A Paladin stands in front of a burning orphanage, the trapped kids screaming in fear and he has no resist fire gear or potions. *Poof* an imp appears and offers a deal.....the kids are saved and all the imp's master wants in return is a small favour at a later date... ;-)
No longer being locked into alignment offers wonderful options.
Alignments were the best part of the game. In a fantasy world, evil is evil and good is good. You don't have to focus on moral and philosophical discussions after every battle because evil is evil, and good is good. Without alignments, what are you going to do with those baby goblins? You can fritter a lot of time away looking for a goblin orphanage. Lawful good folks could ruin hours of play.
This is the crux of the escapism. You don't have to sit around with a group and mentally <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> over what is right or wrong, because dnd was always supposed to be black and white. That is the true diversion of the fantasy world.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited July 2014
I agree, lawful good people can ruin hours of great play...mainly for looking at things in black and white.
That's why alignments were the worst part of the game.
D&D isn't black and white. That's why the alignment system was destroyed and left only to appease people like you and lawful good players.
I once saw an R.A Salvatore interview where some wacky woman was asking him what she was supposed to do without the alignment system and although he was respectful to the sky is falling attitude you could tell he was like, good god you have utterly no imagination, how the hell can you even pretend to roleplay your character?
He basically threw up Jarlaxle as an example. Jarlaxle can be as evil and vile as any matron mother because he wants to be on the top. At the same time he showed the same caring and personal attachments to his friends and allies as any good aligned character. Part of the reason Kimmerial stepped up as his partner was to keep Jarlaxle from letting his personal attachments cloud his judgements. Jarlaxle's alignment is undefined even in Salvatore's mind although Chaotic Neutral is as close as it can get.
In the Paladin example there's really only one possible route for that situation to go...
Any Paladin who walks the walk rather than just talk the talk would sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. There's no morality question there. The point was to show why warlocks are not and should not be limited to evil characters and the key essential reason why Wizards of the Coast tried to remove it outright.
At this time the only reason it remains is because of whiny people. Because people can't fathom how to play their characters without some stupid guidelines...
But for any of you who are truly that lacking in imagination...please go up to any D&D author and ask them if they even consider it while writing their D&D story lines. Every single one of them will tell you they do NOT and have NEVER followed the alignment system. They create a personality for their characters and put themselves in their characters shoes and say "what would this character do in this situation?" instead of "what does my alignment say the character will do."
Because when you look at the paladin example it's not that there's gray there...there are two conflicting sets of black and white...
A paladin would never conspire with an evil being...
A paladin would never stand idly as people die if he could do something to save them even at the cost of his own life
So which alignment moral boundary important?
Your character...not the unrealistic alignment system...decides.
Is saving the lives of the innocents worth him sacrificing his pride and his life/soul? If he refuses to act because of his moral pride would he be able to bear the guilt? It's a personal decision...one YOU have you make for YOUR CHARACTER based on how you feel YOUR CHARACTER would behave. There's no rules which can possibly cover that situation which is why those rules were tossed aside.
Alignments were the best part of the game. In a fantasy world, evil is evil and good is good. You don't have to focus on moral and philosophical discussions after every battle because evil is evil, and good is good. Without alignments, what are you going to do with those baby goblins? You can fritter a lot of time away looking for a goblin orphanage. Lawful good folks could ruin hours of play.
This is the crux of the escapism. You don't have to sit around with a group and mentally <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> over what is right or wrong, because dnd was always supposed to be black and white. That is the true diversion of the fantasy world.
You see, in my example the old alignment system would force the Paladin to immediately kill the imp and he would not be able to have any deals with devils.
In a morally more flexible system my example could be the starting point of a fantastic adventure. For example how it was all a setup by some archfiend who has a bone to pick with the Paladin's god and how the players must find a way to help their Warrior of God bro to get out of the pact he agreed to.
Good and Evil are useful to set absolutes when creating a campaign and establishing the setting, but the most intriguing stories often come from the grey in-between and from the moral obligations created by good dungeons masters.
Many interesting characters in literature, movies and comics would not be possible in such a rigid moral system. We would have no James Bond, no Clint Eastwood as bounty hunter, no Han Solo, no Wolverine if everything was black and white.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited July 2014
Batman has one rule...at least in the modern depictions. He will not kill.
That does get a bit into the moral gray area of questioning whether lack of saving lives is causing deaths...
But it doesn't define him as evil.
Magenubbie definitely was a lot more consise in his response though, the alignment system should have only been used as a general guideline and not as a decision making tool. The icorporation of the alignment system into actual game mechanics caused completely unreasonable paradoxes and limitations on character development.
Which is why the authors don't use it. If they wrote a story following the black and white alignment system you would end up feeling like you were reading children's books about Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or something.
I encourage any of you "but alignments say..." people to go read or watch Game of Thrones. It's a perfect example of how people with consistent personality and moral standings will make both good and evil decisions based on perspective.
