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

[Plane Sailing]

The Warlock is entirely built upon the a classic archetype. Insult the archetype as "emo" or "evil-curious" if you want, but it has hundreds of years of history.

Arguably it sounds like it is diametrically opposed to the classic archetype, surely?

If the 4e Warlock is all about making pacts, and the 'traditional' warlock is all about breaking pacts (oath-breaker, right?)

I think the best argument for the possibility of good aligned warlocks comes from the confirmed presence of evil aligned paladins. If Paladins are no longer lock-stepped to LG, then why should Warlocks be lock-stepped to evil?

FWIW I'm sure that once we've actually seen the mechanics for Warlocks in full (when the PHB comes out) there will be plenty of 'design space' for creating essentially good themed warlocks if necessary.

However, considering that many (most?) adventurers are likely to be 'unaligned' and the general downplaying of alignment, maybe that too will help to make it less of an issue?

Cheers

 

[fuindordm]

I'm a bit on the fence.

I imagine my campaign world's moral argument as this: those who seek raw power for its own sake are seldom worthy to have it. Good empowers those who serve: clerics are servants of a specific deity, and paladins are those who serve the greater good. Anyone who bargains for power is motivated as much by pride as a desire to do good.

Evil and amoral powers may strike such bargains, not caring terribly if they mistook the PCs motives and strength of character. (In grand tradition, they may even imitate angels as they do so, taking advantage of mortals in their time of need.) Good will not take the risk, and immediately revokes the magic of those deemed unworthy.

In that sense, the paladin and the warlock are opposites. The paladin is given magic only because she clearly deserves it; the warlock takes magic simply to do what he wills. It doesn't matter that he wills to do good at the moment; the motive is ultimately selfish.

That's definitely a 1e kind of attitude, I know.

In the context of 4E, however, it makes sense to open up the warlock class to good powers. A character class seems to be just a loose group of themed powers (some fixed, some optional) that defining a character's role in combat. The fluff is secondary, or even tertiary. If Evil has its paladins, shouldn't Good have its warlocks?

The only problem is one of imagination: thinking of a Good power source that doesn't care greatly about its warlock's actions--if they did care, why would they enter such a pact? (Answer: they wouldn't--they would reserve the right to revoke the warlock's power, i.e.,
make them a cleric.)

The Force? Maybe Warlocks are really Jedi.
Vestiges? Maybe the Astral sea is occupied by a semiconscious gestalt of long-dead but beneficent gods.
The DM? Maybe the world is just the dream of some greater being, and warlocks are just those who manage to touch this consciousness directly. How they interpret that experience is up to them.
Alien Invasion? Again, maybe all warlocks really touch the same power source--an alien entity that whispers of madness (see the books of Lawrence Watt-Evans)

...wait a minute, I'm veering into EMO again. The first two ideas could work, though.

 

[Belorin]

One of the things that stand out about Warlock is that it's power comes from sources beyond the norm, forgotten gods, demons, fey spirits and the darkness between the stars.
If the character just wanted power than the paths of Cleric or Wizard are there for the choosing, but no, the Warlock wants power now, real power the kind that even Clerics and Wizards fear to take. And that is a dangerous path, a path good leaning characters are loathe to tread.
An angel or even a devil from the Nine Hells would offer traditional power based on the deity or Prince they serve and not offer up their own least they be perceived as overstepping their boundries.

Bel

 

[kennew142]

I can see no reason why warlocks couldn't have celestial pacts. The rules would seem to support it, and there is no conceptual reason why the class should be limited in this way. I'm sure that the posters in these forums asking for celestial pacts are not alone in their desires.

For the other GMs, it is easy enough to leave out the pacts they don't like.

Since I will not be using alignments at all in my upcoming 4e campaign, it is likely that any NPC with a celestial pact the party encounters will be just as edgy as the infernal pact warlocks. Celestial forces IMC are more interested in defeating the forces of Hell and enforcing the moral/ethical codes that they have laid down for lesser sophonts to follow than they are in an abstract concept like "good". They are more like the ori from Stargate SG-1 than they are like 3e celestials.

