Design & Development: The Warlock

[Kesh]

Let's focus on the fantasy world of D&D or other fiction because if this goes to real world issues two key topics that are no no's on this forum will be brought up. I know I've used real world example in this thread already but it's a slippery slope.

Buying a sword or weapon from someone who is evil is not an act of evil. Using a weapon is not evil, swords don't kill people people do. Same with machines of war. Deathstar itself is not evil, the slaves who made it are not evil (if you buy into the private contractor theory then yes they are evil), the Empire is "Evil" and putting on that uniform for the stormtrooper means you support the evil, get benifits from serving the evil, ect...Killing storm troopers is good because all of them are evil every last one of them even the young man who is sending his pay check to support his family back home and works as a supply clerk.

Worshiping a being of power is more then saying a few words one day a week and giving them 10% of the loot you get from raiding dungeons. A pact with an outer planer being implies more then lip service.

Evil and Good in a fantasy setting is black and white not shades of grey...if people are shades of grey then they are neutral.

In your campaign. Not everyone plays black/white fantasy. And even then, it sounds like you're saying humanoids who worship evil beings are capital-e Evil and cannot be redeemed.

I am trying my best to get my point across, in a world with dieties who grant power you can see, who walk the world, who's existance is a fact not a thing that requires blind faith then getting any amount of power from a evil diety or power and using it for any reason is in itself an evil act. I used an example of a C.N warlock, honestly I can't picture a warlock who gets powers from an infernal source as anything but evil a neutral character would become evil the moment he made said pact.

Like I said above a sword being swung is only as evil as the heart of the man swinging it.

A blast of infernal fire is evil by virtue of where the power comes from no matter the motivations behind it.

While I respect your opinion, and could have fun in a campaign set that way, it is by no means universal nor even the most common I've seen.

 

[Imaro]

I still hope the warlock has clearly delineated power sources that are good, evil and neutral. People keep talkng about the "option" to play an evil character but I don't see how having a character who is mostly evil with a little neutral on the side is more options than one that can be the whole gamut of alignments. In fact I would have thought it more creative to give the warlock abilities based on law, neutrality and chaos with the player deciding if he uses it for the advancement of good, evil or neutrality.

I think that what makes the warlock less flexible is the fact that he has to make a pact, this is a conscious choice to serve a certain power that you know is evil(at least in the infernal source example.). It's not like the warlock of 3.5 where it's out of your control(bloodlines) and ambiguous enough that it facilitates a wider range of playstyles with the class.

One of the major problems I see with this class is that while it can be compared to such characters as Spawn, Elric, etc. Their main schtick is that they come to realize they are in essence slaves to a power that is ultimately evil and fight against it. Without this realization and struggle these characters would ultimately be villains. Now how many players are going to voluntarily weaken themselves by forsaking their patron if they choose warlock in the first place? Is the game, from a balance perspective even set up to handle such a character concept? Anyone who says it is...wel they're making a wider assumption than those assuming feral & shadow=/=good.

 

[grimslade]

I think that what makes the warlock less flexible is the fact that he has to make a pact, this is a conscious choice to serve a certain power that you know is evil(at least in the infernal source example.). It's not like the warlock of 3.5 where it's out of your control(bloodlines) and ambiguous enough that it facilitates a wider range of playstyles with the class.

One of the major problems I see with this class is that while it can be compared to such characters as Spawn, Elric, etc. Their main schtick is that they come to realize they are in essence slaves to a power that is ultimately evil and fight against it. Without this realization and struggle these characters would ultimately be villains. Now how many players are going to voluntarily weaken themselves by forsaking their patron if they choose warlock in the first place? Is the game, from a balance perspective even set up to handle such a character concept? Anyone who says it is...wel they're making a wider assumption than those assuming feral & shadow=/=good.

All those PCs swearing allegiance to a king are in essence slaves to a power. The pact might not be 'sell me your soul'. I hope the infernals are more creative than that. I hope it is more of a favor for a favor. I give this power to you and you in turn do this job. The character can be encouraged to fill the letter of the request, but not necessarily the will.

Of course, this only reflects on the Infernal pact warlock. The Feral and Shadow 'lock are so lightly mentioned we have no idea how they arranged. I think we will have more options than 'oops I sold my soul and all I got was this lousy T-shirt'.

 

[GreatLemur]

Worshiping a being of power is more then saying a few words one day a week and giving them 10% of the loot you get from raiding dungeons. A pact with an outer planer being implies more then lip service.

