4E: Shift to The Dark Side?

[Leliel]

Found this intresting thread on the Wizards boards. The OP-unoeye, in case you're looking to get me on copyright violation-says:

"The Warlock class and Tiefling race seem to be NPC material as they are basically evil. Whereas the Rogue class and the odd evil race PC may claim to be basically good (i.e. R.A. Salvator's Drizzit, or Order of the Stick's Haley), the Warlock and Tieflings base their power on controlling or making a pact with evil beings or creatures.

Anyone remember when TSR tried to shed the percieved mantle of the occult by taking the demon visages/references off the cover of the core books? At one point I believe the word daemon was the politically correct substitute. The authors admonished players not to play evil characters as that would just end up being a self defeating campaign. Anyone remember that?

I'm disapointed that the game seems to have lost sight of the heroic image. For the first time in over 20 years I find myself questioning the game on moral principle.

Every devil believes himself a saint."

Personally, I think it's a load of moral absolutist hogwash, but it raised a question:

Has the game become more "gray" since 2E days?

EDIT: *Inevitable Sith Joke*

[Little_Rudo]

Actually, Tiefling themselves aren't evil. Their ancestors are the ones who forged the pacts with devils, they just have to live with the consequences. They lend themselves well to the anti-hero image, and Tiefling's who have rekindled the old pact could certainly make for interesting villians, but saying that they're an evil race is selling them short.

I haven't looked through the Warlock fluff closely enough to really comment, but from what I've heard, they're basically dealing with powerful beings for power. While the infernal warlocks are probably evil, from what I've gleaned, the fey and star pacts seem more dark than evil.

Ironically, one criticism of the core materials that I've heard is that it assumes a heroic adventuring party, so I really don't think it's a case of D&D no longer encouraging heroic archetypes. The game trying to rid itself of any demonic imagery wasn't necessarily an image thing, it was due to an outcry that D&D was leading kids into Satanism. Now that those crowds have largely moved on to blame video games and other new media for societies ills, D&D can begin to experiment with other archetypes than the Knight in Shining Armor.

[bosssmiley]

Q: Has the game become more 'grey' since 2E?

A: I really don't think that's the case. I mean, look at the 'rule of 3, exception to every rule' ethos that was supposedly a significant motif in Planescape. This is the game that introduced the Tiefling, instituted the idea of pan-alignment Factions, and that actively expected the heroes to cut shady, film noir-style deals with the devil (literally so - you had Baatezu, Tanar'ri and Yugoloths sitting in your local if that was what the story required.

Look at "Planescape:Torment" and then tell me 4E is more shades of grey than 2E. :smallamused:

As for the Warlock being a 4E core class. I think that's just WOTC knowing enough to cater to the elements of their target market who are in a wannabe-badass, flirt-with-evil mood. After all, there's *always* at least one guy who wants to play the Raistlin, the Elric or the Arthas. That's quite aside from the seeming hundreds who want to play repentant Drow.

Plus ca change... :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

No, 4E is less of a gray area than 3E, and adheres more strongly to the "players must be shiny glorious heroes" principle.

The tieflings are just there so that people can play a hero with a brooding dark past, and angst over it. Oh, the angst!

[RTGoodman]

After all, there's *always* at least one guy who wants to play the Raistlin, the Elric or the Arthas. That's quite aside from the seeming hundreds who want to play repentant Drow.

I was gonna make that exact point, but you've already done it for me!

Personally, and despite the Infernal Pact and the appearance of Tieflings, I think 4E tries even MORE than 3.x to get away from the shades of grey and pushes players to be "white hats" as much as possible. They basically say in the PHB, "Don't play Evil characters - they'll screw up a party and everyone will hate you." Well, not exactly, but they made it a point to not even include anything about the Evil gods (besides a cursory mention) in the PHB, and put it all in the DMG instead. The 3.x PHB didn't include much, but it did allow for Evil clerics and put the rules right there in the PHB (spontaneous inflict spells, rebuking undead, etc.).

[Edge of Dreams]

The shining champion of light and order has become a cliche in today's society. In a world that has no use for myths and legends, an author is seen as an unoriginal old fogey if tries to write about a traditional hero. Black-and-white morality is being thrown out the window in favor of anti-heroes, anti-villains, and cynicism.

Is the world of grey that authors love to paint these days more realistic? In some ways, perhaps, as there are few truly good or evil people in the world. Is the world of grey more interesting, more exciting? Sometimes, when written well, when the question of where the line between good and evil falls is examined in an interesting way. But all too often the world of grey is merely an attempt to be original, to subvert the traditions that have been handed down. Heroism has been done before, it's old hat.

But is this a good thing? No, I say. No. We forget that while the shining hero was never realistic, he was always an inspiration. Heroes are what we ought to strive to be in our lives, and when the only role models we have are dark and ambiguous, our own sense of morality and desire for adventure become misdirected.

Does Fourth Edition's tendency toward darker heroes bother me? Directly, not so much; I think it's good to allow players to be whatever they want. But as another sign of what is wrong in fiction and media of all sorts these days, yes, it does bother me.

[Artanis]

Wait wait wait.

Let me get this straight:
The Drow are a race of big-time bastards whose entire society revolves around the worship of one of the most evil deities anywhere ever and who have one good member. The Tieflings are a race whose only "racial failing" is that their ancestors screwed up. And this "unoeye" guy says that it's the Drow who are the "basically good" ones?

[Oracle_Hunter]

I dunno about a shift, but good lord, Tieflings and Warlocks really seem evil. It's pretty jarring considering 4e is ostensibly about making everyone Good-er, and the Unfortunate Implications (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) of the mechanics makes it worse.

Tieflings are "evil" because they are descended from a bloodline that is eternally damned due to ancient pacts with evil demons. Individual Tieflings may or may not be evil, but the race is filled with ominous blood magic that Can't Be A Good Sign.

All Warlocks gain power by "cursing" people who then die. What is the connection with their Pact and this Curse that seems to trade their enemies' life force (soul?) for personal power. Don't even get me started on the Infernal Pact and its PP which literally eats souls.

Oh, and the Star Pact which is strongly hinted to be with Lovecraftian Powers.

Since the Assassin in 1e, I've not seen so much evil on the side of the PCs. It's even weirder than WotC doesn't even hint at this essential contradiction with their stated aims.

That isn't to say that I object to these features for being evil. It's just really, really weird... and I can't figure out whether WotC is playing a deeper game or just Getting Crap Past the Radar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GettingCrapPastTheRadar). :smallconfused:

[Leliel]

Tieflings are "evil" because they are descended from a bloodline that is eternally damned due to ancient pacts with evil demons. Individual Tieflings may or may not be evil, but the race is filled with ominous blood magic that Can't Be A Good Sign.

And those words are the reason the Tieflings often become evil: Nobody looks to who they are, just what they could be.

All Warlocks gain power by "cursing" people who then die. What is the connection with their Pact and this Curse that seems to trade their enemies' life force (soul?) for personal power. Don't even get me started on the Infernal Pact and its PP which literally eats souls.

