on the possibilities for such a character. (Or maybe he's saying that the dangers are a large part of the possibilities. I don't know.)

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, it make sense when you factor in the common/uncommon/rare thing.

Wizards: Common. The most typical form of arcane study. Wizardly magic is fairly predictable, limited by what is known, and tightly regulated.

Sorcerers: Uncommon. Magic in the raw-form, dangerous and unpredictable few can master it.

Warlock: Rare. Secrets man was not meant to know, forbidden and locked away along with the rituals to contact alien and strange beings...

 

[Stormonu]

eh, it's not how I envision sorcerers working. As for the wizard vs. sorcerer, I think its fine there be seen a level of distrust. When everybody gets along (like the PC races in Star Frontiers), it feels unrealistic. Prejudice is everywhere in our world - and we only have humans.

 

[mlund]

Yup, I think this is pretty much spot-on.

I especially like the idea of Warlocks having to sacrifice more and more for power as they go. It sets an interesting stage for me to ponder whether a warlock will be willing to submit totally to their patron for power or whether they'll attempt to in some way defeat and usurp their patron.

The concept of a dual nature for sorcerers is excellent. While the basic bloodline examples are nice, it is also a nice hook for reincarnated or fabricated characters.

Wait, no, never-mind. Forget I said anything! If we go there someone's going to have a reincarnated sorcerer-king that slew his enemies using a children's card game and that can't possibly end well.

- Marty Lund

 

[jrowland]

I don't have a problem with it. I think narrative hooks help to define the character, and playing against "type" is just another RP hook. How many "reformed Drow" exist in campaigns? It's only fun to play because Drow are so thoroughly evil.


As for new, young, immature players, etc. I think 5E is taking the view that D&D is not an introductory game by its nature. Which modules to allow/disallow, what kind of campaign, simulationist vs gamist, are all very abstract "mature" decisions. If you can't ignore Warlock flavor text, you'll have bigger problems with the game.

Look around Gen Con (or any Con)...whats the target demographic? Sure kids are present, but usually with their gaming parents. That represents your CORE constituency. As for new players, introductory sets are more appropriate, and lkely would not include things like Warlock, let alone heavy flavor text.

 

[Tovec]

Yeah, I'm definitely not sold on these versions of Sorcerer and Warlock.

In fact, this sorcerer seems a lot more like a Warlock, and the warlock a lot more like a Wizard (up until the meddlers part).

I think of my sorcerers as those who have magic in their background or bloodline, but more ancestrally instead of some other soul trapped inside. I see them as being innate to magic and not needing to study it, unlike wizards. Wizards are definitely the ones who study for hours, or go searching for long forgotten secrets to perform powerful magic. I also see wizards as the ones forming bonds with eldritch creatures. What they described for the warlock is what I see for all sorcerers who make deals they shouldn't.

I see wizards as the careful study of magic to figure out what its limits are and where it can be broken, remolded and mastered. Sorcerers I see the as opposite of that. I do see them first manifesting powers in adolescence if only because that is when most natural talents emerge. Sorcerers are the ones who feel magic in them and use it towards often explosive results. They can be the ones who spew magic (or fire) from their mouths or innately know magical words to transform or charm others. If there is one area I feel sorcerers shouldn't be as good at performing that would probably be summoning, as I don't see them caring to learn to summon other creatures to fight their battles for them. When you have the power of a dragon somewhere rumbling around inside you, I see less reason to want to make pacts or summon demons.

My problem I guess has always been the warlock. I get the feel of what that article was trying to say but I very much disagree on the methods or even the mindset of the potential warlock. I don't see warlocks as seeking out dark secrets to summon evil creatures for the purpose of making pacts. I see them more as the weak or infirm in movies who make deals with the devil in exchange for a promising outcome. This is part of why I disagree with the articles' 2 souls thing for the sorcerers - that is where I feel you start to get into warlock territory. Warlocks are the ones who ACCEPT deals but I don't see them as the ones seeking them out. Instead I see them as the bearers of curses that were brought on by their acceptance of terms from a dark creature. For this reason I expect to see them have powers, but once again I see those powers differently than from a wizard or sorcerer. Where a wizard studies, and a sorcerer explodes with raw power - the warlock is more about having powers that are unseen. They get wings, or improved strength, perhaps (in 3e terms) a few spell-like abilities. As slowly but surely the warlock starts losing their soul and what makes them them and turning into an outsider, elemental, fey or whatever species they made the pact with. In exchange for a boon, and for a favourable result to start (maybe akin to a wish?) they sacrifice their soul and join the creatures they made a deal with.

