Design & Development: The Warlock

[Sir Brennen]

That's what I want for a warlock. I don't have a problem with a dark-flavored warlock. I just don't want that to be the only option in the rules as written by virtue of the flavor written in the mechanics. Sure, have some obviously dark stuff. But have some obviously good stuff, too, and have a whole lot of gray-area stuff that warlocks of any flavor can use for what they imagine.

Hmmm... just thinking, what "obviously good" spells are there for the wizard? You can play a good wizard, but there aren't really mechanical options slanted this way. I would say, however, there are "obviously evil" (or at least, "arguably evil") spells in the wizard's repertoire of choices. Most are generally gray-area, though.

 

[Zaruthustran]

The more I think about it, the more I think the dark-flavor of the warlock is a wise choice. Consumers like heroes with an edge.

Danny Ocean. Han Solo. James Bond. Jack Bauer. Wolverine. Batman. Boba Fett. Lestat. Spawn.

These guys run the gamut from charming scoundrels to borderline psychopaths willing to go to just about any length in their fight against evil. They're popular because they're a bit bad. So yeah, I think it's a good move to include the dark flavor. PCs are heroes--that's true--but their abilities come from many different sources.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the Big Bad Evil Guy is exploded by a wizard's fireball, fried by a warlock's blast, decapitated by a fighter's sword, impaled by a rogue's rapier, or crushed by a cleric's mace. Regardless of the mechanism (or the flavor), the BBEG is dead and the heroes have taken his stuff. That's the game.

 

[Rechan]

That's what I want for a warlock. I don't have a problem with a dark-flavored warlock. I just don't want that to be the only option in the rules as written by virtue of the flavor written in the mechanics. Sure, have some obviously dark stuff. But have some obviously good stuff, too, and have a whole lot of gray-area stuff that warlocks of any flavor can use for what they imagine.

And as this article suggests, there are three options: infernal, feral and shadowy. I'm fairly certain the shadowy will have shadow-like appearances.

We also know that there are various powers like the Mire of Minauros acid bog trick.

So I don't see the Warlock being "All Fiendish, All the Time".

 

[Bishmon]

Hmmm... just thinking, what "obviously good" spells are there for the wizard? You can play a good wizard, but there aren't really mechanical options slanted this way. I would say, however, there are "obviously evil" (or at least, "arguably evil") spells in the wizard's repertoire of choices. Most are generally gray-area, though.

I was thinking about the cleric when I typed that, because they also get their powers from various otherworldly beings.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.

Me too. He seems to think you can do evil things without being an evil person. I don't. In my conception, you are what you do. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does."

Since several people seem to be quoting/reading only part of my posts, I will restate: we don't know yet whether the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks are evil-only. They may not be.

BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis. They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact. That's evil; plain and simple. You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good. That's just not how it works.

In full disclosure, before anyone gets banned for making religious arguments, I just want to make perfectly clear that the above statements are based on the D&D-world conceits of devils, demons and evil gods actually existing, and being incurably evil, and that no one should draw any conclusions about my real-world religious beliefs based on these posts. These posts are my "in character" thoughts about whether or not a warlock is 'always evil'. Further, I'm also making these statements based on the concept that your alignment is demonstrated by your actions during play, and not by the words you wrote down on your character sheet. Based on my current understanding of the class, an Infernal Warlock is "always evil" the same way a Dark Sun Defiler or some third-party "sacrifice innocents to power spells" Blood Mage would be evil. It's simply a consequence of their actions.

 

[Bishmon]

And as this article suggests, there are three options: infernal, feral and shadowy. I'm fairly certain the shadowy will have shadow-like appearances.

We also know that there are various powers like the Mire of Minauros acid bog trick.

So I don't see the Warlock being "All Fiendish, All the Time".

Maybe not 'all fiendish all the time', but I'm not sure there's a lot of hope that it won't be 'all dark all the time'. I suppose, as others have speculated, the feral could be referencing fey, but if that's true, it's not certain those powers would come from anything other than the more sinister fey. 'Feral' doesn't exactly conjure up images of butterflies and pixies, you know?

But we'll just wait and see. I just hope they expand on the warlock's options in the rules as written. If not, and they want to go with a darker class, that's fine, I'd just rather it be in the DMG or in another suplement.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Danny Ocean. Han Solo. James Bond. Jack Bauer. Wolverine. Batman. Boba Fett. Lestat. Spawn.

Hmm. Two thoughts:
1. I would classify both Danny Ocean and Han Solo as either CN or CG. Danny I think is pretty clearly CG the whole time, and Han shifts from CN to CG during Ep. IV and stays there for the next two movies.

2. None of the other people on your list play well with others. It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates. I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the Big Bad Evil Guy is exploded by a wizard's fireball, fried by a warlock's blast, decapitated by a fighter's sword, impaled by a rogue's rapier, or crushed by a cleric's mace. Regardless of the mechanism (or the flavor), the BBEG is dead and the heroes have taken his stuff. That's the game.