Two problems:

1: The pact draws power from excess vitality-no where does it state that the life is actually consumed, except in the PP, and it's specifically stated that it's only a small part.

2: The official Wizards position seems to be nothing can effect a soul without specifically trying to do so, and that it requires a lot of power.

Oh, and the Star Pact which is strongly hinted to be with Lovecraftian Powers.

And? No one said that they're evil, just amoral and dangerous if exposed to the world, and that same passage which hints that says that they're pretty far from the planet.

Since the Assassin in 1e, I've not seen so much evil on the side of the PCs. It's even weirder than WotC doesn't even hint at this essential contradiction with their stated aims.

They do. See the part about the "true diabolist" in the Warlock fluff.

That isn't to say that I object to these features for being evil. It's just really, really weird... and I can't figure out whether WotC is playing a deeper game or just Getting Crap Past the Radar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GettingCrapPastTheRadar). :smallconfused:

Hey, anti-heroes are cool. Can't blame WotC for figuring that out.

And Artanis: I know. That's why I said it was moral absolutist drivel.

The problem with that philosophy-it is often blind to true evil.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but draining a mortal's "excess" (:smallconfused:) life force and turning it into personal power just seems a bit... well, evil to me.

I mean, what are the contents of the Pact that Warlocks make, and why is it that you get something called a "Pact Boon" when someone you've "Cursed" dies. Sure, WotC doesn't say anything about this outright, but gosh, connecting the dots doesn't seem that hard.

It's why I said these are Unfortunate Implications, not straightforward EVIL.

And what kind of "deal" with evil demons not only converts you into a demon-looking person, but makes all of your seed the same, regardless of the race of the other parent? "Good" things usually don't seem to work that way in fiction.

Also: Infernal Pact. I mean, really. :smalltongue:

[Leliel]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but draining a mortal's "excess" (:smallconfused:) life force and turning it into personal power just seems a bit... well, evil to me.

You have obviously never been a postmodernist. Or suscribed to the Rule of Cool, for that matter.

I mean, what are the contents of the Pact that Warlocks make, and why is it that you get something called a "Pact Boon" when someone you've "Cursed" dies. Sure, WotC doesn't say anything about this outright, but gosh, connecting the dots doesn't seem that hard.

Besides the sterotypical, "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" pact, the fluff implies a few warlocks wrested their powers out without any help from otherworldly entities.

Besides, what the contents of the pact are ultimately up to the player.

It's why I said these are Unfortunate Implications, not straightforward EVIL.

And that's why I'm putting in Fridge Brilliance.

And what kind of "deal" with evil demons not only converts you into a demon-looking person, but makes all of your seed the same, regardless of the race of the other parent? "Good" things usually don't seem to work that way in fiction.

Usually. Not always.

Also: Infernal Pact. I mean, really. :smalltongue:

Two words: Ghost Rider.

[EvilElitest]

darker, it specifically suggests not hte play evil characters. And has a black white other alignment system. Not at all. Tieflings and warlocks exists as a badass device, but are far from actually appealing evil characters, more like misunderstood loner who walk a lonely road, the only one that they have ever known, they don't know where it goes, but its only them and they walk alone.

Their shadow is the only one that walks besides them. ok you get the idea
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, as a fan of Social Science, I've decided to play up the Unfortunate Implications in my custom setting.

TANGENT
There's a church which is devoted to protecting humanity from Extraplanar Evil (so Undead, Devils and Demons). Their followers are wary of Warlocks and Wizards generally (they consort/contact other planes!), but they hate Tieflings. Aside from their appearance, Tieflings are also naturally talented Warlocks and Wizards which makes them doubly suspicious. Unfortunately for the church, Tieflings essentially rescued the human government from civil war, and so while commoners are still nervous around Tieflings (the horns, y'know), they don't put up with churchies stringing up Tieflings left and right :smallamused:

Additionally, Infernal Warlocks (who were imported from the Tiefling Empire) are not known to actually be Infernal. When the Tieflings introduced the Pact, they wrapped it up as a series of "mysteries" which seemed no more threatening than the native Star Warlocks... as far as most people know :smallbiggrin:

[Leliel]

Well, as a fan of Social Science, I've decided to play up the Unfortunate Implications in my custom setting.

TANGENT
There's a church which is devoted to protecting humanity from Extraplanar Evil (so Undead, Devils and Demons). Their followers are wary of Warlocks and Wizards generally (they consort/contact other planes!), but they hate Tieflings. Aside from their appearance, Tieflings are also naturally talented Warlocks and Wizards which makes them doubly suspicious. Unfortunately for the church, Tieflings essentially rescued the human government from civil war, and so while commoners are still nervous around Tieflings (the horns, y'know), they don't put up with churchies stringing up Tieflings left and right :smallamused:

Additionally, Infernal Warlocks (who were imported from the Tiefling Empire) are not known to actually be Infernal. When the Tieflings introduced the Pact, they wrapped it up as a series of "mysteries" which seemed no more threatening than the native Star Warlocks... as far as most people know :smallbiggrin:

Intresting...I like that idea.

Wait a minute: Somthing constructive actually came from a flamewar!:smalleek:

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!

[charl]

Everyone seems to forget about Ravenloft. If there's any setting that evil in the traditional sense of the word it was Ravenloft. And that was mainly a 2E thing (though White wolve's 3E interprepation was excellent as well).

Personally I don't mind evil in my campaigns. My campaigns are always full of dark themes, with the characters falling into destructive spirals that end in ironic tragedy.

Granted I don't play "elves-in-the-forest" fantasy, but still. The whole knight in shining armor thing gets really boring really quick.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Intresting...I like that idea.

Wait a minute: Somthing constructive actually came from a flamewar!:smalleek:

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!

I like it too. You should see what I did with the Dragonborn :smallamused:

[JaxGaret]

Wait a minute: Somthing constructive actually came from a flamewar!:smalleek:

You consider that a flame war?

You should see the Wizards boards. You'll think nuclear war just broke out on the internet.

[MammonAzrael]

I like it too. You should see what I did with the Dragonborn :smallamused:

Now I'm curious, what did you do with them? :smallsmile:

On the OP, I'm going to have to agree with most that 4e is perhaps the most goody-goody of the various editions. While Warlocks and tieflings are certainly the darkest of the PHB options, they're not terrible. As has been stated, 3e core has far more rules for being evil than 4e does, and 2e was even more free form than that.

[Collin152]

Now I'm curious, what did you do with them? :smallsmile:

On the OP, I'm going to have to agree with most that 4e is perhaps the most goody-goody of the various editions. While Warlocks and tieflings are certainly the darkest of the PHB options, they're not terrible. As has been stated, 3e core has far more rules for being evil than 4e does, and 2e was even more free form than that.

Case in point:
The premise, though perhaps not effect of, the Book of Vile Darkness.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Personally, I think it's a load of moral absolutist hogwash, but it raised a question:

Agreed. 4E is no more more "morally grey" than any other edition.

