Make Warlock application only

[WeWhoEat]

Hitman, just a head's-up for the future, instead of posting three times in a row, you can go back and edit your post to include new thoughts and such. Saves space.

And Meph is a fun case for warlocks, because he is not doing the typical bargains. While most devils will try to kill the warlock off and claim the soul early, Meph is more interested in what you can do for him on the Prime. He does not want your soul so much as he wants your help in spreading his influence on the prime; to him, we are an investment, and Mep is one for long-term investments. If he could choose between having your soul, or your service in getting him many more souls, he would choose the service, because the entire reason he entices people with Hellfire and makes so many Pacts is because he is trying to build up a mortal power-base in preparation to overthrow Asmodeus.

In fact, I would imagine that a Hellfire Warlock could keep his soul (sorta) if he were in a "Serve me and obey all of my commands in exchange for power" deal, in which case you are just as screwed OOCly, as this means DMs could act as Meph and issue orders to such warlocks, and revoke the power if the commands are not obeyed. The player could then be used by the DM in any events that require mortal pawns of Mephistopheles, or just screw with you for fun.

[Servin]

Is it only me, seeing where this is going to? Void returned to the discussion, clinging to the 'education' like we have concluded, now he's moved on to pacts and feats... You do realise the next step would be to have DM's eliminate player characters to execute the pact, right? See the history of the discussion...

I for one am against changes. How does a choice between 3 pacts not limit role-play? Devil pacts cannot be all shoved down to one option only, as conditions of such pacts vary. Education does not come in through means of implementing new mechanisms in game that will say - you can do this but not that.

I agree with what Maecius said about the 'flavour of the week' thing with warlocks. You're coming out with solutions to a one off situation, while there are better things that can be done to develop gameplay.

I do see the fun aspect behind getting aligned for various planar fractions out there, but that's RP I do that should not be enforced to by feats or tokens.

[TheVoid]

Servin, you got it pretty much all wrong or you are being over paranoid.

The pact feat does not Railroad you into how you come to the pact or what agreement you made in your pact. It guides the player to know what kind of pacts are out there and what kind of pacts are supported by what beings or entities and their aims.

Your arguement is kind of moot since classes like paladins already have this guideline since the number of gods they can choose is limited to 3-4 and one yes ONE alignment only. How is that limiting and why are you not fighting for the liberation of paladins as you are with warlocks? Does that make sense? You like using or playing devil's advocate here but I don't think it is necessary. There is no need for a cause of alarm and I know of your deep distrust of DMs being involved in any stage of character development or creation but it's not a conspiracy. It is trying to assist new or not as informed players about the class they are about to play without railroading them.

You still decide the story of how your powers came to be or how you will use them but now at least you have a legitimate starting point to begin brainstorming with rather than putting the burden on yourself to create something out of nothing with no context and expect it too match the actual elements of the setting let alone the expectations of your peers.

I am all for player freedom but I am not for being disrespecting or perverting the content from source because of an individuals desire to do so. This is a game modeled around a pre-existing world that is full of references and guidelines that should be at least respected. If you want to play a heathen raping paladin of torm go ahead but just not here because you will be called out on it and most likely find it impossible or frustrating to make your concept relevant with other players in the community and the staff.

There is a fine line between having your freedom and just plain heresy of the setting most if not all of us came here to play.

I mentioned DM permadeath by pact maker as story like ending to those that would like to play that way. It doesn't have to be for anyone. Personally, I want a DM to call out my warlock character and hold her to her fiendish pact and try to kill her after she takes quite a few others with her. I bet there are others who want to play at the high risk table as well but this means that it OUR preference it's not likely the DMs will pass this as the standard pact making.

DMs here are not big fans at all for handing out permadeath like candy. Many if not all do not like giving out permadeath strikes since it normally comes with endless drama unless it is absolutely necessary to either correct disfunctional behavior or put finality to a character that has obviously run it's course of options and chances.

As the author of the idea, I do not mind the removal of any terms of permadeath as long as the feat structure helps and guides other players that are in doubt of their character's path or just don't know where to begin when they are crafting their warlock. Pacts, like deities and domains give you a purpose to work around not stifle you which is obviously why no one is asking that paladins should available to ALL GODS and CLERICS should be able to CHOOSE ALL DOMAINS regardless of the deity they have chosen.

I know you don't like DMs mettling but really, this isn't about DMs it's about helping players that may not have a clue of what they are doing with this class in particular and yes, I know your point that there is much more content out there which may need improvement if we are to do this for warlocks, but right now; we are only discussing warlocks.

