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

[FireLance]

I personally think the idea of "good pact" Warlocks is an idiotic non-starter, as strongly evidenced by the wild and crazy lengths people are having to go to attempt to justify the idea. Biblical strongmen with no real mystical powers are the equivalents of beam-shooting Warlocks now? What a bunch of nonsense.

People seem to be confusing Warlocks, who are Arcane Strikers, with some kind of "Adept" from Shadowrun or something, in their attempts to get a lazy "Path of What I Was Going To Do Anyway" option. The whole point of the Warlock is that you might have to do things you don't want to do/approve of, or at least be involved with such, not that you can twist the class concept to be yet another dull-as-ditchwater religious zealot.

Well, from my perspective, there is nothing about being an arcane striker, or a guy that shoots magical beams, or a guy that calls down weakening effects and extraplanar creatures and energies on his enemies, that requires him to associate with a dark-flavored power source. To me, it's bad fluff tacked onto some pretty decent mechanics. So, what is so wrong about wanting to change the flavor that makes the idea an "idiotic non-starter"? Want to play a warlock who might have to do things he doesn't want? Go ahead. But why make a fuss that some of us want something different?

I mean, is there even any evidence that 4E Warlocks can have pacts with EVIL gods as a power source, let alone Good ones? I seems to me that Warlocks make pacts with non-divine or quasi-divine beings for non-divine power (Arcane, after all).

So, the couatl option is still a go, then?

EDIT: Oh yes, and in a nod to my avatar, I think a phoenix pact warlock would be pretty hot cool, too.

 

[glass]

I personally think the idea of "good pact" Warlocks is an idiotic non-starter,

I wouldn't have put it quite like that, but this is more-or-less how I feel about it too.

Well, from my perspective, there is nothing about being an arcane striker...-snip-...that requires him to associate with a dark-flavored power source.

Indeed not. But why try and shoe-horn other kinds of arcane strikes into the Warlock class?


glass.

 

[Lord Zack]

Because they're the same thing?

 

[FireLance]

Indeed not. But why try and shoe-horn other kinds of arcane strikes into the Warlock class?

It's not an attempt to shoe-horn other kinds of arcane strikers into the warlock class. It's an attempt to broaden the flavor of the warlock class so that the base mechanics can be used for a wider variety of characters.

 

[Walking Dad]

Well, from my perspective, there is nothing about being an arcane striker, or a guy that shoots magical beams, or a guy that calls down weakening effects and extraplanar creatures and energies on his enemies, that requires him to associate with a dark-flavored power source. To me, it's bad fluff tacked onto some pretty decent mechanics. So, what is so wrong about wanting to change the flavor that makes the idea an "idiotic non-starter"? Want to play a warlock who might have to do things he doesn't want? Go ahead. But why make a fuss that some of us want something different?

So, the couatl option is still a go, then?

EDIT: Oh yes, and in a nod to my avatar, I think a phoenix pact warlock would be pretty hot cool, too.

Hm, a Rainbow Servant (comp divine) like Warlock. Could be cool.

Their is a phoenix item set in MIC. It is good for Warlocks...

BUT: Should "standard" outsiders be able to give Warlock Powers? We need to know more about "pact sources"!!

But for homebrew...

 

[FireLance]

BUT: Should "standard" outsiders be able to give Warlock Powers? We need to know more about "pact sources"!!

But for homebrew... a third-party supplement... a website-posted fan creation...

The message you have entered is too short, they said. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters, they said.

 

[Lackhand]

BUT: Should "standard" outsiders be able to give Warlock Powers? We need to know more about "pact sources"!!

We do. I think the only reason the Warlock isn't the divine striker (or controller) is because then people who don't like parallels or equivalences between angels & demons would get up in arms re: calling demons divine.

And yet... since Arcane is defined as tapping into the network of lines that enlace and encircle the world, and we don't have the divine definition yet (or, we do and I'm too lazy to look it up and so will write my own instead) so I'll use "Draws power from a deity or a collection of deities: often via the intermediary of that deity's agents"...

And I'm not just making up that last bit to fit the Warlock into the hosts of hades. Wasn't that actually the explanation for how Clerics in FR got spells in second edition, via intermediaries of their deity?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Go ahead. But why make a fuss that some of us want something different?