That does get a bit into the moral gray area of questioning whether lack of saving lives is causing deaths...
But it doesn't define him as evil.
Magenubbie definitely was a lot more consise in his response though, the alignment system should have only been used as a general guideline and not as a decision making tool. The icorporation of the alignment system into actual game mechanics caused completely unreasonable paradoxes and limitations on character development.
Which is why the authors don't use it. If they wrote a story following the black and white alignment system you would end up feeling like you were reading children's books about Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or something.
I encourage any of you "but alignments say..." people to go read or watch Game of Thrones. It's a perfect example of how people with consistent personality and moral standings will make both good and evil decisions based on perspective.
While I agree with grey moral areas. Example Erevis Cale a "goodly person who worships Mask. However a person who has no qualm with killing isn't exactly a prime candidate for Corellon.
Basically a Evil Deity would take on a Good person because that God would find a use for them to further his goals. While a Good aligned God would not take on a Evil person or someone who has tarnished their soul(warlocks) to further anything.
Is saving the lives of the innocents worth him sacrificing his pride and his life/soul? If he refuses to act because of his moral pride would he be able to bear the guilt? It's a personal decision...one YOU have you make for YOUR CHARACTER based on how you feel YOUR CHARACTER would behave. There's no rules which can possibly cover that situation which is why those rules were tossed aside.
Once again I agree on making your character portray how you would act in his situation but this game force feeds a Deity onto you and an Invoking System. And for people who want to stay in a theme it creates a lotta headache. Tbh we simple should have the option to not worship a Deity(and no taking Kelemvor because you go to the Fugue Plane isnt the same thing).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited July 2014
I have, like Zeb, always been an advocate of more deities. Most of my characters worship Mask or Mielikki while Zeb would find a way to make a dumb as a rock half-orc worship Mystra, three dieties not represented and a sore thorn in our sides from day one.
I am just not an advocate of the alignment system.
I do suggest doing what we do, dismiss the Deity System as inadequate, stick your tongue out at it, and say you worship whatever god you want. My HR is a follower of Mask. IDC what the game *thinks* is his Deity because it's my character and in roleplaying imagination trumps everything else. I'll imagine the coin is a Mask. The game does not dictate what my character's personalities and habits are, only my imagination does.
There's a reason why most Paladins where locked away, until the party had gotten all Options, made up their mind,and combat was imminent; ...they are like a loaded gun without a savety.
Mystra?
Isn't she, you know, ...like DEAD?
Since Avatar-Trilogy/Times of Trouble?
A char mine of did see her getting killed by Helm and Midnight taking up the mantle.
But, since the gos you pry to don't Change anything to you class, abilities, skill and even clerical spells, a few more faiths, costumes & dyes, holidays, etc. whould be nice, harmless and easy done, and add to the Flair of the game.
(And cryptic could sell "change faith coins" for Zen.)
Mystra died alot, yeah, but she's not "dead", just a different person acquiring Mystra's divine essence therefore reincarnating her. Without Mystra magic itself would fail and cause some unspeakable apocalypse (spellplague). Or some other god like Shar or Bane would claim her essence and plunge the world into darkness and shadow, fun fun...
But yeah I've never liked the alignment system, although when it comes to gaming (especially CPRG's) having some system to tell you where your morality lies is good. When it comes to games you have to understand not everybody is as imaginative as old DND gamers so this stuff will continue to be dictated by a black-and-white morality scale for CRPG's. For tabletop, yeah, screw the alignment system, your freedoms rely only on imagination, not the game itself.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
dragoness10Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 780Arc User
edited July 2014
Fallen celestials..... ascended demons/ devils
Use your imagination as both are valid AD&D templates.
" I tried to figure out the enigma that was you, and then I realized mastering Wild Magic was easier." - Old Wizard in Waterdeep
"Why is it dragons only use ketchup? I'd like a little wasabi please. Us silvers like a variety of condiments."
"Don't call them foolish mortals. One, they don't learn from it. Two, It just ticks them off." - An Ancient Red Dragon
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
edited July 2014
Thread's going a bit off topic but on the part about deities:
. . . I don't mind having an optional alignment system that portrays on your character sheet to add to the geek factor for us PnP fans. However, just like in 4th edition, it shouldn't be a mandatory part of the game. The same with deities, we need to have the option to worship no deity as well as the ability to switch deities. Adding this to Respec Token's effects would be sweet - or even nicer would be to just allow us to pay a small AD fee (like companion name changes) to switch deities. This latter is supported in 4th edition's PnP rules for worshiping deities, as divine power is no longer granted by the deity themselves.
. . . The gods can only grant mortals access, they cannot block them once they have access (except for cases like Corellon or Mystra, who have control over the shattered/reforming weave still). Once you've been ordained by a church or granted access by a God, you are free to worship how you choose, or not at all. But just because your god cannot strip a disobedient mortal their access to Divine Magic, it doesn't mean they won't do other things to influence or get revenge upon a heretic of their faith.
