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

[Rechan]

Oh, I see. He was being curtious. Heaven forbid someone should use a made up and ill-difined term (it's not even defined in the dictionary for goodness sake) that doesn't 100% completely agree with another person's interpretation of what "emo" means.

1) If "emo" is made up, then all terms are made up.

2) Emo is short for Emotional music, which is a genre.

3) Dictionary.com has it. Or at least a link that shows you towards an acronym finder which has the definitions there for the various acronyms that EMO stands for.

4) Yes, people are criticized for throwing around meaningless terms like "Videogamey" "Too Anime" "Kiddies" or whatever at something they don't like in a derogatory manner, instead of just saying they don't like it it. It's a bit rude. God forbid someone call another person on it. Some people need to take things a little more seriously.

 

[Rechan]

, but they just smack of cliche. Ooo, the dark tormented soul struggling against evil. Very '90s.

Because none of the other classes in D&D smack of cliche, right?

Besides, Warlocks aren't defined as "tormented" or "struggling". I imagine that the fey packs, or the Shadow pacts, aren't all that "struggling".

Assuming I don't like the Fey or Shadow pacts first, the first character I'd make would be an infernal Warlock in the mold of Constantine - finding a way to Steal power from a fiend, in order to fight demons. The old "Fight fire with fire".

 

[Rechan]

On the topic of Good sources...

My problem is that the Warlock is supposed to be Power with strings attached, to some degree. So, there needs to be strings attached to those powers of the Celestial pacts. Otherwise, why aren't the Celestials just handing out pacts like candy, and you have armies of Celestial warlocks fightin' evil in the name of Good?

My answer would be: Angels aren't warm fuzzy Hallmark card-types. They are forces of might, the instruments of a God's will. Most of the instances of angels in the Bible have them doing very un-nice things, like killing first born, obliterating armies, and destroying cities. Angels are the Gods' Special Forces.

Given that, when an Angel shares a piece of its power, it's only going to do so sparingly. They have Standards, or limitations to their own power, or other issues.

More importantly, when an Angel gives a Pact, that Pact isn't just an agreement - it's a contract for Service. The Warlock becomes the instrument of that Angel. And the Angel doesn't give a Crap if the Warlock wants to save Happytown from a Necromancer - he was Given that pact to fight Demons in Joyland, and he better get his butt to Joyland and kick some demon ass. That makes a Celestial warlock more like a secret agent - the same expectations to follow their mission to a T and serve their masters. So when that Angel gives you orders to do something, you Go Do It.

 

[FireLance]

I would expect the biggest string that is attached to powers derived from Good pacts is that they cannot be used for Evil purposes. The occasional stumble is only to be expected from imperfect mortals , but once the character makes a habit of performing questionable acts, the powers of Good will withdraw their support.

My issue with the absence of Good-aligned pacts for warlocks is partly philosophical. In my games, I try to keep to the principle that unless it involves something inherently objectionable to the powers of Good, being Good should not put you at a disadvantage. Now, while individual warlock powers may be inherently objectionable, I do not believe that being an arcane striker, making pacts, or using eldritch blasts are, so I would prefer to give Good-aligned individuals the option of obtaining these abilities from a similarly-aligned source. The argument that the powers of Good choose to empower clerics and paladins instead of warlocks makes them look rather short-sighted. After all, not everyone is cut out to be a cleric or a paladin, and if there is a Good-aligned individual that would make a good warlock, why would the powers of Good choose not to empower him?

 

[Wormwood]

Some people need to take things a little more seriously.

Needless to say, others could take things a little less seriously.

 

[Rechan]

Needless to say, others could take things a little less seriously.

Given that Rigamortis had specifically said that, I was responding to that specifically.

Thing is, I know when to take something seriously and when not to. Like Klaus's picture? Totally funny, cuz I'm not taking it serious.

 

[Rechan]

The argument that the powers of Good choose to empower clerics and paladins instead of warlocks makes them look rather short-sighted. After all, not everyone is cut out to be a cleric or a paladin, and if there is a Good-aligned individual that would make a good warlock, why would the powers of Good choose not to empower him?

Not everyone is fit to be a PC. Isn't the assumption, at least in 3e, that 90% of the human/demi-human population are Commoners?

Someone with paladin or cleric levels is likely to be rare in the first place.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

How do you explain a "good" WoW Warlock who can summon demons?

Malconvocer? (Complete Scoundrel)

 

[FireLance]

Not everyone is fit to be a PC. Isn't the assumption, at least in 3e, that 90% of the human/demi-human population are Commoners?

Someone with paladin or cleric levels is likely to be rare in the first place.

This still doesn't answer the question why the powers of Good would rather be served by a second-rate paladin instead of a first-rate warlock.

 

[Walking Dad]

This still doesn't answer the question why the powers of Good would rather be served by a second-rate paladin instead of a first-rate warlock.

What would be the difference between a good/evil warlock and a good/evil cleric or Paladin.

If you can answer this question, I may be help you with yours.

We don't know enough of the game mechanic to tell if an Warlock of Good would make sense or not.