Also, the only tiefling my party has run into was actually a pretty nice guy.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Now I'm curious, what did you do with them? :smallsmile:

*looks around* OK, in case any of my players from the Vasserspalt Game are reading, DO NOT READ THE SPOILER.

Seriously guys, it'll spoil your Paragon CampaignI mean itIn my campaign world, five Dragons got together in the distant past and decided to organize the then-tribal Dragonborn into a civilization to serve their ends. They pooled their treasures and went about "civilizing" the Dragonborn, selecting rulers and delivering laws. This autocratic system punished deviancy from the orders of the Council of Dragons with death, and the Dragonborn were little more than slaves. The Empire covered a broad stretch of land but was not expansionist, because the Council did not want to lose their tight control on their slave kingdom.

Time passed and the Dragons grew older and more powerful... and they began to dabble in prophetic magics. One day they received a terrible prophecy - the Bloodline of a Tiefling House would ultimately bring about the end of the world. Scrying, they discovered that the Tiefling Empire that had once been on their border had been shattered and refugees of the Empire had merged with a human kingdom to the south, and were now spread throughout it.

Unwilling to risk the end of their Empire, the Council mobilized its entire civilization into a massive army to kill every last member of the human kingdom, and to scorch the earth to make sure that the Tiefling line did not survive.

So it was that the human kingdom was suddenly invaded by the Dragon Legions who killed every mortal in their path. Ironically, the prophesied bloodline was currently ruling a border domain that heroically deflected the Legion... which then marched on the Capitol. The Council was ultimately destroyed (along with the kingdom's armies and a substantial portion of the Dragon Legion) by an Epic Ritual that killed many of the human casters as well.

The remaining Dragonborn retreated to a stretch of wilderness where they did their best to rebuild; for the first time in millennia they did not have the Council telling them what to do. They have been building forts and rebuilding their forces for the past 10 years until they are strong enough to finish their last order: to wipe out every living thing in the Vasserspalt Empire. They do not know why they are doing this, but they are just following orders.

Thus, Dragonborn are killed on sight in any human settlement, and these "loyal and trustworthy" Dragon-kin are the masterless slave-soldiers of a now collapsed civilization. :smallamused:

[Dode]

I've played evil characters in every edition of D&D I've ever played.
Sorry guy from other internet forum but this has been a "problem" ever since the Alignment box was left empty.

[Erk]

I'd actually argue 4e is - or ought to be played as, anyway - the most "grey" of the editions. It's the first I've played (can't speak for pre-2e) where alignments were easy to completely divorce from gameplay with nothing more than a handwave. As soon as you do this, many of the rules make more sense. Particularly the alignmentless Warlock: all of a sudden, instead of seeming odd that there are no alignment guidelines for the Warlock, it seems logical that players of such characters are flirting with dark powers. Since "evil" is no longer absolute, they are most likely to come out as antiheroes depending on the player and campaign.

It's not quite like 3e, where most players in alignment-less games, in my experience, pick an alignment and play more or less to it even though it has no mechanical advantage, just out of habit. Alignment plays so little part in 4e that nobody notices or mourns its passing.

So far, my campaign has been a lot ... for lack of a better word, "edgier" than the campaigns I played in 3e. My players are a little less heroic because nobody has even glanced at their alignment requirements. They have none. It's proving very interesting.

[Shazzbaa]

I'm .... actually with Oracle Hunter on this (EDIT: and Erk. That's what I get for waiting before posting). While all the other editions have plenty of supplemental examples of great options for evil, the Player's Handbook and the like of 3e pretty much describe Evil as capital-E EVIL, and very bad, and Good as capital-G shining-example Good.

4e highly discourages playing something that is actually Evil, but then, Evil means a lot more in 4e now that most "questionable" or "just selfish" people are unaligned -- Evil isn't just a motivation or a worldview, it's fighting for an Evil cause! So, 4e has essentially banned that most intense sort of Evil from anyone not experienced enough to read the DMG. However, it has a lot more options up-front for being ...questionable. No, you're not capital-E evil, but you're not, well, nice. You have debatably evil powers, both in source and effect, or you have bad blood in your heritage. Something about the attitude of the warlock leans in the evil direction, even if the powers aren't inherently evil, and even if Oracle Hunter is wrong about the "connected dots" (which, frankly, seem pretty spot-on to me).

Yes, 3e had a lot of options for being Evil if you wanted to look, and yes, 4e highly discourages the Eeeeevil PCs. But is the edition, not more evil, but more grey? It looks like it to me.

Is this bad? When I look at the Oracle Hunter vs. Leliel posts it looks like "These are definitely more questionable, 4e is getting crap past the radar" vs. "Maybe, but that isn't a bad thing," ...while I don't think these two arguments are mutually exclusive. I kinda feel they're both true.

[Morty]

4ed is about as grey as a zebra, whether it's more grey than 3ed might be debatable but it's certainly no less, as it's undeniable that 4ed encourages the black-and-white worldview quite strongly. Yes, Tieflings and Warlocks are "dark", but Tieflings are meant to be anti-heroes -I guess I'm the only one who considers them to be lame and overdone- and Warlocks either have got this "Fight fire with fire" thing about them or are "torn between good and evil". On the other side we're constantly reminded in a rather patronizing way that PCs are supposed to be archetypic Brave Heroes that defend the world from boatloads of monsters. The default "points of light" setting is also preety black-and-white, with "civilized races" being constantly attacked by Always Chaotic Evil enemies.

[AstralFire]

I think to sum up the most reasonable posts here:

4E has facilitated playing evil more than any prior edition, with alignment more divorced than ever from class. (Evil clerics were a lot less useful than Good ones in most cases, for example, in 3E.) However, it has simultaneously encouraged playing good more than 3E - just accepting that 'Good' can be wider than the Paladin.

[Swordguy]

The shining champion of light and order has become a cliche in today's society. In a world that has no use for myths and legends, an author is seen as an unoriginal old fogey if tries to write about a traditional hero. Black-and-white morality is being thrown out the window in favor of anti-heroes, anti-villains, and cynicism.

Is the world of grey that authors love to paint these days more realistic? In some ways, perhaps, as there are few truly good or evil people in the world. Is the world of grey more interesting, more exciting? Sometimes, when written well, when the question of where the line between good and evil falls is examined in an interesting way. But all too often the world of grey is merely an attempt to be original, to subvert the traditions that have been handed down. Heroism has been done before, it's old hat.

But is this a good thing? No, I say. No. We forget that while the shining hero was never realistic, he was always an inspiration. Heroes are what we ought to strive to be in our lives, and when the only role models we have are dark and ambiguous, our own sense of morality and desire for adventure become misdirected.

Does Fourth Edition's tendency toward darker heroes bother me? Directly, not so much; I think it's good to allow players to be whatever they want. But as another sign of what is wrong in fiction and media of all sorts these days, yes, it does bother me.

