Wizards hate warlocks

[Gargoyle]

At least, according to the newest Legends and Lore article:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Sorcerers and Warlocks)

Anyone else bothered by this generalization? It reminds me of campaigns where elves hate dwarves. Good players know that rivalries in the party make for good roleplaying, but newer or less mature players will see this and may head straight into some unwanted (by most) pvp.

On the other hand, maybe this is just fine? Perhaps not all player classes and races have to get along with each other and it's time to start encouraging conflict and see where it goes?

Obviously, this is in regard to the descriptions of classes and races in the core rules, YMMV in specific campaigns.

 

[tuxgeo]

At least, according to the newest Legends and Lore article:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Sorcerers and Warlocks)

Anyone else bothered by this generalization? It reminds me of campaigns where elves hate dwarves. Good players know that rivalries in the party make for good roleplaying, but newer or less mature players will see this and may head straight into some unwanted (by most) pvp.

On the other hand, maybe this is just fine? Perhaps not all player classes and races have to get along with each other and it's time to start encouraging conflict and see where it goes?

Obviously, this is in regard to the descriptions of classes and races in the core rules, YMMV in specific campaigns.

So far, I am quite underwhelmed by the 5ENext take on Sorcerers and Warlocks. In one sense, Mike is right: there isn't any long-standing D&D lore about those classes; in another sense, he's just presenting the point of view of the Wizard class, so of course there is going to be resentment displayed. (Some Wizards even resent other Wizards.)

One of the oldest tropes about Dwarves was the notion that they mistrusted all arcane magic, whether it be the magic of a Wizard, a Witch, a Warlock, a Sorcerer, or a Bard. In that light, it shouldn't be too surprising that mistrust of the arcane remains a feature in the game, either displayed by Dwarves or displayed by other arcanists. In my opinion, he's focusing too much on the dangers and not enough on the possibilities for such a character. (Or maybe he's saying that the dangers are a large part of the possibilities. I don't know.)

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, it make sense when you factor in the common/uncommon/rare thing.

Wizards: Common. The most typical form of arcane study. Wizardly magic is fairly predictable, limited by what is known, and tightly regulated.

Sorcerers: Uncommon. Magic in the raw-form, dangerous and unpredictable few can master it.

Warlock: Rare. Secrets man was not meant to know, forbidden and locked away along with the rituals to contact alien and strange beings...

 

[Stormonu]

eh, it's not how I envision sorcerers working. As for the wizard vs. sorcerer, I think its fine there be seen a level of distrust. When everybody gets along (like the PC races in Star Frontiers), it feels unrealistic. Prejudice is everywhere in our world - and we only have humans.

 

[mlund]

Yup, I think this is pretty much spot-on.

I especially like the idea of Warlocks having to sacrifice more and more for power as they go. It sets an interesting stage for me to ponder whether a warlock will be willing to submit totally to their patron for power or whether they'll attempt to in some way defeat and usurp their patron.

The concept of a dual nature for sorcerers is excellent. While the basic bloodline examples are nice, it is also a nice hook for reincarnated or fabricated characters.

Wait, no, never-mind. Forget I said anything! If we go there someone's going to have a reincarnated sorcerer-king that slew his enemies using a children's card game and that can't possibly end well.

- Marty Lund

 

[jrowland]

I don't have a problem with it. I think narrative hooks help to define the character, and playing against "type" is just another RP hook. How many "reformed Drow" exist in campaigns? It's only fun to play because Drow are so thoroughly evil.


As for new, young, immature players, etc. I think 5E is taking the view that D&D is not an introductory game by its nature. Which modules to allow/disallow, what kind of campaign, simulationist vs gamist, are all very abstract "mature" decisions. If you can't ignore Warlock flavor text, you'll have bigger problems with the game.

Look around Gen Con (or any Con)...whats the target demographic? Sure kids are present, but usually with their gaming parents. That represents your CORE constituency. As for new players, introductory sets are more appropriate, and lkely would not include things like Warlock, let alone heavy flavor text.