Long and ramble-y I know, but this article bugged me and I figured there was no way to explain how without giving my mindset. YMMV of course.

 

[The Shadow]

Normally, I quite resent more than the most minimal presumption by the rules about what my game world will be like.

But I can't get worked up about this one. What warlocks do is so 'out there' that it's hard to envision a society capable of tolerating them for long. It's not so much that wizards hate them; it's that nobody really likes them, period. Heck, I bet most clerics regard them as anathema.

The one thing warlocks have going for them is that most people probably can't really tell the difference between them and wizards. (They both carry big books, they both throw magic around, they both want all the lore they can get their hands on...)

Of course, a society in which warlocks seized power could be an exception... and by that there will certainly hang a good story.

 

[Dedekind]

Independent of D&D, I have no problem accepting any of this. I think it fits (very broadly) into world lore and if I explained this to anybody with only fuzzy ideas of fantasy (only saw LotR) they would get it. I like it.


In the context of D&D, this seems to match the execution of 4e more than 3e. Two core mechanics in 4e, pacts and wildness, are the end result of the story told in the article. Could it be a different story? Yes. Is it a bad story? No.

 

[TerraDave]

I really like that this has flavor, which has been in all too short supply for, well, the last 25 years or so of D&D.

I do think warlocks are stepping on wizards space, a little (its arcane lore, but different!) , but the patrons and different mechanics make up for that.

 

[Mattachine]

My favorite lore regarding warlocks was from the original 3.5 presentation, plus the idea of Fey and Star warlocks from 4e. This new take . . . meh.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like it because it makes for interesting adventure/interaction opportunities. If you don't like it, you're completely free to change it for your game - it doesn't seem to have any mechanical impacts.

The only thing that gives me pause is that it seems oddly similar to the rivalry between Mage and Warlock players in WoW.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait, no, never-mind. Forget I said anything! If we go there someone's going to have a reincarnated sorcerer-king that slew his enemies using a children's card game and that can't possibly end well.

- Marty Lund

I had an npc captureing souls and storeing them in giant clay tablets... it took like 5 games for my pc s to put it togather

 

[Gadget]

This article reminds me of the fact that I was felt that servants of evil, vile beings, be they so called deities or something else, are better represented as evil warlocks, rather than evil clerics.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If a wizard is the nerdy bookworm kid in high school, a warlock is the kid smart enough to be valedictorian who gets expelled junior year for hacking the school's computer network and posting teacher salaries on Facebook.

Wizards like to think of warlocks as slackers looking for an easy route to arcane knowledge; warlocks see wizards as hidebound and deluded about the nature of things.

To a warlock, the universe is essentially flawed, broken, stitched together into something resembling a coherent whole; they draw their power from their ability to see the gaps in reality and exploit them, a task that constantly drives them to the edge of madness. Wizards hate warlocks because THEIR arcane power comes from the exact opposite side of the equation: they try to see the world as logical and complete, and build their magic on universal laws. That warlocks can't even hold their power without descending into madness or depending on some supernatural patron as a bastion against the abyss is yet more evidence to wizards that warlocks are sadly mistaken.

Meanwhile, a sorcerer is that kid who breezes through high school with good grades and a varsity letter. He's good without trying, and that easy success gives him confidence that only makes him more compelling.

Sorcerers make me think of the Aes Sedai in Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series: they have such immense innate power that in any given society, they generally end up either as the ruling class or as constantly hunted. (An exception might be a world where magical creatures are so common that a dude who can shoot fireballs doesn't stand out.)

Personally, when I read the draconic sorcerer, my first thought was of an Arabian-themed "traveling foreign noble" of a clan descended from a bronze dragon.

 

[Greg K]

I think of my sorcerers as those who have magic in their background or bloodline, but more ancestrally instead of some other soul trapped inside.