. . . So, in short; PnP D&D supports the ability to swap deities or not worship them at all. It would be awesome if the Deity/Invocation system in Neverwinter could be updated to compliment that, indeed!
. . . As for Mystra... The essence that is Mystra is part of the very fabric that Realmspace is made of. The Weave is both Light and Dark magic, which is Mystra when given consciousness, ergo The Caretaker. Mystryl was formed by Selune removing all her magic from herself and hurling it at Shar in an attempt to destroy her. Instead, it ripped all of Shar's magic from her and the two formed in Mystryl.
. . . Lord Ao, the "God of the Gods," feared the power of Mystryl and over time, placed boundaries upon her to keep her power in check. She lost access to the Timestream when she perished the first time and became Mystra. She is forced to endow mortals with her divine essence (Chosens of Mystra/Seven Sisters/Elminster, etc). This keeps Mystra under Ao's control, in the grand scheme of things. When a chosen or item bearing Mystra's essence dies or uses that divine power, it slowly returns to Mystra throgh the fabric of the Multiverse, the Weave, and back into her... a process that can take hundreds if not thousands of years - another safeguard by Lord Ao.
. . . The essence that is Mystra has always been since Lord Ao first created Realmspace. It then split into Shar and Selune and then later formed into Mystryl. When the Caretaker "dies," she is reincarnated through one of Mystra's chosens or she can even theoretically be brought back using enough Blue Flame items (items that hold the very essence of Mystra/Mystryl herself). To destroy Mystra entirely would mean destroying not only her conscious form (Mystra) and her essence (The Weave) but also Selune, Shar and all of Realmspace. Otherwise, she will always eventually return. Lord Ao might be able to do something, but as a DM even I believe Lord Ao would consider it a precarious feat to go against Mystra at the height of her power.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited July 2014
Another thing to note is you can still worship a "dead" deity.
A quote from the Sentinel explains this quite perfectly: A deity can never truly die so long as it lives in the heart of one of it's followers.
If a Deity in the realm dies and it's essence is not destroyed that deity floats in the astral sea for at least a hundred years. Unless the Deity is then destroyed or its essence stolen from the astral sea this deity can then reawaken so long as it has a follower.
Which is what is happening during The Sundering to many of the gods Wizards of the Coast killed off during the Spellplague.
A dead deity will no longer be interacting with mortals but it's important to remember mortals normally don't know when gods die. They will still continue to follow long after their gods go silent. Fourth Edition even changed the way Clerics can spells so they don't even need to worship a Deity. So long as they believe in something they will still have access to most spells.
You could, like my dwarf, worship his best friend George and be no worse for wear as a cleric.
Since Tieflings are natural warlocks...there needs some DarkEVIL deity.
You're forgetting about fey pact warlock, don't think tieflings would be better than elves or half-elves as this type of warlock. I hope they makes this a second paragon path. Hope they have this at launch.
Fey pact is still technically probably the safest, since there are good, or at least benevolent, fey in 4E. Tiandra as a pact patron, for example, is going to be pretty 'safe'. It depends on your background and what you go with as your pact patron.
Heh, I actually used Corellon as a fey pact patron for a character once, due to him being the creator of the Fey races and god of Arcane magic in the core 4E setting. He was a Paladin who lost belief in his own abilities after being forced to work for a succubus due to the party going for it(Ten levels later I got to kill that succubus. Personally. It was glorious). He wound up suddenly finding himself with arcane abilities he hadn't previously possessed, and eventually discovered that Corellon had pretty much shrugged and said 'screw it' and given him power a different way during that time(He was Corellon's Chosen). He ended up as a hybrid Cavalier|Warlock who had a rather odd, yet powerful, build. He could teleport 7 squares at-will and your restrained/slow/immobilized meant nothing to him. XD
It makes me wonder, what's the difference between a Cleric and a Warlock? I guess a warlock doesn't have to be devoted.
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
Another thing to note is you can still worship a "dead" deity.
A quote from the Sentinel explains this quite perfectly: A deities can never truly die so long as it has one follower.
If a Deity in the realms dies and it's essence is not destroyed that deity floats in the astral sea for at least a hundred years. Unless the Deity is then destroyed or its essence stolen from the astral sea this deity can then reawaken so long as it has a follower.
Which is what is happening during The Sundering to many of the gods Wizards of the Coast killed off during the Spellplague.
A dead deity will no longer be interacting with mortals but it's important to remember mortals normally don't know when gods die. They will still continue to follow long after their gods go silent. Fourth Edition even changed the way Clerics can spells so they don't even need to worship a Deity. So long as they believe in something they will still have access to most spells.
You could, like my dwarf, worship his best friend George and be no worse for wear as a cleric.