 

[Tovec]

Yeah, I'm definitely not sold on these versions of Sorcerer and Warlock.

In fact, this sorcerer seems a lot more like a Warlock, and the warlock a lot more like a Wizard (up until the meddlers part).

I think of my sorcerers as those who have magic in their background or bloodline, but more ancestrally instead of some other soul trapped inside. I see them as being innate to magic and not needing to study it, unlike wizards. Wizards are definitely the ones who study for hours, or go searching for long forgotten secrets to perform powerful magic. I also see wizards as the ones forming bonds with eldritch creatures. What they described for the warlock is what I see for all sorcerers who make deals they shouldn't.

I see wizards as the careful study of magic to figure out what its limits are and where it can be broken, remolded and mastered. Sorcerers I see the as opposite of that. I do see them first manifesting powers in adolescence if only because that is when most natural talents emerge. Sorcerers are the ones who feel magic in them and use it towards often explosive results. They can be the ones who spew magic (or fire) from their mouths or innately know magical words to transform or charm others. If there is one area I feel sorcerers shouldn't be as good at performing that would probably be summoning, as I don't see them caring to learn to summon other creatures to fight their battles for them. When you have the power of a dragon somewhere rumbling around inside you, I see less reason to want to make pacts or summon demons.

My problem I guess has always been the warlock. I get the feel of what that article was trying to say but I very much disagree on the methods or even the mindset of the potential warlock. I don't see warlocks as seeking out dark secrets to summon evil creatures for the purpose of making pacts. I see them more as the weak or infirm in movies who make deals with the devil in exchange for a promising outcome. This is part of why I disagree with the articles' 2 souls thing for the sorcerers - that is where I feel you start to get into warlock territory. Warlocks are the ones who ACCEPT deals but I don't see them as the ones seeking them out. Instead I see them as the bearers of curses that were brought on by their acceptance of terms from a dark creature. For this reason I expect to see them have powers, but once again I see those powers differently than from a wizard or sorcerer. Where a wizard studies, and a sorcerer explodes with raw power - the warlock is more about having powers that are unseen. They get wings, or improved strength, perhaps (in 3e terms) a few spell-like abilities. As slowly but surely the warlock starts losing their soul and what makes them them and turning into an outsider, elemental, fey or whatever species they made the pact with. In exchange for a boon, and for a favourable result to start (maybe akin to a wish?) they sacrifice their soul and join the creatures they made a deal with.

Long and ramble-y I know, but this article bugged me and I figured there was no way to explain how without giving my mindset. YMMV of course.

 

[The Shadow]

Normally, I quite resent more than the most minimal presumption by the rules about what my game world will be like.

But I can't get worked up about this one. What warlocks do is so 'out there' that it's hard to envision a society capable of tolerating them for long. It's not so much that wizards hate them; it's that nobody really likes them, period. Heck, I bet most clerics regard them as anathema.

The one thing warlocks have going for them is that most people probably can't really tell the difference between them and wizards. (They both carry big books, they both throw magic around, they both want all the lore they can get their hands on...)

Of course, a society in which warlocks seized power could be an exception... and by that there will certainly hang a good story.

 

[Dedekind]

Independent of D&D, I have no problem accepting any of this. I think it fits (very broadly) into world lore and if I explained this to anybody with only fuzzy ideas of fantasy (only saw LotR) they would get it. I like it.


In the context of D&D, this seems to match the execution of 4e more than 3e. Two core mechanics in 4e, pacts and wildness, are the end result of the story told in the article. Could it be a different story? Yes. Is it a bad story? No.

 

[TerraDave]

I really like that this has flavor, which has been in all too short supply for, well, the last 25 years or so of D&D.

I do think warlocks are stepping on wizards space, a little (its arcane lore, but different!) , but the patrons and different mechanics make up for that.