Quite the contrary, why and how you do things are just as important as their immediate effect. Maybe Thomas Aquinas is a bit heavy reading for the average D&D game, but his work, and others like it, should be studied before serious discussion of the alignments.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Me too. He seems to think you can wear black leather and act all brooding and dark without being an evil person.

FIFY.

Since several people seem to be quoting/reading only part of my posts, I will restate: we don't know yet whether the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks are evil-only. They may not be.

BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis. They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact. That's evil; plain and simple. You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good. That's just not how it works.

Oh noes! One aspect of the class is likely to be associated with devils. Let's scrap the whole damn thing.

Seriously, you're really out on a limb here, and you're sawing it off behind yourself. You admit in one breath that the shadow and feral warlocks likely aren't going to be required to be evil, and then in the next breath you talk like they don't exist and that the whole thing is just a ploy to get people to play devil-loving evil bad guys who kick puppies and cheat at euchre. Just calm down and wait. I can practically guarantee that while the warlock is likely to be incredibly goth, perhaps even with an "oh woe is me, I am teh hero but I have teh daaaarrrrrk powerz" aspect to it, it's not going to be required that you be a bad guy to play one.

In full disclosure, before anyone gets banned for making religious arguments, I just want to make perfectly clear that the above statements are based on the D&D-world conceits of devils, demons and evil gods actually existing, and being incurably evil, and that no one should draw any conclusions about my real-world religious beliefs based on these posts.

Um. Okay... no one was going to bring it up, but since you insist...

These posts are my "in character" thoughts about whether or not a warlock is 'always evil'. Further, I'm also making these statements based on the concept that your alignment is demonstrated by your actions during play, and not by the words you wrote down on your character sheet. Based on my current understanding of the class, an Infernal Warlock is "always evil" the same way a Dark Sun Defiler or some third-party "sacrifice innocents to power spells" Blood Mage would be evil. It's simply a consequence of their actions.

Yeah, maybe if the infernal warlock has to sacrifice innocents to power his abilities, you'd have an argument there. But we don't think he does. And even if he doesn't but is still a nasty dude, there's still two other kinds of warlocks.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Me too. He seems to think you can do evil things without being an evil person. I don't. In my conception, you are what you do. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does."

BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis. They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact. That's evil; plain and simple. You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good. That's just not how it works.

Uh, I'm right here. No need to put words in my mouth.

Specifically: I've never said you can do evil things without being an evil person. Don't know where you got that.

Actually, your second paragraph offers a clue: you think that making a deal with a devil = automatic evil act.

Oh no, here comes Discussion-of-Alignment Town! Everyone run!

I don't think making a pact with a devil = evil act. If a devil sells my character a donut, and my character buys that donut, he doesn't instantly become Evil and experience a sudden desire to place a side order of baby orphans.

In the warlock's example, say a devil offered a Warlock's powers to a widower in exchange for the widower's promise to use those powers to kill his wife's murderer. Is that evil? Is it different from, say, a Lawful Good sheriff deputizing the widower and offering a sword in exchange for the exact same promise?

There's a lot of rich roleplaying to be explored as the character accepts new powers in exchange for more promises that begin to come closer to the line between good and evil. That's conflict. That's drama. That's fun!

Point is, the source of a character's power is not what makes him good or evil. It's how he uses those powers that matter.

 

[Rechan]

Maybe not 'all fiendish all the time', but I'm not sure there's a lot of hope that it won't be 'all dark all the time'. I suppose, as others have speculated, the feral could be referencing fey, but if that's true, it's not certain those powers would come from anything other than the more sinister fey. 'Feral' doesn't exactly conjure up images of butterflies and pixies, you know?

No more than the Druid using their wildshape for dire bears and crocodiles, instead of wildshaping into bunnies and squirrels.

Feral brings to mind primal forces, primitive mental drives. The barbarian is more feral than the fighter, due to his raging ways. I would classify the Shifters from Eberron as more "feral".

In general, I prefer the dark sounding stuff. Because I would have to roll my eyes every time I casted "Embrace of the Rainbow Farting Unicorn". But, because I hate the names of Psionic powers and their over-abundance on new agey crystals and parapsychology verbage, I understand what you're saying.

None of the other people on your list play well with others. It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates. I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.

Wolverine isn't necessarily anti-team. He goes off on his own, sure, but he's not adverse to teamwork. Batman often has a partner, and has always been a member of the Justice League.

Anti-Heroes can play well with others. Loyalty or protectiveness to a choice few while ruthless to everyone else comes to mind.

But ultimately, it depends on your game. If all your adventure is is just "Go in there to get the treasure" or "Go kill the dragon" with no personal hook keyed to the PCs, then it doesn't matter who or what they are. And if one of your players makes characters that doesn't play well with others, then that's the player's problem. D&D is a group game, and he has to have a reason to stick with the group. Being dark doesn't preclude that.