[Trap]

In fact, I would imagine that a Hellfire Warlock could keep his soul (sorta) if he were in a "Serve me and obey all of my commands in exchange for power" deal, in which case you are just as screwed OOCly, as this means DMs could act as Meph and issue orders to such warlocks, and revoke the power if the commands are not obeyed. The player could then be used by the DM in any events that require mortal pawns of Mephistopheles, or just screw with you for fun.

that.. would be kind of cool haha..

edit: the new req for hellfire warlock that was suggested is a great idea by the way. all for it.

[Servin]

Servin, you got it pretty much all wrong or you are being over paranoid.

The pact feat does not Railroad you into how you come to the pact or what agreement you made in your pact. It guides the player to know what kind of pacts are out there and what kind of pacts are supported by what beings or entities and their aims.

Your arguement is kind of moot since classes like paladins already have this guideline since the number of gods they can choose is limited to 3-4 and one yes ONE alignment only. How is that limiting and why are you not fighting for the liberation of paladins as you are with warlocks? Does that make sense? You like using or playing devil's advocate here but I don't think it is necessary. There is no need for a cause of alarm and I know of your deep distrust of DMs being involved in any stage of character development or creation but it's not a conspiracy. It is trying to assist new or not as informed players about the class they are about to play without railroading them.

You still decide the story of how your powers came to be or how you will use them but now at least you have a legitimate starting point to begin brainstorming with rather than putting the burden on yourself to create something out of nothing with no context and expect it too match the actual elements of the setting let alone the expectations of your peers.

I am all for player freedom but I am not for being disrespecting or perverting the content from source because of an individuals desire to do so. This is a game modeled around a pre-existing world that is full of references and guidelines that should be at least respected. If you want to play a heathen raping paladin of torm go ahead but just not here because you will be called out on it and most likely find it impossible or frustrating to make your concept relevant with other players in the community and the staff.

There is a fine line between having your freedom and just plain heresy of the setting most if not all of us came here to play.

I mentioned DM permadeath by pact maker as story like ending to those that would like to play that way. It doesn't have to be for anyone. Personally, I want a DM to call out my warlock character and hold her to her fiendish pact and try to kill her after she takes quite a few others with her. I bet there are others who want to play at the high risk table as well but this means that it OUR preference it's not likely the DMs will pass this as the standard pact making.

DMs here are not big fans at all for handing out permadeath like candy. Many if not all do not like giving out permadeath strikes since it normally comes with endless drama unless it is absolutely necessary to either correct disfunctional behavior or put finality to a character that has obviously run it's course of options and chances.

As the author of the idea, I do not mind the removal of any terms of permadeath as long as the feat structure helps and guides other players that are in doubt of their character's path or just don't know where to begin when they are crafting their warlock. Pacts, like deities and domains give you a purpose to work around not stifle you which is obviously why no one is asking that paladins should available to ALL GODS and CLERICS should be able to CHOOSE ALL DOMAINS regardless of the deity they have chosen.

I know you don't like DMs mettling but really, this isn't about DMs it's about helping players that may not have a clue of what they are doing with this class in particular and yes, I know your point that there is much more content out there which may need improvement if we are to do this for warlocks, but right now; we are only discussing warlocks.

The reason I don't advocate for paladins is simple - I don't play one, I don't have sufficient lore to make comments about how one should be played. With that in mind, I will not respond to something I have no clue about. I do play a warlock however and I believe that the input I am providing holds at least some value to the discussion.

And for the record I have no problem with DM's getting involved with my character story, provided that the DM knows their story and I believe he or she has been involved in getting to understand it. What you were initially suggesting was this: Let's hand out feats to all the warlocks so DM's can call their characters up on them and permakill any we feel have gone over their power. Of course it will spring opposition from my side, because with that in mind, hell will freeze over sooner than a DM will get involved in getting to know the character's backstory before pressing the red button. Not because of ill will, but of limited time and the pressure to reduce the number of warlocks from players in a thread such as this one.

I'll surprise you even more if I say I have already asked (a month or two before this discussion) a DM to get involved in my characters pact matters and I did take death into consideration. The reason was simple - I believe the DM knows what they'll be doing, because they have some understanding of my character. You are/were thinking of doing that to a whole server, where numbers are far greater. Every warlock will be anonymous at that point and hardly anyone writes bios nowadays... I would not feel comfortable giving my character to a DM, knowing they are deciding of my character's future, having never spoken to them before...