*golf clap*

You've restored my faith in humanity for another day, maybe even two.

[Tormsskull]

Everyone seems to forget about Ravenloft.

No they don't, its just that Ravenloft isn't really applicable to this situation. In Ravenloft you typically play the Good Guys up against the Dark and Evil Guys. I.E., you are pushed towards being shiny heroes.

The argument of this thread is if 4e pushes people more towards shiny heroes and discourages them from playing the Bad Guys.



Yes, Tieflings and Warlocks are "dark", but Tieflings are meant to be anti-heroes -I guess I'm the only one who considers them to be lame and overdone-


Not at all. I've considered it lame for a very long time. On the lameometer its right up there with a drow with two scimitars, and loose interpretations of Chaotic Neutral.

[Tengu_temp]

The shining champion of light and order has become a cliche in today's society. In a world that has no use for myths and legends, an author is seen as an unoriginal old fogey if tries to write about a traditional hero. Black-and-white morality is being thrown out the window in favor of anti-heroes, anti-villains, and cynicism.

Is the world of grey that authors love to paint these days more realistic? In some ways, perhaps, as there are few truly good or evil people in the world. Is the world of grey more interesting, more exciting? Sometimes, when written well, when the question of where the line between good and evil falls is examined in an interesting way. But all too often the world of grey is merely an attempt to be original, to subvert the traditions that have been handed down. Heroism has been done before, it's old hat.

But is this a good thing? No, I say. No. We forget that while the shining hero was never realistic, he was always an inspiration. Heroes are what we ought to strive to be in our lives, and when the only role models we have are dark and ambiguous, our own sense of morality and desire for adventure become misdirected.

Does Fourth Edition's tendency toward darker heroes bother me? Directly, not so much; I think it's good to allow players to be whatever they want. But as another sign of what is wrong in fiction and media of all sorts these days, yes, it does bother me.

You've expressed the reasons why I like characters who are both badass and good at the same time perfectly.
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG

However, I don't think if 4e is darker than previous editions - you don't need to be evil, or even particularily dark, to be a tiefling or a warlock. Note that some of the listed tiefling modern names, those chosen by tieflings who want to embody an ideal, are Hope, Gladness, Quest? It's obvious that quite a lot of tieflings want to sever their connection to their race's emo heritage. Similarily, warlocks can use their powers for good (like Faust, just with much less tragic consequences) - while some of their powers steal the life essence of their enemies, note that none of them state that it permanently damages their souls in any way, or something. It's just a weapon that can be used for good and evil.

[Shazzbaa]

Frankly, I've always considered the idea that you can use the enemy's power against him to be a pretty un-Good attitude. It's full of personal pride, a desire for personal power, and a lack of faith in the more "upright" ways. The idea that you could bargain with devils for their power and get away with it, traffic in "evil" magic and stare too long into the abyss and never be corrupted by it is actually more questionable, I think, than the Demonologist-type idea where a character will eventually be corrupted by that sort of tampering whether they meant to or not. There's a sort of moral attached; even if you play an evil character this way, you know that messing with evil will eventually corrupt you.

Whether the "trafficking in devilish powers and getting off scotch free" element bothers you, personally, or not isn't really the question. The fact of the matter is that it's far more disturbing to those who question the morality that this game may be encouraging if a person is told he can get away with this sort of thing.

[pendell]

The shining champion of light and order has become a cliche in today's society. In a world that has no use for myths and legends, an author is seen as an unoriginal old fogey if tries to write about a traditional hero. Black-and-white morality is being thrown out the window in favor of anti-heroes, anti-villains, and cynicism.


I disagree.

What is the best-selling fantasy series in the past couple years? Harry Potter.

What was the one before that? J.R.R. Tolkien.

What about OOTS here? Even though it tweaks the tropes, the fact of the matter is that it is basically heroic fantasy; the good guys really are good, the bad guys really are bad, and at the end of the day there's a happy ending. And this is one of the most popular webcomics out there.

One of the most popular heroes in Forgotten Realms was Drizzt, who was a loner good guy, the archetypical Western sheriff with two swords instead of six-shooters. Lots of people want to play him.

By contrast -- Salvatore & Co. did a whole cycle of dark elven civil war, in which the bad guys one. 'Dissolution' and that six book cycle. It didn't sell very well at all.

I would say that when it comes to the mass-market and to kids, the heroic genre and knights-in-shining-armor is alive and well, thank you. It certainly sells better. Angst and anti-heroes is more an intellectual/university/late high school sort of thing.

C.S. Lewis once said that no one who was truly original ever set out to be original. What he suggested was to simply try to tell the same old story. Tell the old story *well*, and you'll find yourself being original as a bonus. But if you set out with originality as a goal in itself the effort almost always falls flat.

So I disagree. I don't think 'the world' at large is sick of heroic fantasy or good guys or knights in shining armor. I think that the world is sick of badly done heroic fantasy with characterization that doesn't rise above the level an eight-year-old can do. When the story is told well, with an eye for craftsmanship, it routinely outdoes the angsty/non-heroic stories.

Heck, I think that even anti-hero stories are the same way. Lookit Sam Spade from 'The Maltese Falcon'. Lookit Humphrey Bogart's character in 'Casablanca'. Lookit Robin Hood. Lookit 'the Fugitive'. The misunderstood/outlaw good guy is a trope that's also as old as western civilization. There's nothing new about this.

I think the real problem here is a common theme to both -- in most modern fantasy, neither the heroes nor the anti-heroes are, well, heroic. They're second-rate. They don't inspire admiration or revulsion or sympathy or compassion or any other emotion. And that is because most writing just isn't that good. A hack who can't tell a good heroic story can't tell a gritty, realistic story either.


So I disagree. I don't think the world is drifting away from heroic fantasy to dark & gritty. That's not what the sales figures say. I think the world is just sick of substandard trash.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tengu_temp]

Too many people, however, assume that if something has an amoral anti-hero as the protagonist and/or the world is a crapsack, then it already is deep, artsy and valuable, while stories with more idealistic heroes are lame and naive.

[Tormsskull]

Whether the "trafficking in devilish powers and getting off scotch free"

lol. Scotch free. Oh man, that's even better than the time my co-worker said she was going to nip something in the butt.


But yeah, agree with your post.

[Starbuck_II]

Actually, Tiefling themselves aren't evil. Their ancestors are the ones who forged the pacts with devils, they just have to live with the consequences. They lend themselves well to the anti-hero image, and Tiefling's who have rekindled the old pact could certainly make for interesting villians, but saying that they're an evil race is selling them short.

The pact was to defeat the invading Dragomborn army.

It worked. The Dragonborn lost their empire, but so did the Tieflings. Guess that was the strings attached.

[ghost_warlock]

Okay, I'm just going to throw this one out there.

Warlock = cleric who bargains with things other than gods. This is especially so in this edition where flavor (and maybe a couple dice of damage) is the only thing differentiating powers from another.

