Playing the part: Pact-bound classes

[redzimmer]

One frustration I experience when DMing is players who simply take a class for the plusses and don't play the role.

A group of classes which are especially problematic are the classes which draw power from pacts or binding; warlocks, dragonfire adepts, Dragon shamans and binders.

Aside from "stop being a control freak" do any DMs have any advice how to encourage a player to explore the opportunities of role-playing this unique path to power?

[GilesTheCleric]

Do you mean players who don't play the intended roleplay aspect of their class, or folks who just don't roleplay in general? It seems to me that classes and other options are (mostly) just building blocks for a character's abilities. Even for clerics, worshipping a deity doesn't need to be the only thing a character has in terms of roleplay. If every cleric only ever cared about roleplaying their relationship with their faith and nothing else, they would all be very one-dimensional and boring. Mechanics that influence roleplay are only a part of a class, and only part of a character's personality.

[Karl Aegis]

Do dragon shamans even have a pact? Their abilities don't even resemble what a dragon can actually do. Nothing about them actually gets more dragon-like. Their fluff doesn't match their crunch at all. Most classes fluff do not match their crunch. Stop trying to force something that isn't there.

[Vhaidara]

Dragon Shamans are like druids of dragons.

Warlocks don't automatically have any kind of pact. I've never used that. It's always been a bloodline thing for me.

Binders have mechanical penalties if they ignore the pacts. However, they also have a mechanic for not needing to pay attention to those rules (good pacts vs poor pacts)

DFA is basically Warlock but with Dragons instead of demons/fey

[WhamBamSam]

"Stop being a control freak" is probably the best answer, but whatever. Care to provide examples? What was the character, how were they being roleplayed, how do you think they should have been roleplayed, and why do you think you know better than the player with regard to said roleplaying? Those may seem like leading questions, but that's really what you need to ask yourself when you go down this particular path.

Also, I'd argue that classes who cut deals for power might be less prone to introspection than classes who get it other ways. If I'm a Wizard or Fighter, I've studied or trained my whole life to get the abilities I have. If I'm a Warlock? Maybe not so much. People who take the fast track to power do so precisely because they don't want to think about or work at it too hard. Sure, some Binders or DFAs might be really into the whole scholarship aspect of their class, but not all of them. These classes have a perfectly good in character justification for pointing at a set of powers, saying "gimme," and not worrying overmuch about the consequences.

As another point, if I'm playing a character with a single level of Binder for Naberius, I really don't see the need to get all that deep into the pact making aspect of his identity. Since my daily interaction with Pact Magic is going to be a simple transactional "Sup dawg," "Hey there, the usual?" "Yep," it really isn't that interesting and can probably be glossed over after a certain point.

That said, if you want to play this stuff up, I'd recommend a relatively mild in-game approach. You want the DFA/Dragon Shaman to have a relationship with some dragon? Make that dragon an NPC/quest giver and hash out some broad outlines of the relationship with the player. Similarly, there might be outsiders taking an interest in your Warlock, etc. More carrot, less stick. You want them to care about their pacts? Give them in-game reasons to do so in the form of plot hooks and the like.

[Red Fel]

Aside from "stop being a control freak" do any DMs have any advice how to encourage a player to explore the opportunities of role-playing this unique path to power?

Step one, as is so often the case, is communication between DM and players.

Here's the thing. While the fluff of these classes describes a person who acquires power - by hook or by crook - from an external, possibly malevolent source, the crunch of the class (with the exception of Binder) has no such requirement. And most players look at the crunch.

This means that, if you - as a DM - are focusing on the fluff, you need to first talk to your players, and determine if they are as well. Because if they aren't looking that the fluff, and have no desire to, then what you have is a difference of expectation. Where expectations differ, you can either aim for compromise, or have one side yield. And to be fair, again with the exception of Binder, it's kind of harsh for a DM to force a player to RP something that the player didn't plan to RP, and the rules themselves don't require. It's admirable for the player to take that role on themselves, and acceptable for the DM to make that kind of rule explicit in advance of the game, but to bring it up once play has begun is a bit harsh.

And another point, as Giles mentioned, is that this particular "path to power" isn't unique - Clerics have been doing it for years. So before you go requiring Warlocks and the like to RP the conflicts their borrowed powers grant them, you should probably first ask yourself if you would do the same thing with a Cleric, who explicitly has to ask very nicely for his powers every day.

But, yes. To get players to RP, the best thing you can do is talk to them.