Much like in Moorecock's multiverse, IMC mortals are usually better off without the interference of creatures from the "outer planes".

 

[Gloombunny]

"Good" does not always mean "fluffy bunny"

This is why warlocks do not need angelic pacts to be good guys.

 

[variant]

If I get 4th edition, there will be no infernal Warlocks nor tieflings. I have been against the tiefling being in the PHB from the beginning. It really makes me mad they took out the gnome and replaced it with that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I always prefered Batman to Spawn.

Spawn is the best superhero analog for the warlock. Or maybe one of those 70s guys like Orion or Ghost Rider.

The warlock's powers come from an evil or abhuman source. He himself is tainted but not necessarily evil.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Arguably it sounds like it is diametrically opposed to the classic archetype, surely?

If the 4e Warlock is all about making pacts, and the 'traditional' warlock is all about breaking pacts (oath-breaker, right?)

Etymology of the name is meaningless in this context. The idea of a "person who makes a deal in exchange for power, but at a terrible cost" is unarguably a long-standing archetype, completely separate from whatever use the word Warlock has had in the past. However, because of recent usage, the warlock is decent name for a magic-user based on that archetype.

As a whole, I don't think the old meaning of 'Oathbreaker" has any meaning in the modern usage at all.

Besides, the idea of the classic archetype behind the warlock is the battle of wits between the warlock and the being he has made a pact with. Essentially, it is built on the struggle between the warlock and the pact he has made, and the desire to subvert it and get power with no strings attached. In a sense, it is both making a pact and trying to avoid the terms of the pact. "Oathbreaker" works just fine in that context.

I think the best argument for the possibility of good aligned warlocks comes from the confirmed presence of evil aligned paladins. If Paladins are no longer lock-stepped to LG, then why should Warlocks be lock-stepped to evil?

Because Warlocks are not lock-stepped to evil. However, they are bound to things that are dangerous and power that comes at a cost. As a whole, it is a completely opposing archetype to the idea of a servant of a benevolent deity, or a champion of justice, or a fanatical servant of a god, who don't pay the cost because they are loyal to the cause of their patron.

In D&D, if you want to be evil and have the power of evil gods and demons, you just need to be an evil Cleric. It really makes more sense for the user of a fiendish pact to be a non-evil character, if you ask me, because that implies the essential struggle.

Similarly, if you want to be good through the service of a good god, a Cleric makes a lot of sense. But a warlock who has made a pact with a good god could only be a "oathbreaker" if he is in conflict with his patron. In other words, he has to be a person who wants the power of a saint, without being saint-like. In many ways, you would have to be an evil character to use a celestial warlock pact.

FWIW I'm sure that once we've actually seen the mechanics for Warlocks in full (when the PHB comes out) there will be plenty of 'design space' for creating essentially good themed warlocks if necessary.

However, considering that many (most?) adventurers are likely to be 'unaligned' and the general downplaying of alignment, maybe that too will help to make it less of an issue?

Cheers

Well, I don't think you need to have anything but fiendish pacts to justify a good-aligned warlock. He becomes a complex figure, but I think it works fine.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I can see warlocks as being good. They are ambitious and ruthless, but sometimes that's what it takes to fight evil.

I don't know what pact swearing entails, but it sounds like it can involve stealing power. I bet warlocks won't have to agree with a devil's or demon's philosophy in order to take its power. They're just willing to play with fire - hopefully for them they don't get burned.

In any case, infernal pacts are frowned upon by Asmodeus. In R&C, it specifically mentions that Asmodeus destroyed the devils who developed infernal pacts. If *Asmodeus* doesn't like them, then swearing infernal pacts doesn't seem like it is automatically evil.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm already a little worried that warlocks may have too many pact options. Squeezing too many of these things into one class can be bad. You end up with characters who should have very different abilities being almost the same in play - just look at the 3e cleric, who can be a priest of any sort of god or even no god, but gets pretty much the same abilities regardless.

At least the four pacts 4e is going with for the warlock all have some "not nice" flavor in common. Putting in angel pacts or whatever would really stretch the warlock concept too thin. It should be its own class, not a subset of warlock.