Dark Speech & the Warlock

[mikebr99]

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.

WoTC does this a lot...

If you want to be a human from Calimshan... and have a choice of all of the regional feats available to you in PGtF... you or one of your group has to also own Races of Faerun.

Mike

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

That's a problem with the DM, not the warlock.

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

Which fits in with the "I got my powers from evil, but I'm not evil...I'm so tortured and misunderstood" flavour of the warlock. It's not a flavour I like too much--I got enough of that shtick from V:TM back in the day. But it's a valid archetype and one that some people like to play.

I love the mechanics of the warlock and I'm quite happy to play Chaotic, but I chafe at being penalized mechanically for what might be misplaced flavor.

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

The flavour was always optional. Besides, why can't a good guy use the tools of evil against it? Irony, etc. "Evil has, in me, created its own greatest enemy! Bwa ha ha!"

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

The designer said it's meaningless flavour text. It just happens to be based on something from a previous book that the designer thought generated appropriate flavour for the class.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That's a problem with the DM, not the warlock.

As we have already established that one single least invocation isn't this pony's one trick, it isn't a problem at all. Why should all of its powers be neutral? Take a look at the Dragonfire Adept (which is very similar to the Warlock). He has two big fat super invocations - but one's for good guys only, the other for the bad guys. Noone's crying havoc about that.

In fact, even if that one invocation made you lose 2d12 sanity points or slapped several ranks of Shadowlands Taint on you, it wouldn't suddenly make the whole class unplayable for good characters or anything.

Which fits in with the "I got my powers from evil, but I'm not evil...I'm so tortured and misunderstood" flavour of the warlock. It's not a flavour I like too much--I got enough of that shtick from V:TM back in the day.

The Warlock isn't nearly as drama queenish as Vampire is always said to be. It's no different from a non-evil necromancer. Dark doesn't mean Evil. But if that necromancer indeed creates and employs undead, he's on the best way to become evil.

The flavour was always optional.

Not for me it isn't. This isn't Diablo. You don't just use things to kill more monsters and find that Unique Elite Item or the last piece of your set. You either work with the flavour, or you make your own. You don't just ignore it.

Besides, why can't a good guy use the tools of evil against it? Irony, etc. "Evil has, in me, created its own greatest enemy! Bwa ha ha!"

Because, counter to what some people believe, the end doesn't justify the means. "If you stare too long into the abyss..." "sheep and shepherd..." and all that.

If you use [Evil] stuff, you walk a path that will lead, sooner or later, to Evil.

You can get a way with it once, maybe a couple of time, but sooner or later, it shows on your record.

The designer said it's meaningless flavour text.

Where does he say that?

If he does, then the first reference must be corrected to:

"That's a problem with the designer, not the DM or the Warlock."

To make this not be something that puts you on the Path Straight to the Dark Place, the text would have to be changed, and possibly the name.

 

[pawsplay]

I think the Dark Speech is definitely evil.... even if you didn't own the BoVD, I think it's pretty evident you are speaking words that should not be spoken. At a minimum, this falls under the category of CG wizards casting Animate Dead... technically possible, but a great moral risk.

On the other hand, anyone who peruses the BoVD casually learns that simply speaking the Dark Speech kills anyone who is not well versed in its evil. That's not just evil, that's ducky darn evil.