Funnily enough, (back then) you and now the current DM leadership only delegated one DM to the UD, therefore it makes it double the difficult to make the above happen, due to time constraints. Which even further fuels the thought that it will be handled in a way similar to this:

- Hi, I'm the surface DM to execute your warlock pact.
- Have we met?
- No, pleased to meet you. I heard a lot about you from forum discussions. So what's your character about?
- ...

Now there is one thing I do not understand and I'll admit to it here and now. Why feats? Why do you need them to educate players? Being 'paranoid and sniffing conspiracies' I am led to believe this is all but an attempt to get a DM foot in the door. How would feats help in educating players (I might have missed that in the discussion) that other means wouldn't?

[WeWhoEat]

Now there is one thing I do not understand and I'll admit to it here and now. Why feats? Why do you need them to educate players? Being 'paranoid and sniffing conspiracies' I am led to believe this is all but an attempt to get a DM foot in the door. How would feats help in educating players (I might have missed that in the discussion) that other means wouldn't?

Because feats are something that characters have to deal with. In-game signs, forum messages, suggested reading, all can be missed, ignored, whatever. But players tend to read feat descriptions, and at the very least it would catch their eye and let them know that there is information to be had.

This would also allow DMs to better integrate warlock players into events. DMs cannot read your description to see if you have information about a Pact in it (even though you should not have it there, unless your character is wearing a "Vote for Asmodeus" pin), but DMs are certainly able to glance at your feat list rather easily.

Do not think that Void is suggesting that all warlocks will have a DM handler, acting as the axe waiting to fall whenever the DM feels like killing somebody. The feat would rather allow a DM to know the smallest tidbit about your character without having to drag out your forum bio to learn about your Pact (though Forum bios often have no information about the Pact, other than perhaps vague bits like "He is a warlock" or "She made a Pact with fiends to hone her skills").

Lets look at a few examples of usage:

• A DM is running an event where the player(s) talk to a powerful extraplanar creature, in this case a Balor. If the DM can see that the warlock is demon-pacted, perhaps she gets a bonus to conversation. If the warlock is devil pacted, perhaps the Balor will smell the stink of its racial enemy and the warlock will get a penalty to diplomacy.
• The party is held captive by particularly powerful and pranksome pixies. If the DM sees that the warlock is Fey-Pacted, perhaps there will be an option for her to say "Hey, pixies, I serve Bob the Pixie King, if you all do not let us go, he is gonna be hella upset".
• A warlock of a certain type might be better able to control a dangerous artifact of the same type, or more resistant to the effects of a curse / spell from similar entities. Like say there is a magical evil staff ring tainted with demonic aura that needs to be chucked into a volcano, and only a warlock Pacted to demons can safely handle it. (*Frodo casts Eldritch Blast 13d6*)
• The party needs to infiltrate a cult of Asmodeus to rescue the knight in distress, and so the DM (seeing that the warlock is Devil Pacted) could give the party a bonus to bluff/lore/diplo/whatever checks to pose as devil cultists as a result of the warlock's knowledge.

[Charraj]

I'm not even a huge fan of the feat idea, but consider this.
Assume that DMs are stretched too thin to do an application-only process. Well, if that's the case, there's no way they're going to be able to hang an axe over every Warlock's head, even if they wanted to (and I don't think they want to).
I interpret the feat idea to be more informative than anything else.
Anyways, that's not to say that I'm pushing for the idea (I'm not). I just don't think it's going to be so harmful if it ends up happening.

[Servin]

As long as it remains informative...

There is plenty of generalisation going on with the pacts. Demon ones mentioned that you can die any minute because the demon thought it would be fun. A DM not having gone through the backstory might not know that the warlock was actually bound to a deity's servant, such as Lolth (I can provide lore on that, showing it is possible). It could be that Lolth decides to test her subject, by vanquishing their warlock power, until proven strive for perfection, however no demon would try and cross the goddess in a way not following her dogma or do that on their own whim. A DM unaware of this might not give time to explain, unless it is like you say - informative and informative only.

[Charraj]

*shrugs* All I know is, character bios were supposed to make it easier for DMs to do some individualized events. But since DMs have other events and stuff going on, I've never seen them use character bios.

Considering that, I don't see how DMs would even be able to mess with warlocks based on the VERY general feats being discussed here. DMs would need a LOT more facts and specific background information before they could do anything like that. They would need the kind of information provided in a character bio, and I don't think many DMs would go into such depth just to screw with a Warlock.

[TheVoid]

It's for both informative and mechanical as well as practical.

1. feat can educate as wewhoeat has mentioned - players read feats and feat descriptions not all but most do.