It does not, however, imply worship. Those are two different things. A "pact" sounds more like buying a sword than joining a religion, in my book. Just because the guy selling you the sword lives on a different plane doesn't mean that the act of buying or using the sword leads you to worship, serve, or emulate the seller. Nothing in the fluff I read mentioned prospective Warlocks "selling their souls" to infernal powers.

I used an example of a C.N warlock, honestly I can't picture a warlock who gets powers from an infernal source as anything but evil a neutral character would become evil the moment he made said pact.

Even it that is the case--and, obviously, that's an entirely reasonable campaign decision--that's why "infernal" is only one of three possible sources for a Warlock's powers. I don't see why one would object to the infernal pact option any more than one would object to rules for Clerics of evil gods. They didn't include Hextor in the 3e PHB because they intended PCs to worship him; they included him because that was the logical place to include all the Cleric options.

 

[Imaro]

All those PCs swearing allegiance to a king are in essence slaves to a power. The pact might not be 'sell me your soul'. I hope the infernals are more creative than that. I hope it is more of a favor for a favor. I give this power to you and you in turn do this job. The character can be encouraged to fill the letter of the request, but not necessarily the will.

Are they're "class powers" dependant upon swearing allegiance to a king? You're really stretching here with this example.

Of course, this only reflects on the Infernal pact warlock. The Feral and Shadow 'lock are so lightly mentioned we have no idea how they arranged. I think we will have more options than 'oops I sold my soul and all I got was this lousy T-shirt'.

That's a nice assumption, and just as valid as the they're are no "good" options assumption, especially sine the connotations surrounding shadow and feral do not equate to good.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Killing storm troopers is good because all of them are evil every last one of them....

Haven't heard of conscription? By this absolutist logic, Anne Frank's love interest Peter (I forget his last name) would have turned EVIL the minute he was forced to the Russian Front in WWII - a bizarre conclusion which I in no way expect that you would support, but mention as a friendly admonition to beware absolute statements. They always lead to problems of logic.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Even it that is the case--and, obviously, that's an entirely reasonable campaign decision--that's why "infernal" is only one of three possible sources for a Warlock's powers.

It really amazes me how desperately people are trying to get us all to forget that there are three pact sources, only one of which is obviously associated with evil. It's really remarkable. Perhaps we need a PSA or something.

Attention, citizens: warlocks don't have to make pacts with devils. Please adjust your posts accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. This message has been brought to you by people who are getting tired of explaining this point over and over again.

 

[GreatLemur]

That's a nice assumption, and just as valid as the they're are no "good" options assumption, especially sine the connotations surrounding shadow and feral do not equate to good.

I wouldn't say they have to be good. Non-evil is good enough for me. I know it kind of contradicts one's sense of symmetry to have one evil pact option and two neutral pact options, but I don't think forcing symmetry into your game mechanics is necessarily a good idea. Hell, look at the absurdities White Wolf commits in its name.

Back on topic, though, it might be worth pointing out that the classic D&D "fey" alignment has long been Chaotic Good, which might mean the feral pact option is indeed the moral opposite of the presumably Lawful Evil infernal option. ...But, at the same time, 4e is supposed to have less emphasis on alignment, anyway, so that's probably not a particularly meaningful comparison. I suspect that character alignment might not have anything to do with which type of Warlock pacts are available.

 

[Paraxis]

I am throwing in the towel.

I know black/white good/evil is not the only form of fantasy and don't want to try and tell people they are having badwrongfun, if you play this game you are having goodrightfun because you are enjoying yourself.

I started to get into bad logic.

I was going to start a humor thread titled "4E is becoming Dark Dungeons a J.Chick production" and comment on the warlock and tiefling, then I reread Dark Dungeons pdf and just laughed at the idea of it there is no way D&D could ever be like that.

It's what I get for posting about this stuff and listening to talk radio at the same time.

I just do hope that Shadow and Feral are good viable options for the warlock that are well represented and have unique powers and themes, and are not tied to evil.

Again the PHB is using room for this class and probably alot of space for their powers, I want to be able to use those things for PC's in a game set in a strong light(good) vs. darkness(evil) campaign without having to change a bunch of stuff to do it.

By the way I think I have a new NPC for my first 4E game an Eladrin Warlock (Infernal) named Darkleaf Elfstar. She will rail the PC's and become a thorn in the side of the party for many game sessions.

 

[Henry]

By the way I think I have a new NPC for my first 4E game an Eladrin Warlock (Infernal) named Darkleaf Elfstar. She will rail the PC's and become a thorn in the side of the party for many game sessions.

*Ahem* That would be Wizard Cleric Debbie Elfstar, and she should have a power to use on the PCs called "Mind Bondage"... and her subordinate over her minions should be Blackleaf.