Because it's a change of flavour for the entire class if every non-"good pact" Warlock just made a choice to select an "evil pact" or "amoral pact". If you can't see that, you must be really blinding yourself with your own brilliance. It changes the Warlock class from "I made a pact with a possibly naughty thing in order to gain great power" to "I made a pact with a jolly good chap to gain lovely powers to be used for good, and all those chaps who didn't make good pacts? They're obviously naughty!". It makes a class which is a little bit interesting and thoughtful into yet another mindless "select the good guy" class.

I wouldn't mind a Phoenix or Couatl similar pact if they were neutral and had significant agendas.

I just don't want to see an fun and interesting class turned into yet another vehicle for people to indulge their "Oh I'm so good it hurts!" fantasies whilst getting off scott-free on the classes supposed complexity ("Oh it just happens that my good outsider friends has the exact same agenda as me! Why yes, my Warlock death-beam does look awfully like the Care Bear Stare, is that a problem?"), when there are so many classes already eminently suited to that.

I should also note that the evident "negative energy" aspects - for example the "weakening effects" you talk about, stink of "non-good" power sources to me.

 

[Walking Dad]

We do. I think the only reason the Warlock isn't the divine striker (or controller) is because then people who don't like parallels or equivalences between angels & demons would get up in arms re: calling demons divine.

And yet... since Arcane is defined as tapping into the network of lines that enlace and encircle the world, and we don't have the divine definition yet (or, we do and I'm too lazy to look it up and so will write my own instead) so I'll use "Draws power from a deity or a collection of deities: often via the intermediary of that deity's agents"...

And I'm not just making up that last bit to fit the Warlock into the hosts of hades. Wasn't that actually the explanation for how Clerics in FR got spells in second edition, via intermediaries of their deity?

No "deity/divine source" mentioned.

It will be strange, when a CR (read: 4e equivalent) 4 evil Outsider will fight the Level 28 it gave his powers :\

 

[FireLance]

Because it's a change of flavour for the entire class if every non-"good pact" Warlock just made a choice to select an "evil pact" or "amoral pact". If you can't see that, you must be really blinding yourself with your own brilliance. It changes the Warlock class from "I made a pact with a possibly naughty thing in order to gain great power" to "I made a pact with a jolly good chap to gain lovely powers to be used for good, and all those chaps who didn't make good pacts? They're obviously naughty!". It makes a class which is a little bit interesting and thoughtful into yet another mindless "select the good guy" class.

Well, I fail to see how the possibility of Good pacts turns warlocks that selected non-Good pacts into caricatures, any more than the presence of Good deities turns the clerics and paladins of non-Good deities into caricatures. I'm sure that an otherwise decent fellow who decided to make a pact with a dangerous and possibly evil entity must have had an absolutely compelling reason to do so.

I wouldn't mind a Phoenix or Couatl similar pact if they were neutral and had significant agendas.

I don't see what being neutral has to do with it. Good is not monolithic and it is possible for a Good warlock and his Good patron to have different agendas, priorities and values.

I just don't want to see an fun and interesting class turned into yet another vehicle for people to indulge their "Oh I'm so good it hurts!" fantasies whilst getting off scott-free on the classes supposed complexity ("Oh it just happens that my good outsider friends has the exact same agenda as me! Why yes, my Warlock death-beam does look awfully like the Care Bear Stare, is that a problem?"), when there are so many classes already eminently suited to that.

Indulging fantasies is part of the reason some of us are into gaming, and if the specific fantasy is "Oh I'm so good it hurts", well, there are worse fantasies that could be played out. As for the supposed complexity of the class, it's really something that each individual gaming group will choose to emphasize - or not, in the same way that each individual gaming group will choose to emphasize the cleric's religious obligations - or not. The presence of Good pacts is not going to take away from anyone the ability to play a complex and conflicted warlock.

I should also note that the evident "negative energy" aspects - for example the "weakening effects" you talk about, stink of "non-good" power sources to me.

There are a whole host of weakening effects that do not necessarily rely on negative energy: stunning, blinding, dazing, dazzling, deafening, scaring, etc.