Thread by @FreyjaErlings

I hate the Warlock discourse but;

Why would an entity empower someone only to drag them away from where that power can tempt/damn others and into poetic divine punishment. Even Faust was left to live and tempt others. hth

I hate it mostly because it's the same as every paladin discourse; how to punish someone for choosing an option presented as equal to every other option. And we should have solved that by now. Most people never made Rangers fall, always Paladins. Wizards get their powers free.

I bet most people don't even know Rangers *had* mechanics like a Paladin in ADnD for "falling" from grace. The leap here is that they're not good for Paladins either and certainly not for Warlocks.

Want to know what makes investing a mortal with power interesting? How that mortal saves or damns *themselves.* Paladins are trusted but are imperfect beings. Warlocks spread destruction wherever they go but can choose to channel it to constructive ends. No punishment needed.

Make the interesting bit not "giving up control." Make it that you're trusted and expected to act one way but the power is always yours.

Make your invested characters Spider-Man. Make it about the responsible use of power that ultimately is now *theirs* and not someone else's.

If you desperately want Paladins "falling" to be a thing, make it about social consequences. Expulsion from knightly orders. Reputation. Peasants adoring you while nobility hates you. Choices. Redemption in the eyes of people. Doubt about deserving power. Don't take the toy away.

Tldr think Spider-Man and think human.

Done.

Yep, another reason I hate the "game mechanics for taking your toys away" thing; It's such a deeply personal thing for people they one hundred percent lose sight of the part where it's deeply personal and use it to argue from generality and feelings get hurt.

Maybe the part where feelings get hurt

indicates that it's a deeply personal thing enough to hurt feelings

and not a general use case

Ugh

Every single time this discussion happens people get mad or sad that a ream of disclaimers like "what if players buy into it" or "what if I houserule this" or "what if X happens" aren't included and hey, maybe it really isn't possible to include a ream of five hundred disclaimers

Maybe, just maybe, those all fall under the act of "we play the game" and I shouldn't have to say DISCLAIMER: YOU MAY PLAY THE GAME every damn time. It's how these games *work.*

The frustration happens when people unfairly give the game credit for the fun the injected into it.

Folks;

That is how brands get you. That is the emotional connection the game is relying on to sell a product. Please don't undersell yourselves. If you did the fun, it was you. Thanks.