Compare/contrast: overall effects of Healing Strike (http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/power.aspx?id=891&searchterm=healing+strike) vs. Vampiric Embrace (http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/power.aspx?id=1376&searchterm=vampiric+embrace). Both are 1st-level encounter powers that deal some damage and rejuvenate a few hps, healing strike is better but it has the drawback of potentially putting the user at risk when using it (due to Range: melee).

Warlocks aren't inherently evil, they just don't have as good of PR people, and aren't as good at healing, as clerics. It makes some sense for certain types of warlocks - such as infernal pact warlocks who aren't always going to be boosting their Cha for Diplomacy checks. :smallwink:

Think of 4e warlocks as being sort-of like binders in 3.5. They bargain with strange, otherworldly beings to gain their abilities and suffer from some bad PR as a result. Some of the rumors that warlocks are evil might be spread by clerics, who see them as abominations and easy targets to be scapegoated since warlocks aren't the most pious of individuals. In a theocracy, this could be a Very Bad Thing for warlocks but, since the default D&D world lacks strong organization/government, warlocks have largely used the fear/mistrust of the populace to their advantage.

"I'll send your soul to burn in the fires of phlegethos if you disobey me! Now, fetch me some more lager and then tell me more about this problem you fools have with those kobolds." :smallamused:

[Dausuul]

The way I see it, the question doesn't apply, because 4E has gotten out of the business of dictating the standard of morality in the game world. The books do push Good-aligned parties as a preferable way to run things; although tieflings and warlocks are, to use the designers' phrase, "evil-curious," the PHB is at some pains to establish that you can be a tiefling or a warlock and not be evil. (There are two infernal warlocks in the "Sample Characters" writeups for the races - one halfling and one tiefling - and both are established to be on the side of good, although the halfling has nightmares and the tiefling has a distinct Anakin Skywalker vibe.)

However, the lack of alignment-driven rules means individual gaming groups can adjust their moral compass as desired. In some respects, this helps good-aligned parties compared to previous editions, because the old alignment rules usually made evil characters more powerful than good ones. In 2E, if you were a wizard, you gained the ability to raise armies of skeletal slaves and become effectively immortal as soon as you hit 9th level - as long as you didn't mind using evil magic (animate dead and magic jar to be specific). And in 3E, evil clerics had it all over good clerics due to their ability to command undead. Blasting an undead creature out of existence is not nearly as valuable as seizing control of it... and if your DM was willing to let your commanded undead spawn, well, the sky was the limit.

4E dispenses with such mechanics and puts the ball in the players' court. Paladins and clerics have a good "flavor," while tieflings and warlocks have an evil "flavor," but you can quite easily have evil paladins and good warlocks. It's neither more black and white nor is it more grey; it's what you make of it.

[Shazzbaa]

lol. Scotch free.

D'oh. :smallredface: That's what I get for not proofreading. ^^;

[puppyavenger]

first of all, didn't 2e have rules for slaves rebelling?

[Trebuchet]

This thread seems to be about what 4th Ed. encourages, and I agree that there are more obvious dark/evil options than before. But to me, they are just flavor text. It has always been possible to play an evil character, and in 3.5 you could certainly play something evil out of the monster manual, like a drow, if the DM said it was OK.

If a player wants to try playing an evil character, I don't think that is necessarily bad, but it does have a great potential to derail a campaign, so it should be handled carefully, with lots of discussion with the DM. I have played evil characters (so far always in other RPG systems), and it is a troubling, fraught, and challenging task.

I saw the options for Tieflings and Warlocks to be interesting additions to the system, but I have so far not been interested in playing them because they really are evil. I am sure many Tiefling and Warlock characters are good, but they feel to me like exceptions. That they are in there doesn't bother me at all, as they add new options and fodder for creativity.

As for the game system determining the morality of the game, I say it doesn't really. Our games always end up with a very strong moral component, and evil acts are not encouraged by our DM. They are allowed, but must be acknowledged as evil by the player, even if the character doesn't get it. Evil acts result in bad karma and eventually the reputation or consequences come back to haunt the character. The addition of Tieflings and Warlocks doesn't make the system any more black, white, or grey, in my opinion, since the morality in a game comes from the people playing, not the book.

[AstralFire]

I would say that when it comes to the mass-market and to kids, the heroic genre and knights-in-shining-armor is alive and well, thank you. It certainly sells better. Angst and anti-heroes is more an intellectual/university/late high school sort of thing.

Batman versus Superman.

A well-read comics fan will tell you that Superman's got his complexities, deep facets, etc. However, Batman being angry with something to prove is much more interesting to Western audiences (though Supes has a broader international appeal) and many dismiss Superman just working off of the fact that he is a 'paladin'.

[Knaight]

Many people also dismiss superman due to him being practically invincible unless Kryptonite shows up.

[charl]

Many people also dismiss superman due to him being practically invincible unless Kryptonite shows up.

Which wouldn't really be a problem since you could still make interesting stories about him (a story about how he can't be everywhere at the same time and thus can't save everyone, for example) but DC comics aren't very good at making interesting plots for him.

[Kurald Galain]

Many people also dismiss superman due to him being practically invincible unless Kryptonite shows up.

Precisely. Deus ex machina does not usually make for a good story.

[horseboy]

So I disagree. I don't think the world is drifting away from heroic fantasy to dark & gritty. That's not what the sales figures say. I think the world is just sick of substandard trash.

Respectfully,

Brian P.Oh, very nice. You know my dad always said that one of the reasons Star Wars was so successful was because the good guys were actually good. Back when it came out that didn't happen in movies. The bad guy won, the hero is sacrificed, and the world stinks. Given that so little else survived from that era and even today it's considered stereotypically classical, It would agree with your sentiments.

And in 3E, evil clerics had it all over good clerics due to their ability to command undead. Blasting an undead creature out of existence is not nearly as valuable as seizing control of it... and if your DM was willing to let your commanded undead spawn, well, the sky was the limit.
Which was why they nerfed the crap out of Clerics of Wejas that last year.

Oh, and yeah, I do consider the tiefling style society rejects me angst filled anti-hero to be lame. It's amazing how many people screw up anti-heroes.

[Dhavaer]

Oh, and yeah, I do consider the tiefling style society rejects me angst filled anti-hero to be lame. It's amazing how many people screw up anti-heroes.

I'm amazed that so many people see 'angst' as tieflings' major feature. I always saw them as having a lot of left over national pride from that ruling the world thing they did. Maybe I'm just angst-proof or something (people said the same thing about 3.x half-elves too, albiet not as much, and I didn't notice that either) but I don't get it.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Too many people, however, assume that if something has an amoral anti-hero as the protagonist and/or the world is a crapsack, then it already is deep, artsy and valuable, while stories with more idealistic heroes are lame and naive.