. . . Aye, it's fun to note that many gods died around/over a hundred years ago... which happens to be the minimum period of time a deity drifts in an inanimate state in the Astral Plane before any conditions can bring them back. I'm so happy and excited for The Third Sundering.
As much as I want deities, particularly of the I want to dominate the world muhahahaha variety, I do feel the need to point out a few things.
First of all the alignment system is killed. It exists because unimaginative people whined they cant figure out what alignment their character is without some ficticious unrealistic rating system. It has no more nonsensical relation in mechanics.
Nor do making packs with devils dictate that the character has to be dark or evil. That is the ultimate flaw with the previous alignment systems and why I will not waver that only people with a lack of imagination pay it heed.
Why would somebody make a pack with a devil unless they were evil?
To save a loved one...
To gain enough power to help people for the greater good...
Because the devil blackmails them...
Somebody said lawful characters would be easier to control. I am not sure I would completely agree with that. People who care about others and make packs for the right reasons are definitely the easiest to manipulate because they care about aspects other yhan themselves.
In the forgotten realms setting,coming in contact with evil deities,will eventually corrupt even the most well intentioned characters.So no matter what ,if you start messing around with demons or the far realm you'll end up destroying the very thing you sought to save in the first place and becoming evil or mad or both.That's the nature of evil,there is always a catch. As for the Alignment System i thought it was very helpful,in giving a base upon which to categorize npc's and lets not forget that it determined the way some spells,such as "protection from evil/good/law/chaos" etc., worked.
Isn't that a Krynn Diety (DragonLance realm)? I am a DragonLancer - WTF is Faerun? And what a foo-foo frilly-sounding name for a realm. I mean, it just goes perfectly with "Pffft". LOL
No - they are not "heros" they are "adventurers". If you are always a "Hero" then you are a dimwitted one: Pirate's Skyhold anyone? Yet, you are the "Hero of Sleeping Dragon Bridge" (or whatever it was called - yeah, been a long time) - but that's about it as far a hero status goes. You are Sergeant Knox's Hero, perhaps. But overall I get the impression we are simply adventurers in it for our own benefit (loot, mostly). But each person plays the way they want. So if you are always the hero in your mind while you're playing there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!
My Master of Flame Wizard is not a hero. He only helps Neverember because it's helps his own private agenda and that wench Valindra just keeps getting in the way. ;-)
When Old Zeb mentioned Takhisis I was surprised, thinking "oh, wow, a crossover Deity!" - but I think you are confirming that he is mixing them up (which may be an insult to Krynn in general) [just kidding]. I think one of my Companions is named Takhisis because I didn't expect anyone to recognize the name. I think it's a Companion to my Wizard named Fistandantilus. (Yes, really) ~cough~ LOL
Love it! Fistandantilus, the god in disguise! Almost forgot about him!
I agree, lawful good people can ruin hours of great play...mainly for looking at things in black and white.
That's why alignments were the worst part of the game.
D&D isn't black and white. That's why the alignment system was destroyed and left only to appease people like you and lawful good players.
I once saw an R.A Salvatore interview where some wacky woman was asking him what she was supposed to do without the alignment system and although he was respectful to the sky is falling attitude you could tell he was like, good god you have utterly no imagination, how the hell can you even pretend to roleplay your character?
He basically threw up Jarlaxle as an example. Jarlaxle can be as evil and vile as any matron mother because he wants to be on the top. At the same time he showed the same caring and personal attachments to his friends and allies as any good aligned character. Part of the reason Kimmerial stepped up as his partner was to keep Jarlaxle from letting his personal attachments cloud his judgements. Jarlaxle's alignment is undefined even in Salvatore's mind although Chaotic Neutral is as close as it can get.
In the Paladin example there's really only one possible route for that situation to go...
Any Paladin who walks the walk rather than just talk the talk would sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. There's no morality question there. The point was to show why warlocks are not and should not be limited to evil characters and the key essential reason why Wizards of the Coast tried to remove it outright.
At this time the only reason it remains is because of whiny people. Because people can't fathom how to play their characters without some stupid guidelines...
But for any of you who are truly that lacking in imagination...please go up to any D&D author and ask them if they even consider it while writing their D&D story lines. Every single one of them will tell you they do NOT and have NEVER followed the alignment system. They create a personality for their characters and put themselves in their characters shoes and say "what would this character do in this situation?" instead of "what does my alignment say the character will do."
Because when you look at the paladin example it's not that there's gray there...there are two conflicting sets of black and white...
A paladin would never conspire with an evil being...
A paladin would never stand idly as people die if he could do something to save them even at the cost of his own life
So which alignment moral boundary important?
Your character...not the unrealistic alignment system...decides.
Is saving the lives of the innocents worth him sacrificing his pride and his life/soul? If he refuses to act because of his moral pride would he be able to bear the guilt? It's a personal decision...one YOU have you make for YOUR CHARACTER based on how you feel YOUR CHARACTER would behave. There's no rules which can possibly cover that situation which is why those rules were tossed aside.
