Could we please have a non evil/ammoral pact for Warlocks? :)

From what's been said about 4th ed, and current 3.5 warlocks, they are basically tied to either out right evil, or deeply dangerous/ammoral forces, ie Fey.

The derivation of warlock is from European for an "oath breaker", which to those cultures was about as low as you could ever be, and thus, warlocks came into culture as a cursed evil spell user etc.

However, in my home brew campaign setting, for 20 odd years, Warlocks have had another type: good guys who fight the evil ones. But I never had a good mechanic for them, and had ot set them as being wizard/fighters in 1st/2nd ed.

3.5 brought us Warlocks, and they are innately magical, but different to the more sophisticated sorcerors.

I'd suggest that Warlocks are capable of drawing their raw power, eldritch blast, from innate ability, not a pact with evil/destruction seeking beings. However, their innate raw magical nature attracts various entities who offer knowledge of powers to further their own ends, which may not always be malign or destructive.

Thus I think, Warlocks should have varying different pacts, including Good ones.
Elemental definatley seems appropriate, as do say, deities/powers of Magic, say, Mystra in the Realms (though she'll be gone for 4th ed, sigh).

I just don't like the idea that the D&D class of "warlock",as seemingly innately tied to malign uses of their powers. Note that Fey powers ot me, are uncaring of mortals, and while not evil, could certainly wish human towns obliterated etc. They are ammoral, they are uncaring, not immoral and wishing harm like the fiends.

I'd rather warlocks were mysterious and dangerous, and some definately tied to evil powers, but currently, they are made largely a "malign" class. I like playing heroes, even if they are odd/dangerous, I don't see why a warlock character has to be almost shoe horned into a nasty path, as D&D warlocks are not European mythical warlocks.

This is not to say that their powers have ot be "fluffy bunny" stuff, lol, no. But they shouldn't be largely allied with fiends! I know there's a Feywild pact, but there should be Celestial and ELemental pacts, too. or perhaps mechanics where they have to wrestle with their deadly powers?

I can see warlocks being more wild, elemental types, than almost automatically evil folk. Thus folk fear them from raw power, mysteriosu nature and the occassional really evil SOB.

The opposite of a paladin is an assassin, and an assassin is *not* a class in this regard, it's anyone who kills for money. Thus, warlocks should nto be seen as the balance to paladins, if this is a reaosning for their "evil" bias?

Hm? :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I think warlocks can be good characters, but I feel their powers should always have an "edge". The name Warlock after all brings images of dark and dangerous magic. Honestly I am intrigued by the Fey and Star pacts as possibilities for a heroic warlock.

pacts with good powers could certainly work... but it kind of dulls the original heroic warlock idea.

That does remind me of Enochian Mystics from Dark*Matter; they were similar to diabolists in that they made deals with otherworldly powers. But in their case, they made vows to do good things in exchange for their arcane power. Their abilities were fundamentally different than the Diabolists; where the Diabolist's spells were violent and put demons into bondage, Enochian magic was more passive and defensive. I would see these "good warlocks" as having more of a leader role than a striker role.
 
Last edited:

Personally, I dislike the whole evil-curious concept. If I make the jump to 4E, there will be no tieflings or infernal warlocks. I always prefered Batman to Spawn.
 

Dronehound said:
Personally, I dislike the whole evil-curious concept.

I have to agree with this. I don't have a problem allowing tieflings and warlocks, but they just smack of cliche. Ooo, the dark tormented soul struggling against evil. Very '90s.

Of course, I prefer Superman over Batman. ;)
 

I can imagine a chaotic-good warlock pact, I guess, but I don't think many LG angels would be up for it.

From what we've seen, warlocks don't seem to have many responsibilities to the creatures they make pacts with - it's a binding deal on both sides, which can lead to Spawn-style situations where an infernal-pact warlock ends up fighting against devils. The reason devils will make pacts with warlocks despite this, as I see it, is that both sides think they can outsmart the other. The devil-prince believes his power will ultimately corrupt the warlock, and the warlock thinks his own will is strong enough to overcome that corruption.

This doesn't really work for angels. Nobody's thinking, "If I give this guy the ability to blow :):):):) up with holy power, eventually he'll turn nice!"

Now, there might be room for some chaotic-good warlock pacts. I can imagine a Nordic-pantheon-influenced Runebearer, who's basically enlisted as an agent of Valhalla by warrior-gods who prize warrior prowess above all else.

I can also imagine an ancestor-worship type Bloodline pact, where the warlock vows to uphold the tenets of his revered forefathers (maybe like the elf ghost things in Eberron) and is imbued with ghostly power because of it. Or maybe a Sixth Sense pact, where lost and wandering dead spirits lend you their power.

None of these are necessarily good in the way an infernal pact seems to be necessarily evil, but you could definitely come up with a shiny carebear LG character who uses these pacts.

Anyway, I think the reason these aren't in the first PHB is that they want the warlock to be the emo "evil-curious" class, the same way the paladin is the shining "Boy Scout" class, and they don't want to dilute that right out of the gate, even if they're building in easy ways to turn both classes against type.
 

Nellisir said:
I have to agree with this. I don't have a problem allowing tieflings and warlocks, but they just smack of cliche. Ooo, the dark tormented soul struggling against evil. Very '90s.

Of course, I prefer Superman over Batman. ;)
Go with the suggestion in Races & Classes of a character that walks the line between Good & Evil. They don't care much about anything, they just don't have what it takes to go "all the way" to one side or other. There's no torment or angst there, because they simply don't care enough for there to be any angst.
 

Dronehound said:
Personally, I dislike the whole evil-curious concept. If I make the jump to 4E, there will be no tieflings or infernal warlocks. I always prefered Batman to Spawn.

Well, you have to leave in the infernal warlocks for the NPC's, though. :] And being a tiefling doesn't necessarily mean you are evil-curious. It just means your ancestors did some nasty things and paid for it. Sure, it may mean that some people look at you funny and assume you have bad intentions, but half-orcs in 3rd have the same exact problem, and they aren't so bad, right?
 

The Warlock class is about asking the cosmos "who is giving out free power?" Last i checked morally upstanding entities don't usually do that.
 

Dronehound said:
Personally, I dislike the whole evil-curious concept.
Me neither. It smacks of emotional immaturity to me. You're "curious" about things that are possibly interesting and educational; "evil" is not in that category. "Evil-curious" just says to me "I like being mean to people, but I'm too much of a coward to admit it." It's even worse than Evil in that way; I can respect Palpatine and Vader because (even if I wanted Han and Luke to win) they were at least honest about what they were up up.

Dronehound said:
If I make the jump to 4E, there will be no tieflings or infernal warlocks.
"... with unedited fluff" is how I would have ended that sentence. There may be perfectly good mechanics in there for re-purposing.
 

Remove ads

Top