Stereotypes are born of fact, but expanded a few steps beyond. White Knights tend to be irritating in much the same way as a young/new convert's zeal makes you want to clock them. All the idealistic tunnel-vision in regards to their world view does smack of naivety. The world is a place that is neither happiness and sunshine or doom and gloom. The world just is what it is, with both light and dark events transpiring on a daily basis. Sometimes evil is done, and good comes of it down the road. Look at the horrors done to prisoners during WWII as a prime example. They were by no means good actions, and absolutely evil by all but the most twisted of moral codes, but in the end we find that medical science advanced at an unheard of rate.

I think that the same rough idea applies to warlocks. They may not be spotless, but they aren't afraid to first cause harm in order to help heal the world. Like setting a bone so that the limb doesn't heal crooked, a warlock can be a lesser evil utilizing whatever means available to take down a greater one.

[AstralFire]

Many people also dismiss superman due to him being practically invincible unless Kryptonite shows up.

Thank you for proving my point. No one ever levies this charge against the angry versions of Superman. Hulk, for example, is about three kinds more unstoppable than Supes. A little easier to temporarily slow since he's a one-power pony, but unstoppable. Thor is all smite-happy AND he doesn't have a weakness. Amazing, yet people are still able to read stories about him. How do they do it.

(P.S. read a few stories. You might find he, gasp, fights things at his level.)

[Kurald Galain]

Look at the horrors done to prisoners during WWII as a prime example. They were by no means good actions, and absolutely evil by all but the most twisted of moral codes, but in the end we find that medical science advanced at an unheard of rate.

It is an absurd suggestion that to advance medical science you need to perform horrible experiments on prisoners. Medical science advanced at the same so-called "unheard of" rate before and after Mengele.

I'm sure you can find a few examples of evil actions causing good results, but this definitely isn't one. I suppose I should invoke Godwin's Law now.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Kurald, I was not by any means suggesting that one would NEED to perform twisted experiments. I was but making the point that good did come from the evil act. So, through THAT prism, ganking some mystical mojo from El Diablo in order to set some very bad things on fire doesn't really look so bad to me.

[Swordguy]

It is an absurd suggestion that to advance medical science you need to perform horrible experiments on prisoners. Medical science advanced at the same so-called "unheard of" rate before and after Mengele.

I'm sure you can find a few examples of evil actions causing good results, but this definitely isn't one. I suppose I should invoke Godwin's Law now.

Not unless you're trying to earn the title under your name, you shouldn't.

And the point is, in fact, well-founded. The German Rocket program, for instance, was used to develop the V-1 and V-2 rockets. Part of their data set involved the lessons learned in Rascher's experiments (G-tolerances and high-altitude effects on the body) forced upon prisoners at Dachau. This experimentation formed the core of the early US Space Program when the German engineers were appropriated by the US after the war, and additionally led directly to the rocket-propelled ejection seat.

So, EVERY US JET PILOT who survived a bailout in Korea owed his life to Nazi human experimentation (since even with the experimentation adding to the data set, the seats were barely ready in time for the war - without the experiments, there'd be no way).

Heck, the modern body of medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to freezing to the point of death is based almost exclusively on the Nazi experiments.

Good results most empirically can come about from even the worst circumstances...unless you're saying that devices that save people's lives aren't good things. :smallwink:

[pendell]

Kurald, I was not by any means suggesting that one would NEED to perform twisted experiments. I was but making the point that good did come from the evil act. So, through THAT prism, ganking some mystical mojo from El Diablo in order to set some very bad things on fire doesn't really look so bad to me.


Two things:

1) I did some reading , and while it does seem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation) that much of our modern knowledge of drowning from those experiments, one has to wonder if the immense cruelty of those experiments were truly necessary to accomplish the research. Aims. Scientists have been able to research these sort of things for more than 50 years without resorting to lethal human experimentation.

2) The thought you propose is precisely the sort of thing Tolkien was discussing WRT the One Ring. It was a common idea among people like Boromir that the Ring could be used for good.

And the problem with that idea, from his point of view, was that the ring wasn't just a power source like a coal plant. Evil, greed, jealousy, and desire for domination were part and parcel of the package. There *was* no way to do good, long-term with the Ring. Anything it was used for would always turn to evil, because the evil was built in right at the start.

I suspect he'd view using El Diablo's mojo the same way; you're not dealing with electricity, you're dealing with real, objective supernatural evil, and the nature of the Power taints everything done with it. Even if one is successful in 'lighting very bad things on fire with it', the nature of the changes one would have to go through to use the power would make one a very bad thing. One could only use the Ring to destroy Sauron by becoming a Dark Lord oneself. Likewise, one who would gain power from one such as Diablo would be on the road to becoming Diablo --


Which, IIRC, is exactly what happens at the end of the original game Diablo. A literal fulfillment of Nietzche's dictum that 'he who would fight monsters must take care not to become one himself'.


For that matter, isn't a variation on that argument the very words Redcloak uses to justify his own alliance with Xykon? "I need power to save the goblins, and Xykon has that power". But it seems to me that rather than saving the goblins, he's only enslaving them. SOD spoiler:


Remember that Right-eye and Redcloak signed on with Xykon the second time to keep Xykon from killing Right-eye's children -- but Right-eye's children were killed anyway. Xykon allowed adventurers to kill them, purely for his own amusement.



And that's why I disagree with your idea of using Diablo's mojo. Because I'll wager that if we were to ever come across a real honest-to-goodness demon-worshipping human-sacrificing cult, they'd give some reasoning along those very lines for their actions.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

1) That would be the part where I call it evil. Some of what those poor souls had to endure stems directly from the fact that they were considered disposable resources.

2) In regards to "the ring", it literally bonks your mind, which is where the danger stems from. From a mechanical standpoint, the pacts can be explained as making a deal with (in the event of an infernal pact) a devil to curse foes, thus sending them to said devil's front door in the abyss upon their untimely demise. The warlock gets the mojo to do good deeds, and the devil gets first dibs on the critters you off.

[pendell]

1)

From a mechanical standpoint, the pacts can be explained as making a deal with (in the event of an infernal pact) a devil to curse foes, thus sending them to said devil's front door in the abyss upon their untimely demise. The warlock gets the mojo to do good deeds, and the devil gets first dibs on the critters you off.

Hmmm ... I haven't read the 4E source books yet. From what I've gleaned here, there are a variety of good gods in the 4E campaign world and a couple of evil ones which show up only in the DMG.

Okay ... so from the perspective of a good-aligned religion, in that world, how could being a warlock ever be a good thing?

Need power? There are a number of good gods. And there's ordinary arcane magic. Magic capable of raising the dead and sinking continents.

So since there is so much power freely available from other sources, how could one ever justify making a deal with infernal powers? Why would one go to the infernal powers rather than the good gods? And if it's something a PC wants that the good gods won't give them but the infernal powers will -- is that really such a good thing to want?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Knaight]

Its not necessarily an infernal power though, it might be fey, and it might be creepy star beings. Fey isn't necessarily a bad thing, and some people just aren't smart or wise, so warlock works for them.

[pendell]

Its not necessarily an infernal power though, it might be fey, and it might be creepy star beings. Fey isn't necessarily a bad thing, and some people just aren't smart or wise, so warlock works for them.


