Dark Speech & the Warlock

I would agree with you on the flavor text issue (see my above post) were it not for the fact that in the invocation full description it says:
... Dark Speech (described in Book of Vile Darkness) ...
That statement removes it from being flavor text.

However, upon rereading the feat Dark Speech, and the description of its uses, I find that in the feat, nothing is mentioned about knowing it and speaking it is an evil act. In the description, there are several uses that are evil, but the one most similar, the softening use, is not strictly evil. One could even see the power as the warlock saying shatter in the Dark Speech, and objects shattering due to its power.

However, on the flip side, does using the Words of Creation constitute a good act?
If so, then it logically follows that using the Dark Speech constitutes an evil act.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quidam said:
While I'm quite aware that the alignment requirement is Evil or Chaotic. However, when your DM rules that every time your conspicuously one-trick pony does his trick, he's performing an evil act- well, problems arise.

It's not his trick. It's one of his tricks, not even ralated to the Blast. And, of course, he'd be told that it's evil before he took it (or during, and then allowed to reconsider). Most of the other stuff is not evil by nature (it just comes from an evil source, and isn't considered more evil than a sword or fireball), but speaking Dark Speech is an evil act in itself

I'd also say that that undead invocation is evil, since creating undead are evil.

Look at all the 'flavor' of a warlock. Does any of it scream "Chaotic Good"? No. Bats and Dark Speech and icky gooey evil.

He's dark (not a crime), and his power stems from an evil source (in the case of good warlocks, they inherited it from an evil ancestor who did the evil bargaining thing - I wouldn't allow a good warlock to directly bargain with a demon or devil for his power unless he gives me a hell of an explanation), but the powers aren't inherently evil. He just blasts things (every wizard can do that) or trickeries people (rogues, bards, beguilers and spellcasters of all kinds do it all the time) and the like.

But some of those powers refer to things that are considered inherently evil in D&D: Creating undead, for example, or uttering Dark Speech.

Either make the 'flavor' optional, or make the alignment requirement "Evil" and write it off as a player class for good.

Wizards also have tons of spells that are [Evil]. Not all, but lots of them. Does that mean that wizards should be written off as a player class for good, too?

Of course not! But wizard players just have to realize that if they use those spells, they blemish their souls. If they do it often enough, they will become neutral, even evil.

Those things can become a bit complicated, of course, but this is not Diablo.

Corsair said:
And you can describe your eldritch blast as being sparkly and shiny and pretty colors! And you can dress in pastels!

"So you're a warlock?"
"Yeah."
"So then why are you wearing a dress?"
"That's a kilt, man. It's traditional where I come from."
"Hey, buddy, that ain't a kilt, that's a dress!"
"No, I tell you, it's a kilt."
"It's pink and has rabbits and flowers on it, for Pete's sake!"
"It's a pretty kilt!"
 

Hmm.. last time I checked, the [Evil] descriptor didn't have squat do with alignment and was only there to prevent Clerics of certain gods from taking it.. so why does it really matter?
 

wayne62682 said:
Hmm.. last time I checked, the [Evil] descriptor didn't have squat do with alignment and was only there to prevent Clerics of certain gods from taking it.. so why does it really matter?

And why does it prevent Clerics of certain gods from taking it? Because those spells are evil. Those certain gods are those with a good alignment, who are against evil spells. That's why.
 

Kae'Yoss said:
And why does it prevent Clerics of certain gods from taking it? Because those spells are evil. Those certain gods are those with a good alignment, who are against evil spells. That's why.
Can you cite something to back that up? I never recall seeing anywhere that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor can change your alignment if you use it often enough, only that good clerics or neutral clerics of good deities cannot cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor.

And in any event, everyone is reading too much into what was supposed to be meaningless flavor text, simply because it says "as defined in the Book of Vile Darkness".
 

wayne62682 said:
Can you cite something to back that up? I never recall seeing anywhere that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor can change your alignment if you use it often enough, only that good clerics or neutral clerics of good deities cannot cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor.

Book of Vile Darkness, under Evil Acts, page 8: Casting Evil Spells.

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic lieads quickly to corruption and destruction.

And in any event, everyone is reading too much into what was supposed to be meaningless flavor text, simply because it says "as defined in the Book of Vile Darkness".

It's not supposed to be meaningless flavour text. Not only is flavour text seldomly meaningless, this one actually gives a rules reference.
 

If the player were of a mind to do so, I would cheerfully allow him to change the "special effects" of the Warlock abilities to match whatever background he likes. Infernal, Celestial, Fae, Draconic, Genii....

I remember reading a post somewhere about where a player was using the Warlock in Eberron as someone who'd been blessed by the Silver Flame. The Eldritch Bolt was a blast of white flame, the wings of "Fell Flight" were woven of silvery light, and so forth.

It don't matter. Whatever best fits your game, and your player, that's what you should go for. Mind you, I'm also entirely in favor of ditching any and all alignment restricions on classes. I prefer to have classes and spells that are adjusted to fit the character concept, rather than vice-versa.
 

frankthedm said:
IMG in most cities, speaking in Infernal or Abyssal carries a death sentence.

But clerics and sages can study it, behind closed doors, correct? One must know his enemy, after all.
 

seans23 said:
But clerics and sages can study it, behind closed doors, correct? One must know his enemy, after all.
One is usually better off not knowing it, speaking it does tend to invite misfortune, intoning the name of a Demon Prince in it attracts It’s notice, but of course some still pursue it.
Gandalf said:
The language is the that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
Sums it up pretty well. You know Abyssal to translate it, and most times you will wish you did not have to.
 

javcs said:
That statement removes it from being flavor text.
Yes, but is Baleful Utterance given the [Evil] descriptor in Complete Arcane? If not, it's just flavor text, because the function of a class ability cannot be made dependent on ownership of a different supplement. The warlock's abilities cannot change in nature depending on whether or not someone in the group owns the Book of Vile Darkness. All of the warlock's abilities must be interpretable solely through the core rules and the supplement in which the warlock appears, not other supplements which the group may or may not own.
 

Remove ads

Top