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

[D.Shaffer]

From some of the descriptions, sometimes the pacts arent even willing. People may be born into a pact from what their ancestors have done. The creatures granting the pact may be bound likewise. Consider the possibility of people forcing creatures to make a pact, much like Solomon used to. He wouldnt necessarily be a 'Good' alignment character, but someone who binds an angel would be making a pact with a good base.

 

[DSRilk]

I highly dislike both new races, but that's another thread...

As to evil/good warlocks, I prefer keeping their powers coming from non-friendly sources. However, that doesn't mean that they are evil. A warlock could be a demon hunter who enslaves the powers of evil in order to use them for good purposes. The additional cliche RP internal struggle is then present as well. I don't see celestials giving out power to just anyone who can grab it or who asks for it. I think they're more selective (aka preferring the "priest" road). To me, the warlock is getting their power by an evil entity trading for it or they're simply taking it, and taking from evil does not necessitate evil-doing. If that makes sense.

 

[Walking Dad]

I hope it is still possible to inherit a pact.

I hope they say if there is any disadvantage in making pacts (-> crunch, not only fluff)

I hope the upcoming "Warlock: Pacts" article will be helpful for this discussion.

I have many hopes

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As to evil/good warlocks, I prefer keeping their powers coming from non-friendly sources.

Ok, this is what I was really getting at, I think. Warlocks should not be getting their powers from friendly sources. This would allow for nominally "good" pacts without breaking the idea of the Warlock as someone who has made a bargain for power. It would still make some of their abilities a bit "out-of-line", but not wildly so.

With evil people with evil pacts you always have the tension that they've got different agendas and are out for themselves. With good people with good pacts, the presumption is that they will operate as if they're "on the same side basically" (indeed this seems to be what some of the "good pacts" crowd want). This is what undermines the concept, because a "pact" or "bargain" becomes more of an "alliance" or "exchange" or what have you.

If power sources are restricted to the "non-friendly", which could possibly include various lunatic or extremely demanding forms of "good". And really, no gods please, good, evil, or otherwise.

 

[Walking Dad]

And really, no gods please, good, evil, or otherwise.

QFT!

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Being born with, fated, cursed, unwillingly granted or trained in their powers makes MUCH more sense than getting them from "pacts".
Why/how give this kind of power from some form of "usurption"?
I mean in general, special cases are fine.

For example, "Ghost Rider" type ("Serve me or else!"); being born with it (thus it's innate); given it by vengeful spirits (whether you like it or not); a peculiar condition caused by the fury of elementals/titans (you unwittingly tap into this power, over time learning how to focus it)..and so forth.

Havign a core class who specifically, (and lot players will go this route), make pacts with fiends is NOT gonna endear D&D to folk (which includes a broader audience than the zealots). While the 80's silliness is mostly gone (and thankfully we got Devils/demons back), this is just pushing it a tad far, IMHO.
The moral choices should be broader, while keeping it "dangerous".

Yeah, we'll need ot see how the designers explain it



Disruptive players:
you all are lucky, sigh, I'm scarred for DM-life by a munchkin (sorry for using the word, but he was ), who managed to wipe or near wipe the party 3 times by his crap (once, I'm sure, deliberately), constantly grand standing, rules lawyering and bogging the game down, breaking rules/common sense to make the most apalling min/maxed characters, and several times nearly being assaulted by infuriated players, before we got rid of him...as much as some wanted to bury him under concrete as a new gaming table or garage, he was set free to haunt other poor souls in the D&D world!
*cries*

 

[Oligopsony]

LG Celestials might be obligated to give a pact to one who fulfills certain conditions, due to rules made long ago - what first starts off as a decree of justice or incentive for good behavior later becomes an esoteric path to enlightenment and power. Perhaps, long ago, the priesthood of Shur-Nihon obtained powers by uttering secret words a Deva at the top of a certain mountain; long after their empire has fallen, only a few know of this, and they're hardly committed to Nihonist ideology. (Keeping the Priesthood still imposes some ritual obligations, of course.) CG Celestials might be swayed to give powers to someone in an appropriately tragic jam - to avenge or return to a loved one, or to liberate a people.

Of course, you can easily make Good as dangerous as Evil by emphasizing the fact that, like Evil, it imposes obligations at which we recoil - fundamentally, what's the difference between sacrificing your friend to some dark god for power and sacrificing her to the demands of universal justice? From a Neutral perspective little; most people aren't Good - or Evil - for a reason. Being Good would threaten what most people hold dear, just as being Evil would; if fiends represent the terrifying possibility of being a slave to ambition and greed - becoming little more than a clever beast - celestials can represent the terrifying possibility of being a slave to morality - little more than a charming robot, a mere instrument of the abstract common good. "Selling one's soul" in either case is about the dissolution of identity that being really Good or really Evil would bring.

 

[Ahglock]

With evil people with evil pacts you always have the tension that they've got different agendas and are out for themselves. With good people with good pacts, the presumption is that they will operate as if they're "on the same side basically" (indeed this seems to be what some of the "good pacts" crowd want). This is what undermines the concept, because a "pact" or "bargain" becomes more of an "alliance" or "exchange" or what have you.

I don't see good as any different than the positives you see in the evil pacts. Even if you are good and you made a pact with a good entity your goals and agendas may be different. They are only on the same side as much as an evil PC gaining power from an evil source would be. Just like evil PCs don't usually go "muahahah lets commit some evil today", good PCs aren't saying, "muahahahah lets commit some good today" Both have goals and aspirations and both will work seek those goals in ways that suit there type, and its highly unlikely those goals and aspirations match in any way to what some extraplanar being beyonf mortal comprehension wants or desires.

 

[Walking Dad]

I don't see good as any different than the positives you see in the evil pacts. Even if you are good and you made a pact with a good entity your goals and agendas may be different. They are only on the same side as much as an evil PC gaining power from an evil source would be. Just like evil PCs don't usually go "muahahah lets commit some evil today", good PCs aren't saying, "muahahahah lets commit some good today" Both have goals and aspirations and both will work seek those goals in ways that suit there type, and its highly unlikely those goals and aspirations match in any way to what some extraplanar being beyonf mortal comprehension wants or desires.

And the point is?

In 3.5 the Warlock can do whatever he want without loosing his powers. No pact of servitude or somethin (unlike the Paladin, who must follow rules or looses his power)

The Binder, the 3.5 pact maker, has some slight behaviour changes on a bad pact only. And he needed only one feat to ignore special requirements.

Why everybody thinks it will change?

 

[Ahglock]

And the point is?

That good extraplanar beings entering into pacts with the PCs can add just as much positive story back elements as evil extraplanar beings and it would be unnecessarily limiting to narrow the warlock concept at launch to just evil or neutral sources.