The same here. I like the concept of celestial, dragon, demon, devil or fey ancestry providing innate magical ability- it fits with a lot of stories, myths and legends. However, I strongly dislike the Dragon Heritage Sorcerer with its manifesting dragon abilities. I don't mind it as an option, but I do not want it hard coded as the class feature. I also dislike the heritage giving armor and weapon proficiencies above the basic sorcerer. How does simply having a dragon heritage that provides innate arcane ability provide training in armor and weapon?

I don't see warlocks as seeking out dark secrets to summon evil creatures for the purpose of making pacts. I see them more as the weak or infirm in movies who make deals with the devil in exchange for a promising outcome.

Warlocks are the ones who ACCEPT deals but I don't see them as the ones seeking them out. Instead I see them as the bearers of curses that were brought on by their acceptance of terms from a dark creature. For this reason I expect to see them have powers, but once again I see those powers differently than from a wizard or sorcerer. Where a wizard studies, and a sorcerer explodes with raw power - the warlock is more about having powers that are unseen. They get wings, or improved strength, perhaps (in 3e terms) a few spell-like abilities. As slowly but surely the warlock starts losing their soul and what makes them them and turning into an outsider, elemental, fey or whatever species they made the pact with. In exchange for a boon, and for a favourable result to start (maybe akin to a wish?) they sacrifice their soul and join the creatures they made a deal with.

Long and ramble-y I know, but this article bugged me and I figured there was no way to explain how without giving my mindset. YMMV of course.

I agree about the weak and infirm. However, I also think both those with ambition/power and looking for a quick and easy way to get what they want, or someone desperate (which could include the weak and infirm) also make pacts and would seek out the entity. Examples, would include:
1. The politician in the "Devil's Platform" episode of Kolchak the Night Stalker (the original series from the 70's). He makes a deal with Satan in which he gains a meteoric rise as a politician. He also gains the ability to shape change into a large Rottweiler, a form he uses to kill rivals and others attempting to interfere with his political career. Sometimes, he shapeshifted in front of the person to be killed. Other times, he approached in the dog form or left the scene as a dog.

2. Boris Balkan, the book collector in the Johnny Depp movie "Ninth Gate" takes the book and reads passages hoping to gain power from Satan.

3. Several character's in 70's occult based movies make deals for things like success as actors.

4. People in TV shows like Supernatural and Charmed make pacts. Sometimes gaining mystical ability in exchange. For example, in Supernatural, John Winchester sought out the Yellow Eyed Demon to make a pact that saved Dean. Teenagers in Supernatural , after capturing Sam, summoned a demon to make a pact in exchange for him. There are also the housewives of a book club that make a deal with a demon for good fortune (the demon approaches them, but was possessing the body of another member)

5. The movie the Craft. Girls become witches by making pacts with beings associated with the four elements. One is badly scarred, but none are infirm. One is closer to a sorcerer in that she comes from a line of witches and has natural affinity

Interestingly, none of the above characters get deformed from their pacts. Although, Kolchak succeeding to take the talisman off the politician, who was in dog form, permanently, transforms the politician into a normal Rottweiller. This is why I would not want to see transformation built into the class as a feature.

 

[Salamandyr]

I realize warlocks and sorcerers require a bit more definition, but I think they're starting to get into the area of "too much" flavor text. I'll decide how wizards and warlocks interact in my campaign world, thank you very much.

I probably won't run a game with both wizards and warlocks in them. They pretty much seem to occupy the exact same space, in different ways. So depending on my game, I'll probably allow one or the other, unless I'm running generalized dungeon crawl where story takes a back seat.

 

[Jack99]

I like it because it makes for interesting adventure/interaction opportunities. If you don't like it, you're completely free to change it for your game - it doesn't seem to have any mechanical impacts.

The only thing that gives me pause is that it seems oddly similar to the rivalry between Mage and Warlock players in WoW.

Congrats, I think you are the first to say the dndnext = computer game..












(the above was a joke, just in case you aren't sure)

 

[Greg K]

I realize warlocks and sorcerers require a bit more definition, but I think they're starting to get into the area of "too much" flavor text. I'll decide how wizards and warlocks interact in my campaign world, thank you very much.