2. Mechanical - feats can limit access to certain LORE BASED CONTENT that is restrictive where the OC has failed us. For instance, Hellfire is EXPLICITLY ONLY FOR FIENDISH PACTS that reference Mephistopheles. How in the world is anyone going to convince a DM or their fellow players a Demon or a fairy or some distant alien intelligence that lives on a vacant star system cathulu-style could give out the powers of the nine hells? That is as bad as a paladin being a follower of Bhaal.

3. Practical - Again, as wewhoeat stated; specific events will call or may call on the fact that a player of a warlock with a pact may have an advantage or disadvantage in the situation at hand.

As for permanent death, no ONE SINGLE DM besides DM MAECIUS or ILLUMINATED can call for a permadeath without consensus. Even if they did, it still needs to be brought to the attention of the entire group and obviously if it was unjust there will be protest about it. I am also very sure that neither current head DM is has tyrannical, callous, apethetic and draconian as myself. So you have even less to fear because there are checks and balances in place to make sure that big decisions like permadeath are not made from some authoritarian form of rule. It is a democratic process and it takes a lot of convincing and long deliberations to get the majority of DMs who play both good and evil characters to agree on permadeathing anyone.

[TheVoid]

*shrugs* All I know is, character bios were supposed to make it easier for DMs to do some individualized events. But since DMs have other events and stuff going on, I've never seen them use character bios.

Considering that, I don't see how DMs would even be able to mess with warlocks based on the VERY general feats being discussed here. DMs would need a LOT more facts and specific background information before they could do anything like that. They would need the kind of information provided in a character bio, and I don't think many DMs would go into such depth just to screw with a Warlock.

What it does is give a DM a way to check for a pact if they are interested in the character. Then read the bio if they submitted one. Having some summary info is better than having no info and scratching your head as the player character makes absolutely no sense as far as their actions go or if their actions are completely contrary to the pact they made and opposite of the bio they submitted.

Again, this no different than paladin's having to follow the God they worship and DMs looking at the character sheet to see at least what kind of basic paladin the character is. Obviously, they are lawful good but the god makes a huge difference in how you approach a paladin or any divine character. Same with a warlock, their pact determines how we should approach them not in detailed way but as signs to what we can use as in WeWhoEat's examples in the post above.

IF we wanted to get more specific and know more about how the character received their chosen pact, we can look for the bio if there is one submitted.

That is normally how I work when I DM. I look and find certain interesting elements in a character whether it is in their character description (if I can see it on the player locator) or through the various background feats, deity, domains, spell schools to reference if said character is in my event and if there is a way for them to use their combined traits in the event at hand. Seeing a pact, makes it a lot easier to understand how we approach certain warlocks or what we can expect which is very helpful for a DM.

However, that is not the sole purpose of the feat. That is just some of the practical ways a DM and player could benefit from some kind of indicator.

Again, the pact feat is no different than a paladin having to choose one of the very few gods that have paladins, or a cleric that is limited to certain domains that their god influences. It is a guideline for the character not a mandate. It helps align expectations so players, the community and staff are less frustrated. Because it is obvious that when these elements are so far out of context and misaligned it threatens to undermine the setting of the world which affects everyone's enjoyment negatively and leads to threads like this.

[Charraj]

and I don't think many DMs would go into such depth just to screw with a Warlock.

I look and find certain interesting elements in a character whether it is in their character description (if I can see it on the player locator) or through the various background feats, deity, domains, spell schools to reference if said character is in my event and if there is a way for them to use their combined traits in the event at hand.

Right. Okay, so the feats would give DMs a quick summary of the nature of a Warlock's pact, in case it comes up in a random event or whatever.
But that's not the same as a DM going out of his way to screw with a Warlock. The feat couldn't even provide enough information to allow for that; it would not include the specifics about the pact or anything. Anyways, my point was, I just don't think DMs have the time or the inclination to mess with people like that.

[Simian]

I rolled a Warlock yesterday. A charisma based Fire Genasi Warlock. I'm going for the Planetouched tanget here. My offense will rely entirely on the fire based invocations. And quite frankly, it is the first interesing Warlock character for me after my Barbarian who sold his soul for power.

[dzidek1983]

I rolled a Warlock yesterday. A charisma based Fire Genasi Warlock. I'm going for the Planetouched tanget here. My offense will rely entirely on the fire based invocations. And quite frankly, it is the first interesing Warlock character for me after my Barbarian who sold his soul for power.

oh oh ill make a water based one and will RP Captain Planet together ... ok?

[Simian]

Water might be taken already by Lock. You might have to be earth or air. But ask him.

Now, anyone willing to become a warlock of 'heart?'