In any setting that is even .0001% influenced by Lovecraft, people who are neither wise nor intelligent have no business mucking around with supernatural forces, on account of going stark raving mad or being dragged into the abyss of Eternal Night by things with tentacles.

Heh ... maybe that's why (in earlier versions -- does it still apply?) there was a minimum int or wis score to be a mage or cleric, respectively. Evolution in action, perhaps. The smart ones and the wise ones are very good. Those who aren't smart or wise are dead, insane, or trapped in some alternate plane.

But in any case I couldn't justify creating a PC or NPC as a warlock with any levels with the attribute 'stupid and foolish', on account of the things (s)he could pact with (creepy star beings, fey, or infernals) all seem to be very much believers in survival of the fittest. A person who didn't have at least one of those two attributes would be lunch in short order.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tengu_temp]

Stereotypes are born of fact, but expanded a few steps beyond. White Knights tend to be irritating in much the same way as a young/new convert's zeal makes you want to clock them. All the idealistic tunnel-vision in regards to their world view does smack of naivety. The world is a place that is neither happiness and sunshine or doom and gloom. The world just is what it is, with both light and dark events transpiring on a daily basis. Sometimes evil is done, and good comes of it down the road. Look at the horrors done to prisoners during WWII as a prime example. They were by no means good actions, and absolutely evil by all but the most twisted of moral codes, but in the end we find that medical science advanced at an unheard of rate.


The problem is that, while extreme idealists don't see the bad things, extreme cynics don't see the good things - they are exactly as blind, yet usually considered to be smarter and more world-wise. The best worldview is to be cynical enough to lose your naivete, but idealistic enough not to lose hope and passion that let you accomplish your goal and maybe, if it's in your reach, change the world for better. Very few great people spent their time snarking how the whole world is grey and everyone is a bastard.

[Starbuck_II]

The problem is that, while extreme idealists don't see the bad things, extreme cynics don't see the good things - they are exactly as blind, yet usually considered to be smarter and more world-wise. The best worldview is to be cynical enough to lose your naivete, but idealistic enough not to lose hope and passion that let you accomplish your goal and maybe, if it's in your reach, change the world for better.

Hmm, interesting poiint of view: Though I'd trade my naivete back if I could.


Very few great people spent their time snarking how the whole world is grey and everyone is a bastard.
Even if it is true?

[Erk]

Even if it is true?It's irrelevant if it's true; great things are not usually accomplished while whining about how unpleasant reality is. Generally, great people are aware of these flaws and do what they can, however small, to remedy them. In the process they prove that the cynics' law is far from universal.

[Ravens_cry]

Call me a newb, but I love playing clerics. I may not be as good at the smashy smashy, my bang magic at the level I am is weak, and I am about as silent as bag of wet cats, but I get to help people. That makes me feel GOOD about myself.
I think an interesting story would be have your paladin in shining armor, but have him find out how his church was able to buy him a suit of plate, which could cost more then a farm. How the noble bishop, was appointed by the king, because he is the kings cousin. How those creatures you have been smiting for the cause of captial G, GOOD, have families.
Everyones a bastard, and it is a spectrum of grey. But that doesn't mean you stop caring, it means you care more. It means you do more to help, it means you do what YOU can, because you can't expect others to. It breaks your heart because there is sometimes things you CAN'T do. But you do what you can, because helping others is what being good is all about.

[Swok]

In any setting that is even .0001% influenced by Lovecraft, people who are neither wise nor intelligent have no business mucking around with supernatural forces, on account of going stark raving mad or being dragged into the abyss of Eternal Night by things with tentacles.

Starpact always gave me more Astrology Power vibes than Lovecraft vibes. Partially because the Starpact doesn't drive you bonkers.

[Tengu_temp]

Call me a newb, but I love playing clerics. I may not be as good at the smashy smashy, my bang magic at the level I am is weak, and I am about as silent as bag of wet cats, but I get to help people. That makes me feel GOOD about myself.


T'least you're not stealing the spotlight in 3.x. And in 4e, healing laser cleric is a viable build.

[DM Raven]

No, 4E is less of a gray area than 3E, and adheres more strongly to the "players must be shiny glorious heroes" principle.

The tieflings are just there so that people can play a hero with a brooding dark past, and angst over it. Oh, the angst!

The game suggests that all players should be good or unaligned to make games run smoother. (Which is true) However it doesn't strictly say you can't play evil characters. It just warns players and DMs that this can create problems.

[horseboy]

I'm amazed that so many people see 'angst' as tieflings' major feature. I always saw them as having a lot of left over national pride from that ruling the world thing they did. Maybe I'm just angst-proof or something (people said the same thing about 3.x half-elves too, albiet not as much, and I didn't notice that either) but I don't get it.Sooo.....they're French. By way of comparison, would that make Dragonborn British?

[DM Raven]

Found this intresting thread on the Wizards boards. The OP-unoeye, in case you're looking to get me on copyright violation-says:

"The Warlock class and Tiefling race seem to be NPC material as they are basically evil. Whereas the Rogue class and the odd evil race PC may claim to be basically good (i.e. R.A. Salvator's Drizzit, or Order of the Stick's Haley), the Warlock and Tieflings base their power on controlling or making a pact with evil beings or creatures.

Anyone remember when TSR tried to shed the percieved mantle of the occult by taking the demon visages/references off the cover of the core books? At one point I believe the word daemon was the politically correct substitute. The authors admonished players not to play evil characters as that would just end up being a self defeating campaign. Anyone remember that?

I'm disapointed that the game seems to have lost sight of the heroic image. For the first time in over 20 years I find myself questioning the game on moral principle.

Every devil believes himself a saint."

Personally, I think it's a load of moral absolutist hogwash, but it raised a question:

Has the game become more "gray" since 2E days?

EDIT: *Inevitable Sith Joke*

Haha, I remeber when demons were called tanar'ri back in the days of second edition. I remember my mom brought me with her to some christian group meeting she had that allowed their members to bring their kids. I was 10 at the time and decided to bring my D&D book in the hope someone would play with me. They took away my books (until I left) and told me I should stop playing because god didn't like people who played D&D. =(

Anyway, no...D&D hasn't really become more grey. D&D is meant to be a game system that people can used to create games or stories within. Ideas of good and evil can show up within a game depending on your DM, but D&D doesn't really advocate for either side. It gives you a system to create your game or tell your story in, then it lets you go wild in whatever way you and your friends are confortable.

[chiasaur11]

Sooo.....they're French. By way of comparison, would that make Dragonborn British?

...That would be awesome.