I am always getting into my characters heads, but there are certain quests one has to complete to continue that give me pause. Why would an 'evil' character care if some guard's wife was killed? True toward the end of that quest you can easily RP that your character goes after the wizard only to try and steal the results of the ritual, but until that point you are stuck trying to figure out why your character would act out of their personality and go out of their way to do a 'good' deed. Do not get me wrong. I love my imagination, but sometimes it can be difficult lol
I am always getting into my characters heads, but there are certain quests one has to complete to continue that give me pause. Why would an 'evil' character care if some guard's wife was killed? True toward the end of that quest you can easily RP that your character goes after the wizard only to try and steal the results of the ritual, but until that point you are stuck trying to figure out why your character would act out of their personality and go out of their way to do a 'good' deed. Do not get me wrong. I love my imagination, but sometimes it can be difficult lol
Conversely, a similar argument could be made for Lawful characters. You are, in fact, helping to subvert the lawful order to relocate infected spellscarred. Sure, it might be the moral thing, But not the lawful thing. After all, had the player turned in Dorethea. That would of prevented Razzad from using her, and might of slowed down, or prevented all the damage he caused.
A case could be made for many of the quests in the game, for good or bad. As others have pointed out. Alignments are simply shackles, that bind and obstruct characters rather then to help them.
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
edited July 2014
So I'm confused - are the beings that bestow power upon a Warlock about equal in power the the various gods that do so for Clerics?
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
So I'm confused - are the beings that bestow power upon a Warlock about equal in power the the various gods that do so for Clerics?
No, they are entirely different mechanics.
Take Asmodeus, even if he is a god and he does have a church a contract with him is exactly that, a contract so you get power in exchange for something as his clerics get their spells bestowed by a entirely different way and are expected to behave in the interests of Asmodeus or get their spells revoked, Warlocks dont have those problems since they get power as a exchange for something.
The question about gods comes from Forgotten Realms specific mechanics were everyone must have a patron deity or he is a faithless and that is bad as in, if you dont have a patron deity you dont go to "heaven" and that means you dont get resurrected because your soul simply dissipates, this means a Faithless simply cannot be res'd thats a issue at high level play were death is not just a occupational hazard but a common occurrence, I doubt 4th changed that but still Neverwinter does force people to select a patron deity and this is were the problem comes since of the list neither really works since for some strange and bizarre reason we go with a Hell Pact and flavor text is infernal instead being neutral or at least Fey, its at odds with the Patron Deity selection.
Having a Warlock with a infernal power in the same part as a cleric of Moradin is simply hilarious silly.
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
edited July 2014
So do any of the books delve into the kinds of terms that these contracts involve? I mean, are we talking "Do as I say when I say it" kind of conditions, or stuff like "Kill my enemies wherever you find them" but otherwise the Warlock can do w/e they want?
Thanks for info!
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
So do any of the books delve into the kinds of terms that these contracts involve? I mean, are we talking "Do as I say when I say it" kind of conditions, or stuff like "Kill my enemies wherever you find them" but otherwise the Warlock can do w/e they want?
Thanks for info!
I'm not actually familiar with Neverwinter Campaign Setting, so perhaps it deviates from "core" D&D. If so, I apologize.
Warlocks contracts differ from warlock to warlock -- almost invariably, the warlock gains power, but the other end of the contract is not always explicit. In a contract with a devil, the devil may simply gain influence over the warlock, which it uses when it deems necessary. With a star pact, oftentimes the warlock doesn't know what is expected of him/her up to the end.
Also, several of the epic-tier warlock powers seem to imply that at a high level, warlocks can defy their pacts. Perhaps this makes them similar to god-cleric relations, in which the warlock's access to power cannot be broken.
I would like to play a Star Pact Warlock, I wonder if that will be possible at all.
We *do* have a precedent of 2 variations within the same class, (namely GWF vs GF), so perhaps somewhere down the line, they could offer something like this - since most of their powers would differ from the Scourge Warlock.
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
We *do* have a precedent of 2 variations within the same class, (namely GWF vs GF), so perhaps somewhere down the line, they could offer something like this - since most of their powers would differ from the Scourge Warlock.
It's a possibility, sure. I imagine that having such a large pool of powers to choose from, they will build a smaller pool combining every pact. I don't think all the start pact ones will make it though.
Flavor wise, it seems that they will favour the more stereotypical Infernal pact. Can't wait to play it though
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
It's a possibility, sure. I imagine that having such a large pool of powers to choose from, they will build a smaller pool combining every pact. I don't think all the start pact ones will make it though.
Flavor wise, it seems that they will favour the more stereotypical Infernal pact. Can't wait to play it though
The thing is, would a different Paragon path be sufficient to differentiate an infernal pact from a fey or elemental one?
