Design & Development: The Warlock
- Thread starter mhacdebhandia
- Start date
BadMojo
First Post
Rechan said:
I've been considering a suit against Kelly Clarkson and Real Housewives of Orange County for suicidal middle-ages guys.
I agree that if the class focuses on the darker aspects of the warlock, it's a little too focused for a PHB I. Still, we don't really know that this is the case. I think the class would work great with someone who gains power from Fey or other good-aligned demigods or lesser divine beings.
Still, I personally think it sounds pretty cool and wouldn't mind playing one.
ForceUser
Explorer
I suspect that instead of being outright evil, the warlock will be, as in its current incarnation, a class that walks the line between right and wrong. There are enough fans out there of Wolverine and his ilk to warrant the inclusion of an inherently "bad boy" class--my sense is that the warlock will be a great villain, an excellent adventurer, and an edgy, dark "good guy."Belen said:
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
"No evil alignments" is not, in fact, "just core". It is "just core, except 1/3 of the alignments, several gods, and a chunk of the spells". I'm afraid "Now I have to forbid more things!" isn't really much of a compelling and widely applicable argument. Vote with your wallet, by all means, but understand what you're actually doing.
Snapdragyn
Explorer
How many pages does this thread have to go on before people get that FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL? Say it with me:
FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!
FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!
Hmm, what's that 3rd source they mention? FERAL! Is feral evil? Not by definition, NO!
Here's a character concept based on the tidbits of info we have:
Shineygood Darkbane, LG warlock.
Shineygood's parents were priests of Pelor. Though somewhat disappointed that he didn't follow their path, Shineygood's devotion to hunting down the enemies of Truth & Justice have made them very proud.
As a youth, Shineygood stumbled open a tome in the church archives which described rites by which some members of the order make pacts with otherworldly allies in the Feywild. Though the tome cautioned of the need to be careful in dealing with beings not committed to the order which makes the church strong, it also spoke of the great deeds which those strong in their faith had been able to achieve through the power gained by such pacts.
When he discussed this with his parents, Shineygood learned that they were aware of these 'warlocks', and were able to tell him a bit more about the nature of the work they did - traveling the world, seeking always the darkest places to bring the burning light of Pelor to shine, and marking the unrepentant for punishment by Pelor's allies among the fey. Shineygood studied the tome carefully, and gained the approval of the church elders to take part in the rites which would bind him to fight the forces of evil with the aid of his oathsworn fey patron, a <insert powerful 4e Feywild race> named Feyriel.
Although they have had some lively discussions through their mental link* on the relative value of hiercarchy and obediance vs. individual freedom in the service of good, with Feyriel's help Shineygood has been able to defeat many evil foes in the years since, often granting them a glimpse of the doom that awaits them in the afterlife in hopes that they might repent and surrender (though, sadly, few ever do).
*[Note: a tiny bit of my own flavor text here.]
OK, there's a completely non-dark non-evil warlock who fits every tiny piece of information we have on the class so far. Can we drop the 'too dark! too dark! have to be evil!' alarmist stuff now?
Well, are druids evil in your campaign? I mean, they summon swarms of vermin (EEEVIIIIL NASSSTY vermin!) & can turn into a bat (not just the wings -- the whole EEEVIIIL NASSSTY batses!). Mwahahaha!
(Joking aside, just swap the visual on the hellcat for something else & you're good to go with a 3.5 warlock who's good - check the CA rules text for the bit on fey ancestry being an alternate source of their powers, which is how I did my warlock.)
FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!
FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!
Hmm, what's that 3rd source they mention? FERAL! Is feral evil? Not by definition, NO!
Here's a character concept based on the tidbits of info we have:
Shineygood Darkbane, LG warlock.
Shineygood's parents were priests of Pelor. Though somewhat disappointed that he didn't follow their path, Shineygood's devotion to hunting down the enemies of Truth & Justice have made them very proud.
As a youth, Shineygood stumbled open a tome in the church archives which described rites by which some members of the order make pacts with otherworldly allies in the Feywild. Though the tome cautioned of the need to be careful in dealing with beings not committed to the order which makes the church strong, it also spoke of the great deeds which those strong in their faith had been able to achieve through the power gained by such pacts.
When he discussed this with his parents, Shineygood learned that they were aware of these 'warlocks', and were able to tell him a bit more about the nature of the work they did - traveling the world, seeking always the darkest places to bring the burning light of Pelor to shine, and marking the unrepentant for punishment by Pelor's allies among the fey. Shineygood studied the tome carefully, and gained the approval of the church elders to take part in the rites which would bind him to fight the forces of evil with the aid of his oathsworn fey patron, a <insert powerful 4e Feywild race> named Feyriel.
