Silverblade The Ench
First Post
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?
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?
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
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?