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
The thing is, would a different Paragon path be sufficient to differentiate an infernal pact from a fey or elemental one?
Well, no, because in the books each pact has their own set of encounters, daily and utility powers from which to choose, which complement each other either in synergy/strategy or in theme. Besides that, each pact has its own paragon paths, which are oriented and add to the mechanics of the chosen pact.
So what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be the same, because there won't be that many powers to choose from in the power tree for the class to be able to make the difference that would make choosing them from the same pact.
The last time I played pen & paper D&D 4E my character was a pure star pact Warlock, I was happy with the strategies her powers brought to the game. The hellfire warlock is more about raw damage, whereas the star pact has a secondary controller role.
Comments
Alignments were the best part of the game. In a fantasy world, evil is evil and good is good. You don't have to focus on moral and philosophical discussions after every battle because evil is evil, and good is good. Without alignments, what are you going to do with those baby goblins? You can fritter a lot of time away looking for a goblin orphanage. Lawful good folks could ruin hours of play.
This is the crux of the escapism. You don't have to sit around with a group and mentally <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> over what is right or wrong, because dnd was always supposed to be black and white. That is the true diversion of the fantasy world.
That's why alignments were the worst part of the game.
D&D isn't black and white. That's why the alignment system was destroyed and left only to appease people like you and lawful good players.
I once saw an R.A Salvatore interview where some wacky woman was asking him what she was supposed to do without the alignment system and although he was respectful to the sky is falling attitude you could tell he was like, good god you have utterly no imagination, how the hell can you even pretend to roleplay your character?
He basically threw up Jarlaxle as an example. Jarlaxle can be as evil and vile as any matron mother because he wants to be on the top. At the same time he showed the same caring and personal attachments to his friends and allies as any good aligned character. Part of the reason Kimmerial stepped up as his partner was to keep Jarlaxle from letting his personal attachments cloud his judgements. Jarlaxle's alignment is undefined even in Salvatore's mind although Chaotic Neutral is as close as it can get.
In the Paladin example there's really only one possible route for that situation to go...
Any Paladin who walks the walk rather than just talk the talk would sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. There's no morality question there. The point was to show why warlocks are not and should not be limited to evil characters and the key essential reason why Wizards of the Coast tried to remove it outright.
At this time the only reason it remains is because of whiny people. Because people can't fathom how to play their characters without some stupid guidelines...
But for any of you who are truly that lacking in imagination...please go up to any D&D author and ask them if they even consider it while writing their D&D story lines. Every single one of them will tell you they do NOT and have NEVER followed the alignment system. They create a personality for their characters and put themselves in their characters shoes and say "what would this character do in this situation?" instead of "what does my alignment say the character will do."
Because when you look at the paladin example it's not that there's gray there...there are two conflicting sets of black and white...
A paladin would never conspire with an evil being...
A paladin would never stand idly as people die if he could do something to save them even at the cost of his own life
So which alignment moral boundary important?
Your character...not the unrealistic alignment system...decides.
Is saving the lives of the innocents worth him sacrificing his pride and his life/soul? If he refuses to act because of his moral pride would he be able to bear the guilt? It's a personal decision...one YOU have you make for YOUR CHARACTER based on how you feel YOUR CHARACTER would behave. There's no rules which can possibly cover that situation which is why those rules were tossed aside.
You see, in my example the old alignment system would force the Paladin to immediately kill the imp and he would not be able to have any deals with devils.
In a morally more flexible system my example could be the starting point of a fantastic adventure. For example how it was all a setup by some archfiend who has a bone to pick with the Paladin's god and how the players must find a way to help their Warrior of God bro to get out of the pact he agreed to.
Good and Evil are useful to set absolutes when creating a campaign and establishing the setting, but the most intriguing stories often come from the grey in-between and from the moral obligations created by good dungeons masters.
Many interesting characters in literature, movies and comics would not be possible in such a rigid moral system. We would have no James Bond, no Clint Eastwood as bounty hunter, no Han Solo, no Wolverine if everything was black and white.
I won't kill you...but I don't have to save you.
That does get a bit into the moral gray area of questioning whether lack of saving lives is causing deaths...
But it doesn't define him as evil.
Magenubbie definitely was a lot more consise in his response though, the alignment system should have only been used as a general guideline and not as a decision making tool. The icorporation of the alignment system into actual game mechanics caused completely unreasonable paradoxes and limitations on character development.
Which is why the authors don't use it. If they wrote a story following the black and white alignment system you would end up feeling like you were reading children's books about Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or something.
I encourage any of you "but alignments say..." people to go read or watch Game of Thrones. It's a perfect example of how people with consistent personality and moral standings will make both good and evil decisions based on perspective.
While I agree with grey moral areas. Example Erevis Cale a "goodly person who worships Mask. However a person who has no qualm with killing isn't exactly a prime candidate for Corellon.