[Artanis]

Dragonborn: "JEEVES! This tea is cold!"
Jeeves: "I'm terribly sorry, master, shall I fetch you another?"
Dragonborn: "No need, old chap!" *flame breath*
Jeeves: "OH MY GOD I'M ON FIRE!"
Dragonborn: "Oh dear, that's the third one this week. Flame-proof help is so hard to find these days."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Dragonborn: "JEEVES! This tea is cold!"
Jeeves: "I'm terribly sorry, master, shall I fetch you another?"
Dragonborn: "No need, old chap!" *flame breath*
Jeeves: "OH MY GOD I'M ON FIRE!"
Dragonborn: "Oh dear, that's the third one this week. Flame-proof help is so hard to find these days."

Tieflings make the best butlers :smallamused:

Actually, in my game I decided to have fun with naming conventions - all of the Eladrin have French names, the Tieflings have Russian ones, and the Dwarves are Scandinavian :smallbiggrin:

[chiasaur11]

Dragonborn: "JEEVES! This tea is cold!"
Jeeves: "I'm terribly sorry, master, shall I fetch you another?"
Dragonborn: "No need, old chap!" *flame breath*
Jeeves: "OH MY GOD I'M ON FIRE!"
Dragonborn: "Oh dear, that's the third one this week. Flame-proof help is so hard to find these days."

Now you're just being silly.

Everyone knows Jeeves stays calm even when actively on fire.

[Dhavaer]

Sooo.....they're French. By way of comparison, would that make Dragonborn British?

Tieflings are more Greek than French (see the example names). I don't know what that would make the dragonborn. Indian? Chinese?

[Tengu_temp]

Easy -Dragonborn are a fanboyish race of honorable, exotic warriors. Japanese.

[Collin152]

Easy -Dragonborn are a fanboyish race of honorable, exotic warriors. Japanese.

Everybody is Japanese, just not from the same span of their history.

[RebelRogue]

Tieflings are more Greek than French (see the example names). I don't know what that would make the dragonborn. Indian? Chinese?
The presented names have a middle eastern flavor to me.

[Justin_Bacon]

"The Warlock class and Tiefling race seem to be NPC material as they are basically evil. Whereas the Rogue class and the odd evil race PC may claim to be basically good (i.e. R.A. Salvator's Drizzit, or Order of the Stick's Haley), the Warlock and Tieflings base their power on controlling or making a pact with evil beings or creatures.

Hmm... I'm not seeing it. The tiefling race has a dark reputation, but so do half-orcs. There's nothing innately evil about either of them.

And while warlocks can gain their powers from infernal sources, they can also gain it from fey sources. So there's nothing inherently evil there, either. (Any more than a wizard is inherently evil because they could theoretically learn necromantic spells.)


Anyone remember when TSR tried to shed the percieved mantle of the occult by taking the demon visages/references off the cover of the core books? At one point I believe the word daemon was the politically correct substitute.

Daemon as not actually the term used. This was the era in which the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri" were created.


Has the game become more "gray" since 2E days?

I suppose. If you consider "vaguely off-white" to be "gray".

Also depends on what you mean by "2E days". By the end of 2nd Edition, most of the hardcore moralizing you're talking about had already been quietly shuffled off to one side.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Dragonborn: "JEEVES! This tea is cold!"
Jeeves: "I'm terribly sorry, master, shall I fetch you another?"
Dragonborn: "No need, old chap!" *flame breath*
Jeeves: "OH MY GOD I'M ON FIRE!"
Dragonborn: "Oh dear, that's the third one this week. Flame-proof help is so hard to find these days."

Actually, I have a feeling that Jeeves's response would be more like:

Jeeves: "Sir"
Dragonborn: "Yes Jeeves"
Jeeves: "I'm on fire."

[Thane of Fife]

I think that all DnD butlers should be like Cato (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxueIpxAmE&feature=related).

Maybe it's just me.

[chiasaur11]

Actually, I have a feeling that Jeeves's response would be more like:

Jeeves: "Sir"
Dragonborn: "Yes Jeeves"
Jeeves: "I'm on fire."

Or perhaps:

Jeeves: "I fear, sir, you may have inadvertently started a minor fire. Although I managed to contain the blaze, I felt you should be informed of the event so you could avoid it in the future."
Dragonborn: "Oh? What was burning, Jeeves."
Jeeves: "Myself, sir."

[nagora]

In 2E, if you were a wizard, you gained the ability to raise armies of skeletal slaves and become effectively immortal as soon as you hit 9th level - as long as you didn't mind using evil magic (animate dead and magic jar to be specific).
Magic Jar is a pretty poor type of immortality, given the fact that the host body gets a saving throw at least once per week and you need to have the jar with you at all times in case anything goes wrong AND you might end up trapped inside the mind of the host when they make their saving throw. I'm not sure what relevance Animate Dead has, since the spell won't work on the undead that it creates.

Immortality is very, very hard to achieve in pre-3e. I don't think there's any BtB method at all, in fact, it's entirely up to the DM.

[Dausuul]

Magic Jar is a pretty poor type of immortality, given the fact that the host body gets a saving throw at least once per week and you need to have the jar with you at all times in case anything goes wrong AND you might end up trapped inside the mind of the host when they make their saving throw. I'm not sure what relevance Animate Dead has, since the spell won't work on the undead that it creates.

Immortality is very, very hard to achieve in pre-3e. I don't think there's any BtB method at all, in fact, it's entirely up to the DM.

Sure, magic jar has its limitations, but it still makes you effectively immortal. Worst case, the host makes a lucky save, kicks you out, and you seize control again a minute later. I don't recall there being any "no possessing the same body twice" limitation, though I haven't looked at the 2E version of the spell in a while. The real danger is somebody using dispel magic to kick you out.

And I have no idea what you mean by saying animate dead won't work on the undead that it creates. Of course animate dead works on the undead it creates, that's the whole point of the spell - to create and control an army of skeleton or zombie slaves.

[nagora]

Sure, magic jar has its limitations, but it still makes you effectively immortal. Worst case, the host makes a lucky save, kicks you out, and you seize control again a minute later.
Unless, after 30 years of this crap, they jump over a cliff! Not to mention the effects on your minion's moral of you starting to shout "Shoot me for God's sake let me diiiiiiie" in the middle of your big speeches.:smallsmile:


And I have no idea what you mean by saying animate dead won't work on the undead that it creates. Of course animate dead works on the undead it creates, that's the whole point of the spell - to create and control an army of skeleton or zombie slaves.
I thought you were suggesting Animate Dead as a method of getting a host body for Magic Jar, that's what wouldn't work.

[tbarrie]

Hmmm ... I haven't read the 4E source books yet. From what I've gleaned here, there are a variety of good gods in the 4E campaign world and a couple of evil ones which show up only in the DMG.

The core books list 3 Chaotic Evil, 6 Evil, 7 Unaligned, 2 Good, and 2 Lawful Good deities. The pantheon is actually rather bizarrely slanted towards evil. Eight of the nine .*Evil deities are mentioned in the PHB; all get write-ups in the DMG.


So since there is so much power freely available from other sources, how could one ever justify making a deal with infernal powers?

But who says it's freely available? Just because these power sources exist doesn't mean they're available to all characters. Their availability will vary from setting to setting; the actual rules are mum on the subject.