Design & Development: The Warlock

[Korgoth]

I reserve judgement, particularly with respect to the Shadowy and Feral Warlocks. It would have been nice though if there were explicitly 'celestial' and 'elemental' warlocks, to round out the class.

Making deals with celestial entities to kill people? Doesn't sound like something celestials would be interested in.

And I dispute the notion that good clerics, even of Hieroneus, kill people for personal gain. If that's the way it plays in (the general sense of) your campaign, I think we disagree on how to interpret the Good alignment.

Sure, good clerics and paladins kill sometimes: in self-defense, or to check otherwise unchecked aggression (i.e. self-defense by proxy). They don't kill people to specifically get powerups from slaughter. If the do that, they're not "good" by any reasonable definition I've ever heard.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I guess I don't see why the dark themes are a big deal. It's dramatic and interesting,

Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting." It's evil. Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.

... diabolical meddling as a major plot point ... villains wreak havoc at the behest of infernal masters ... appease those masters: power ... infernal powers meddle in the affairs of men ... demons and devils are *the* villains of choice for high level adventurers ... by making the warlock a base class, the game introduces these villains ...

I have selected certain of your phrases and bolded certain of your words. It's the bolded words words people have a problem with. It looks like this:

1. PC classes are for PC's.
2. PC's should be mostly good; some neutral OK.
2.a Villains are bad guys.
2.b Plot points, and affair-meddling, are the DM's providence.
3. Ergo, a villainous, plot meddling, evil-only class is inappproriate for the PC section of the PHB. It should be in the MM or the DMG.

Now, we don't know that it's hard-coded evil-only, but it sure looks like it could turn out that way. It's certainly much more possible than the (for instance) the fighter or the rogue being evil-only. And so, people expres their concerns. It's a perfectly valid concerns, AFAIC.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Making deals with celestial entities to kill people? Doesn't sound like something celestials would be interested in.

Obviously. Their Boone of Souls would be for saving someone's soul, or for freeing trapped souls by killing the demon holding them in his menagerie, or something else celestials would be interested in.

 

[Rechan]

Also, just to remind folks. I believe they're taking Alignment out of the Rules completely. No class with alignment restrictions.

So "Evil Only Warlock" is... well, not true.

 

[Korgoth]

Also, just to remind folks. I believe they're taking Alignment out of the Rules completely. No class with alignment restrictions.

They're ditching alignment? Where did they say that?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting." It's evil. Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.

Well again, we don't know that the warlock is evil-only.

And Shakespeare's works are dramatic because they have villains/conflict. That's what drama *is*: "a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or intense conflict of forces."

I think a hero with shady powers is a pretty good example of conflict, and therefore drama.

I have selected certain of your phrases and bolded certain of your words. It's the bolded words words people have a problem with. It looks like this:

1. PC classes are for PC's.
2. PC's should be mostly good; some neutral OK.
3. Ergo, and evil-only class is inappproriate for the PC section of the PHB. It should be in the MM or the DMG.

Now, we don't know that it's hard-coded evil-only, but it sure looks like it could turn out that way. It's certainly much more possible than the (for instance) the fighter or the rogue being evil-only. And so, people expres their concerns. It's a perfectly valid concerns, AFAIC.

I guess I don't know where the "evil-only" thing is coming from. The article mentions that the Warlock's powers may originate from an evil patron, but there's nothing in the article that says that the character has to be evil.

 

[Wormwood]

Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting." It's evil. Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.

He said DARK themes are dramatic and interesting. You then replied about EVIL themes.

I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I want the warlock to be like the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. I want to imagine a character, pick the spells/powers that fit my idea for that character, and then build a story on that. I don't want to imagine a character and then have to completely change the class by either renaming, reworking, or outright getting rid of some of its abilities.

I don't think that clerics in particular railroad a character's flavor any less than warlocks allegedly do. After all, a cleric's abilities, equipment, and outlook are all informed, if not determined, by their deity and church. Should you want to play a cleric, but not a member of an existing religion, you have to A) create a new religion, or B) have clerics derive their power other sources. Both of those option require time and effort, changes to flavor, and DM approval. The only difference between clerics and warlocks is that warlocks supposedly have fewer patrons, and that those patrons might inform their choice of abilities to a greater extent.

 

[BBQ]

I view creatures like Gwynharwyf to be "feral" in nature. But really, a warlock can (and will, I'm sure) be able to follow other powers beyond the fiend/shadow/feral groupings. In my 3.5 campaign, the party warlock fell in love with the party paladin (played, unsurprisingly, by a husband and wife duo), and it opened a ton of storyline and "in-party" interaction. She came to serve a master who was not evil (of course, reprisals from former master were interesting flavor). I don't think warlocks are really limited by their power source, though. I mean, there have been all manner of characters who get to play the "deal-with-a-fiend" thing, then turn against their masters.

 

[frankthedm]

I guess I don't know where the "evil-only" thing is coming from. The article mentions that the Warlock's powers may originate from an evil patron, but there's nothing in the article that says that the character has to be evil.

Well there is this...

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

but that's not really an enworld topic.