Design & Development: The Warlock

[Zaruthustran]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. My point is that they're both criminals, and immensely popular precisely because they're criminals. Consumers *like* bad boys.

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.

I don't allow evil PCs for the same reason.

But, man, Boba Fett is cool. I imagine warlocks, with their angsty "I walk through darkness, that I may bring others into the light" schtick will have similar mass-market appeal.

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.

I think the *why* is important, but the *how* less so. If a character inflicts 8 damage on the BBEG, and the BBEG dies as a result, it doesn't matter if the 8 damage was from a kick, sword, spell, arrow, or eldritch blast (infernally-powered or not). It's 8 damage inflicted in a single round and the guy died. The particular weapon is irrelevant*.

-z

* Exception being a ridiculous weapon like, say, the frozen-but-still-living form of a halfling innocent which shatters on impact.

 

[SkidAce]

Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.

Please get over yourself and your religion...

I thought we were more tolerant on ENworld. Why dismiss someone's concerns so callously?

-sorry, should read ALL the thread before replying. It appears the issue has been resolved.

 

[Driddle]

Where was it stated there was no druid in the PHB?

Did I miss something big?

The warlock blasted him to hell for an edition. You'll see him reappear again in 5th ed.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't want to get in the middle of you guys talking but I want to comment on this, from my point of view.

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?

Yes, he knowingly and willfully makes a deal with an Infernal power so he is commiting an evil act. The L.G sheriff would probably not deputize him, because revenge killing is not inheritnly Good, but if he did it is different because the sheriff is not an extraplaner EVIL.

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

.

Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL. A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.

All in the context of an RPG of course.

 

[Rechan]

I just thought of something.

Okay, perhaps the Warlock for the Devils is "I give you power in exchange for souls."

But for the others, you might just be "looting" something else of your kill.

The Shadow-powered warlock, maybe he's not collecting souls, but instead, "In exchange for this power, I need you to steal shadows. So as you go about killing monsters and villains... steal their shadow for me. That shadow goes to me, and I grow stronger, as that shadow is the umbral version of their power; I gain a little power from the enemy you slay."

For the Feral (assuming it goes to the Fey), "Give me the dreams of your foes. I wish to revel in their dreams." Or if Feral is more instinctive, "Give me their drives, their desires, their hungers, their passions. Feed me the emotions of your victims."

It's not necessarily Evil, and you're not giving the SOUL of your target, but you are taking some of that target's POWER and sending it back to your pact-giver. That shadow isn't important to someone who's dead, but the latent energy that was tied to them can be useful for something else.

Sort've like eating your enemy to gain their strength - you don't eat their soul, you eat the part of them that had the power you wanted, improving your own by absorbing their strength.

And ultimately it's little different than looting the corpse. The issue of "You took his soul" is that "The soul is now in possession of something else, as opposed to its intended destination had you not intervened".

 

[Rechan]

Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL. A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.

You assume he's sold his soul however. He may get the power in exchange for service.

Sort've how a cop is given certain powers within the law, in exchange for upholding the law.

The binder is a great example of this. He's making deals with entities that are not gods, or demons, or anything - they are Outside of everything else. He's not selling his soul - he's granting the entities the chance to walk the earth in his body, and see through his eyes. That isn't inherently evil at all.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yes, he knowingly and willfully makes a deal with an Infernal power so he is commiting an evil act. The L.G sheriff would probably not deputize him, because revenge killing is not inheritnly Good, but if he did it is different because the sheriff is not an extraplaner EVIL.

.

Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL. A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.

All in the context of an RPG of course.

Really? I must have missed that memo. So, does the Evil sort of waft off the devil and settle upon the character?

Seriously, I don't see why making a deal--any deal--with a devil is Evil. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that if a character makes the deal, "I'll give you a copper piece if you rescue those babies from the orphanage fire", then that is an Evil act.

Huh. Why?

edit: capitalized the "E" in "Evil act"

 

[Sir Brennen]

Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL. A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.

All in the context of an RPG of course.

Gotta disagree... especially in the context of an RPG. Will the motives of such a deal most likely be selfish (and therefore evil)? More often than not. But fiction (which is what an RPG is) is full of examples of such deals done for noble reasons by heroic, even good, people. Plenty of examples already given in this thread. Sometimes they have no choice. Sometimes the ending of such a deal is tragic, but sometimes the story has the hero pull a fast one on the devil (usually by finding a loophole to nail the Lawful Evil SOB.)

And in the wish-fulfillment world of action stories, "good guys" are often revenge-driven vigilantes who act as judge, jury, etc.

 

[Twowolves]

Maybe you could just not call people names.

I was unaware that I, personally, had called any specific person a name. Please indicate where I have.

Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities. Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells? He killed enough goblins.

Wrong. 100% wrong. Characters gain xp, and thereby levels, by overcoming challenges. Traps are challenges. Puzzles are challenges. Role-playing awards are too. It's entirely possible to use non-lethal damage to overcome those goblins and get to the next level.

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.

Han Solo didn't get to be an ace pilot and crack shot by making a deal with a supernaturally evil power.

James Bond and Jack Bauer don't have any powers at all, and both work for their respective governments. They each believe what they do is for the greater good of their country (and their countries are not inherantly evil, despite what some say).

Wolverine was born with his powers long before the Weapon X project. He didn't volunteer for what was done to him. Or, maybe he did, I can't keep up with the retcons. But in any case, the hero he is now is not the sort that would do that. Same with Batman. He became a vigilante, but not a killer, and he didn't traffic with Lucifer to get his utility belt.

Boba Fett is not even a hero! Why is he on this list? Is is 100% villian. Bad Guy. Same with Lestat. I haven't read the books, but did see the first movie, and he's... well, a villian! He kills people and drinks their blood (well, not in that order).

Spawn is the ONLY one you listed that fits the description of Hero that gets his powers from dealing with the devil. But even he was tricked by the devil into accepting the deal, and he spends his time on earth trying to undo that deal and thwart the devil's plans. He certainly isn't phoning up Old Scratch every time he levels up for some more power/training.

 

[Twowolves]

Such a list is unnecessary where common courtesy is in use.

You mean the courtesy you displayed when you told a poster above "I don't care if you play 4th ed"? Or the one where you called the people posting on this thread "Geeks"? Why is it "fanboy" is an insult but "geek" is not? Again, who determines these things? The offended party? In that case, I'm Officially offended because you implied by your post that I am a discourteous geek.