There is a lot of stuff throughout the game that is "too much" flavor for my tastes including some of the built in features for various races and classes. I am not interested in lots of hardcoded abilities that I have to remove and replace on my own to tailor things to a given campaign. I did it for too many editions and will pass if I have to do it again.

 

[Tovec]

The same here. I like the concept of celestial, dragon, demon, devil or fey ancestry providing innate magical ability- it fits with a lot of stories, myths and legends. However, I strongly dislike the Dragon Heritage Sorcerer with its manifesting dragon abilities. I don't mind it as an option, but I do not want it hard coded as the class feature. I also dislike the heritage giving armor and weapon proficiencies above the basic sorcerer. How does simply having a dragon heritage that provides innate arcane ability provide training in armor and weapon?

I happen to agree with this, the closest I ever understood this was the warmage in 3e and even that was pushing it. I think AT BEST the explaination is that they have the magic in them so they don't need to study, which opens up time for training like a fighter but I agree that they shouldn't be a fighter with magic abilities.

A good example for me for an iconic sorcerer would actually be the sword of truth protagonist. He is a fighter (or w/e) to start but he learns of his sorcery bloodline later. Another example, for me, would be gandalf or really any example where the person STARTS with magic in their blood and is able to use it instead of having to go out and explore.

Now that doesn't preclude them from learning additional magic as a wizard would but that is something on top of their natural bloodline. They could (and probably should) be further executing and training in their natural powers to become stronger instead of becoming a wizard too, for example.

I agree about the weak and infirm. However, I also think both those with ambition/power and looking for a quick and easy way to get what they want, or someone desperate (which could include the weak and infirm) also make pacts and would seek out the entity. Examples, would include:
1. The politician in the "Devil's Platform" episode of Kolchak the Night Stalker (the original series from the 70's). He makes a deal with Satan in which he gains a meteoric rise as a politician. He also gains the ability to shape change into a large Rottweiler, a form he uses to rivals.

2. Boris Balkan, the book collector in the Johnny Depp movie "Ninth Gate" takes the book and reads passages hoping to gain power from Satan.

3. Several character's in 70's occult based movies make deals for things like success as actors.

4. People in TV shows like Supernatural and Charmed make pacts. Sometimes gaining mystical ability in exchange. For example, in Supernatural, John Winchester sought out the Yellow Eyed Demon to make a pact that saved Dean. Teenagers in Supernatural , after capturing Sam, summoned a demon to make a pact in exchange for him. There are also the housewives of a book club that make a deal with a demon for good fortune (the demon approaches them, but was possessing the body of another member)

5. The movie the Craft. Girls become witches by making pacts with beings associated with the four elements. One is badly scarred, but none are infirm. One is closer to a sorcerer in that she comes from a line of witches and has natural affinity

Interestingly, none of the above characters get deformed from their pacts. Although, Kolchak succeeding to take the talisman off the politician, who was in dog form, permanently, transforms the politician into a normal Rottweiller. This is why I would not want to see transformation built into the class as a feature.

Oh, there are certainly examples where the person asking for favour isn't weak or infirm; I just see that as the normal or most common example. A great example for me would be johnny blaze in the ghostrider movies (I haven't read the comics) where his dad is dying and he makes a deal to save him. Only the devil screws him in the end, years later johnny gets the power of the ghostrider and wreaks vengeance on evil people. He can use that power to whatever ends he wants, but he is always going to be cursed.

Another example, from RPGs, would be the blood-mages in dragon age. They use the power of demons, let them in and form deals for greater power. They are also sorcerers (by my method) too as they can do deals without demon power but they gain so much more by shedding blood and using demon power that many fall to that trick and become corrupted. That is exactly how I see warlocks. Rarely will they use arcane tomes and search out hidden artifacts in obscure mountain ranges, but if they are ever down on their luck and in need of a boost then a pact-maker might show up and offer them a deal. That deal will forever change them and curse them (lose their soul). In this way I can see a stronger warlock gaining the traits of that pact-maker as they get stronger, letting the pact-maker take over or in some other way becoming a creature like their pact-maker.