Basically a Evil Deity would take on a Good person because that God would find a use for them to further his goals. While a Good aligned God would not take on a Evil person or someone who has tarnished their soul(warlocks) to further anything.
Once again I agree on making your character portray how you would act in his situation but this game force feeds a Deity onto you and an Invoking System. And for people who want to stay in a theme it creates a lotta headache. Tbh we simple should have the option to not worship a Deity(and no taking Kelemvor because you go to the Fugue Plane isnt the same thing).
I am just not an advocate of the alignment system.
I do suggest doing what we do, dismiss the Deity System as inadequate, stick your tongue out at it, and say you worship whatever god you want. My HR is a follower of Mask. IDC what the game *thinks* is his Deity because it's my character and in roleplaying imagination trumps everything else. I'll imagine the coin is a Mask. The game does not dictate what my character's personalities and habits are, only my imagination does.
Mystra died alot, yeah, but she's not "dead", just a different person acquiring Mystra's divine essence therefore reincarnating her. Without Mystra magic itself would fail and cause some unspeakable apocalypse (spellplague). Or some other god like Shar or Bane would claim her essence and plunge the world into darkness and shadow, fun fun...
But yeah I've never liked the alignment system, although when it comes to gaming (especially CPRG's) having some system to tell you where your morality lies is good. When it comes to games you have to understand not everybody is as imaginative as old DND gamers so this stuff will continue to be dictated by a black-and-white morality scale for CRPG's. For tabletop, yeah, screw the alignment system, your freedoms rely only on imagination, not the game itself.
Use your imagination as both are valid AD&D templates.
"Why is it dragons only use ketchup? I'd like a little wasabi please. Us silvers like a variety of condiments."
"Don't call them foolish mortals. One, they don't learn from it. Two, It just ticks them off." - An Ancient Red Dragon
. . . I don't mind having an optional alignment system that portrays on your character sheet to add to the geek factor for us PnP fans. However, just like in 4th edition, it shouldn't be a mandatory part of the game. The same with deities, we need to have the option to worship no deity as well as the ability to switch deities. Adding this to Respec Token's effects would be sweet - or even nicer would be to just allow us to pay a small AD fee (like companion name changes) to switch deities. This latter is supported in 4th edition's PnP rules for worshiping deities, as divine power is no longer granted by the deity themselves.
. . . The gods can only grant mortals access, they cannot block them once they have access (except for cases like Corellon or Mystra, who have control over the shattered/reforming weave still). Once you've been ordained by a church or granted access by a God, you are free to worship how you choose, or not at all. But just because your god cannot strip a disobedient mortal their access to Divine Magic, it doesn't mean they won't do other things to influence or get revenge upon a heretic of their faith.
. . . So, in short; PnP D&D supports the ability to swap deities or not worship them at all. It would be awesome if the Deity/Invocation system in Neverwinter could be updated to compliment that, indeed!
. . . As for Mystra... The essence that is Mystra is part of the very fabric that Realmspace is made of. The Weave is both Light and Dark magic, which is Mystra when given consciousness, ergo The Caretaker. Mystryl was formed by Selune removing all her magic from herself and hurling it at Shar in an attempt to destroy her. Instead, it ripped all of Shar's magic from her and the two formed in Mystryl.
. . . Lord Ao, the "God of the Gods," feared the power of Mystryl and over time, placed boundaries upon her to keep her power in check. She lost access to the Timestream when she perished the first time and became Mystra. She is forced to endow mortals with her divine essence (Chosens of Mystra/Seven Sisters/Elminster, etc). This keeps Mystra under Ao's control, in the grand scheme of things. When a chosen or item bearing Mystra's essence dies or uses that divine power, it slowly returns to Mystra throgh the fabric of the Multiverse, the Weave, and back into her... a process that can take hundreds if not thousands of years - another safeguard by Lord Ao.
. . . The essence that is Mystra has always been since Lord Ao first created Realmspace. It then split into Shar and Selune and then later formed into Mystryl. When the Caretaker "dies," she is reincarnated through one of Mystra's chosens or she can even theoretically be brought back using enough Blue Flame items (items that hold the very essence of Mystra/Mystryl herself). To destroy Mystra entirely would mean destroying not only her conscious form (Mystra) and her essence (The Weave) but also Selune, Shar and all of Realmspace. Otherwise, she will always eventually return. Lord Ao might be able to do something, but as a DM even I believe Lord Ao would consider it a precarious feat to go against Mystra at the height of her power.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
A quote from the Sentinel explains this quite perfectly: A deity can never truly die so long as it lives in the heart of one of it's followers.
If a Deity in the realm dies and it's essence is not destroyed that deity floats in the astral sea for at least a hundred years. Unless the Deity is then destroyed or its essence stolen from the astral sea this deity can then reawaken so long as it has a follower.
