Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Could we please have a non evil/ammoral pact for Warlocks? :)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3989197" data-attributes="member: 32536"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>As a whole, I don't think the old meaning of 'Oathbreaker" has any meaning in the modern usage at all.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Because Warlocks are <em>not</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 3989197, member: 32536"] 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. Because Warlocks are [i]not[/i] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Could we please have a non evil/ammoral pact for Warlocks? :)
Top