Although they have had some lively discussions through their mental link* on the relative value of hiercarchy and obediance vs. individual freedom in the service of good, with Feyriel's help Shineygood has been able to defeat many evil foes in the years since, often granting them a glimpse of the doom that awaits them in the afterlife in hopes that they might repent and surrender (though, sadly, few ever do).
*[Note: a tiny bit of my own flavor text here.]
OK, there's a completely non-dark non-evil warlock who fits every tiny piece of information we have on the class so far. Can we drop the 'too dark! too dark! have to be evil!' alarmist stuff now?
Well, are druids evil in your campaign? I mean, they summon swarms of vermin (EEEVIIIIL NASSSTY vermin!) & can turn into a bat (not just the wings -- the whole EEEVIIIL NASSSTY batses!). Mwahahaha!
(Joking aside, just swap the visual on the hellcat for something else & you're good to go with a 3.5 warlock who's good - check the CA rules text for the bit on fey ancestry being an alternate source of their powers, which is how I did my warlock.)
Last edited:
Belen
Legend
Cadfan said:
Nope, but those were options of classes. A player could still play the class in a non-evil function. This is completely different and I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."
The warlock is a bad class for the core PHB. Maybe it will sell more books as people have to collect the core classes that they love; however, I was used to buying all the books anyway. Maybe I will consider upgrading to 4e down the road when they give me options for bard and druid. However, the warlock news will keep me from upgrading to 4e in May. I will continue to play 3.5 and just begin redesigning the parts that I do not like from that system. There are some aspects of 4e that I really enjoy, but enough bad parts to have pushed me away.
I can see the objection -- or at least, my interpretation of the objection -- but I disagree.
I read "I don't want evil classes in the PHB" as "I don't want classes whose activities are extraordinarily unsavory". They're evil not in the sense of "must be evil" but in the sense of "darn hard to be good".
Evil clerics must be evil. Necromancy specialized wizards, however, are merely encouraged to be evil. You can play a lawful good necromancer (often by picking the powers which are directly concerned with undead and the stopping thereof), for instance.
This description of the warlock was mostly/entirely unwholesome, what with the sending people to hell, the diabolic pact, and so on.
However, that's not just a popular and mythic archetype (even a heroic one!), it's one with room to run with.
I suspect you could make a warlock a lot more fun to play, for those with moral objections to them, via the "inherited pact". Think Roy and the until-the-latest-few-strips Oath of Vengeance. He inherited the pact of his father; Roy-the-warlock has powers whose origin he's uncomfortable with, but which he chooses to use to right wrongs and fight evil.
And the stealing-souls-bit: D&D is often about breaking, entering, killing, stealing, and pillaging. So long as there's no alignment requirement on the harvest, I'd think this could be a morally neutral power, on par with fireballs and smites: for each evil soul sent to its punishment, the warlock becomes a smidgeon stronger, empowered to get the next one. Especially apt here, then, are slaying demons/devils/undead, as they're "escapees".
I see the problem, but I think it's a problem of not-enough-information or a problem of personal spin, and that even with the same viewpoint, the books can be spun the other way.
I read "I don't want evil classes in the PHB" as "I don't want classes whose activities are extraordinarily unsavory". They're evil not in the sense of "must be evil" but in the sense of "darn hard to be good".
Evil clerics must be evil. Necromancy specialized wizards, however, are merely encouraged to be evil. You can play a lawful good necromancer (often by picking the powers which are directly concerned with undead and the stopping thereof), for instance.
This description of the warlock was mostly/entirely unwholesome, what with the sending people to hell, the diabolic pact, and so on.
However, that's not just a popular and mythic archetype (even a heroic one!), it's one with room to run with.
I suspect you could make a warlock a lot more fun to play, for those with moral objections to them, via the "inherited pact". Think Roy and the until-the-latest-few-strips Oath of Vengeance. He inherited the pact of his father; Roy-the-warlock has powers whose origin he's uncomfortable with, but which he chooses to use to right wrongs and fight evil.
And the stealing-souls-bit: D&D is often about breaking, entering, killing, stealing, and pillaging. So long as there's no alignment requirement on the harvest, I'd think this could be a morally neutral power, on par with fireballs and smites: for each evil soul sent to its punishment, the warlock becomes a smidgeon stronger, empowered to get the next one. Especially apt here, then, are slaying demons/devils/undead, as they're "escapees".
I see the problem, but I think it's a problem of not-enough-information or a problem of personal spin, and that even with the same viewpoint, the books can be spun the other way.
Snapdragyn
Explorer
Right, & thus completely different from the option for a warlock to play an evil infernal-pact or a NOT evil feral-pact.
Or, you know, not really different at all.
Similar Threads