[Psyren]

For Warlocks one of the key issues is that the pact generally isn't immediate - it was an ancestor, or an ancient curse on your line, or even a prophecy for the future trying to realize itself. So the player may not know he needs to be roleplaying anything at all. He could just be a person with strange powers, like any sorcerer or wilder or favored soul, and not realize you're expecting there to be a difference.

Binders are much more immediate, but the roleplay there is easy thanks to the influences and signs.


Do dragon shamans even have a pact? Their abilities don't even resemble what a dragon can actually do. Nothing about them actually gets more dragon-like.

I agree with this (albeit snipping the rest because it seemed overly confrontational.) Rather than being pact-based, to me DS and DFA imply someone who simply devotes themselves to being so dragony that they get dragon-like abilities. And best of all, they can still fight dragons while revering them this way, because dragons are really territorial and fight each other all the time. (Plus a dragon is only likely to respect the strength of another dragon anyway.)

[jiriku]

That said, if you want to play this stuff up, I'd recommend a relatively mild in-game approach. You want the DFA/Dragon Shaman to have a relationship with some dragon? Make that dragon an NPC/quest giver and hash out some broad outlines of the relationship with the player. Similarly, there might be outsiders taking an interest in your Warlock, etc. More carrot, less stick. You want them to care about their pacts? Give them in-game reasons to do so in the form of plot hooks and the like.

Seconded. If the player has a pact with some entity, make that entity a recurring character in your story. Have it function as a quest-giver and a source of plot. Give the players a chance to defend it from its enemies. Introduce NPC antagonists who have powers based on pacts with opposing entities, so the players can feel like there's an enemy team out there that is similar in composition to Team PC but has opposing goals. Have neutral NPCs recognize the pact-bound PC as such: "Oh, I've heard of you! You're sworn to the service of So-and-so the Unspeakable! Well, ten percent discount for you, sir, and please don't blow up my shop!"

[bekeleven]

Binder is the only standard class that has straight up "this is how you act" clauses. It's my biggest issue with the class, as it violates the fluff/crunch divide, makes the class less adaptable, and limits the character concepts it can represent.

When I wrote up a similar class, I made the personality rules optional, and limited them to stating a personality, then granting small mechanical benefits and penalties that would holistically push someone towards it.

[Vhaidara]

Binder is the only standard class that has straight up "this is how you act" clauses. It's my biggest issue with the class, as it violates the fluff/crunch divide, makes the class less adaptable, and limits the character concepts it can represent.

To be fair, the main thing there is to refluff the vestiges. The entire point of the binder (fluff and crunch) is that you are making deals with external beings. If you mess it up, then they get a degree of control over you.

The big thing worth noting is that the vestiges can NEVER force you to do something the way intelligent magic items can. They just hit you with hefty penalties if you mess up the pact and act against their desires.

[Psyren]

"Oh, I've heard of you! You're sworn to the service of So-and-so the Unspeakable! Well, ten percent discount for you, sir, and please don't blow up my shop!"

Or just as likely: "You're sworn to So-and-so the Unspeakable! Away with you before I call the guards! Never darken my doorway again!" And then you have to shop at the Black Market for a markup.


Binder is the only standard class that has straight up "this is how you act" clauses. It's my biggest issue with the class, as it violates the fluff/crunch divide, makes the class less adaptable, and limits the character concepts it can represent.

Not every class needs such a divide. Proscribed behavior, codes of conduct and similar restrictions can inform roleplaying every bit as strongly as they might impede it, especially for inexperienced players.

And you can ignore the Influences when you need to. Either get good at your binding checks or accept the penalties.

[MyrPsychologist]

Sometimes I play characters that don't talk about where they got their powers. The abilities are just something that I use to meet goals and accomplish tasks, not the sole defining characteristic of the character. This is especially true when I'm doing something that the general populous might frown upon or might make strife in the party. Typically, making a pact is one such source of power.

But as others have stated, more information is needed to provide a real opinion.

[Story]

In fact, the fluff for Binders suggests that they're often feared and persecuted by religious types. So it makes sense that you wouldn't be too chatty about the nature of your powers.

[WeaselGuy]

This thread just makes me think of my Anarchist Half-Drow Warlock who was hell-bent on overthrowing outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuated the economic and social differences in drow society.

He was also sick of the violence and oppression inherent in the system.

My DM hated that character, mostly because of the unending quotes, but my group loved him. I don't actually remember how he died. Probably insulted too many rulers and ended up rotting in a prison somewhere.

[atemu1234]

In fact, the fluff for Binders suggests that they're often feared and persecuted by religious types. So it makes sense that you wouldn't be too chatty about the nature of your powers.

Yes.

But communication seems key here.