Which is what is happening during The Sundering to many of the gods Wizards of the Coast killed off during the Spellplague.
A dead deity will no longer be interacting with mortals but it's important to remember mortals normally don't know when gods die. They will still continue to follow long after their gods go silent. Fourth Edition even changed the way Clerics can spells so they don't even need to worship a Deity. So long as they believe in something they will still have access to most spells.
You could, like my dwarf, worship his best friend George and be no worse for wear as a cleric.
You're forgetting about fey pact warlock, don't think tieflings would be better than elves or half-elves as this type of warlock. I hope they makes this a second paragon path. Hope they have this at launch.
It makes me wonder, what's the difference between a Cleric and a Warlock? I guess a warlock doesn't have to be devoted.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
In the forgotten realms setting,coming in contact with evil deities,will eventually corrupt even the most well intentioned characters.So no matter what ,if you start messing around with demons or the far realm you'll end up destroying the very thing you sought to save in the first place and becoming evil or mad or both.That's the nature of evil,there is always a catch. As for the Alignment System i thought it was very helpful,in giving a base upon which to categorize npc's and lets not forget that it determined the way some spells,such as "protection from evil/good/law/chaos" etc., worked.
Love it! Fistandantilus, the god in disguise! Almost forgot about him!
I am always getting into my characters heads, but there are certain quests one has to complete to continue that give me pause. Why would an 'evil' character care if some guard's wife was killed? True toward the end of that quest you can easily RP that your character goes after the wizard only to try and steal the results of the ritual, but until that point you are stuck trying to figure out why your character would act out of their personality and go out of their way to do a 'good' deed. Do not get me wrong. I love my imagination, but sometimes it can be difficult lol
Conversely, a similar argument could be made for Lawful characters. You are, in fact, helping to subvert the lawful order to relocate infected spellscarred. Sure, it might be the moral thing, But not the lawful thing. After all, had the player turned in Dorethea. That would of prevented Razzad from using her, and might of slowed down, or prevented all the damage he caused.
A case could be made for many of the quests in the game, for good or bad. As others have pointed out. Alignments are simply shackles, that bind and obstruct characters rather then to help them.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
No, they are entirely different mechanics.
Take Asmodeus, even if he is a god and he does have a church a contract with him is exactly that, a contract so you get power in exchange for something as his clerics get their spells bestowed by a entirely different way and are expected to behave in the interests of Asmodeus or get their spells revoked, Warlocks dont have those problems since they get power as a exchange for something.
The question about gods comes from Forgotten Realms specific mechanics were everyone must have a patron deity or he is a faithless and that is bad as in, if you dont have a patron deity you dont go to "heaven" and that means you dont get resurrected because your soul simply dissipates, this means a Faithless simply cannot be res'd thats a issue at high level play were death is not just a occupational hazard but a common occurrence, I doubt 4th changed that but still Neverwinter does force people to select a patron deity and this is were the problem comes since of the list neither really works since for some strange and bizarre reason we go with a Hell Pact and flavor text is infernal instead being neutral or at least Fey, its at odds with the Patron Deity selection.
Having a Warlock with a infernal power in the same part as a cleric of Moradin is simply hilarious silly.
Thanks for info!
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Warlocks contracts differ from warlock to warlock -- almost invariably, the warlock gains power, but the other end of the contract is not always explicit. In a contract with a devil, the devil may simply gain influence over the warlock, which it uses when it deems necessary. With a star pact, oftentimes the warlock doesn't know what is expected of him/her up to the end.
Also, several of the epic-tier warlock powers seem to imply that at a high level, warlocks can defy their pacts. Perhaps this makes them similar to god-cleric relations, in which the warlock's access to power cannot be broken.
We *do* have a precedent of 2 variations within the same class, (namely GWF vs GF), so perhaps somewhere down the line, they could offer something like this - since most of their powers would differ from the Scourge Warlock.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
It's a possibility, sure. I imagine that having such a large pool of powers to choose from, they will build a smaller pool combining every pact. I don't think all the start pact ones will make it though.
Flavor wise, it seems that they will favour the more stereotypical Infernal pact. Can't wait to play it though
The thing is, would a different Paragon path be sufficient to differentiate an infernal pact from a fey or elemental one?
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Well, no, because in the books each pact has their own set of encounters, daily and utility powers from which to choose, which complement each other either in synergy/strategy or in theme. Besides that, each pact has its own paragon paths, which are oriented and add to the mechanics of the chosen pact.
So what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be the same, because there won't be that many powers to choose from in the power tree for the class to be able to make the difference that would make choosing them from the same pact.
The last time I played pen & paper D&D 4E my character was a pure star pact Warlock, I was happy with the strategies her powers brought to the game. The hellfire warlock is more about raw damage, whereas the star pact has a secondary controller role.
No not at all. They can be Godly or a lowly Imp. The more powerful the creature/entity you form a pact with the more power you can become