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.

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...

[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 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.

[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.

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" () 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.

[Leliel]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but draining a mortal's "excess" () 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.

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

Spoiler

Show

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

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

[Leliel]

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

TANGENT

Spoiler

Show

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

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

Intresting...I like that idea.

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

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!

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!

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

[JaxGaret]

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

Spoiler

Show

Seriously guys, it'll spoil your Paragon Campaign

Spoiler

Show

I mean it

Spoiler

Show

In 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.

[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.


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.