Design & Development: The Warlock

[Andor]

Okay, the Sorcerer ain't core, or the Gnome.
This ain't the D&D I know.
What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?

The sorcerer was new to 3.x and his loss will cause no weeping here. Similarly gnomes = meh. Besides we have been told they will be issued later.

Yes it's not the D&D you know. That's why it will have a different cover and number.

If it lacks something you want invent it or play 3.5. Or 2 or 1. Or GURPs for that matter. I predict that no matter how well or how poorly D&D 4e suits the play style of your table no one will die.

 

[The Little Raven]

What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z?

Same thing that happened to a player that wanted a Wisdom-based arcane caster... they're SoL. You can't put every single possible combination in the book, so things have to give way. With the minor differences between the 3e sorcerer and wizard, I can see why they included the warlock instead.

 

[Elphilm]

I still think they should simply call warlocks sorcerers. Warlock and warlord are so gosh darned similar as class names.

 

[BBQ]

Sorcerers, Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Monks, as far as I've heard, will not be included in the first PHB, but will show up in later installments. Don't lose hope. You'll still be able to get your bards and such. Hell, I remember a time when you had to be a bunch of other classes before you could be a bard...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?

Why do you want to play a Charisma based arcane caster? What's so important about it to base your spellcasting on Charisma?
Or should I ask: What happens to core groups that want to play a intelligence based melee fighter that doesn't cast polymorph self?

Let me try to explain my thoughts better, killing can be done for a good cause. IMHO.
Execution of convictied murderers, war fought against forces of evil, self defense, ect....

Nothing of this is a good act in my view. It's at best neutral. If you're kiling someone, it can't be good, even if the end results are mostly good. There is still the thing that you killed someone.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to kill someone in a war, but I wouldn't want to feel that as "good", just as a neccessity. Life is unfair. That's why it is harder to be good than evil.

 

[Paraxis]

Nothing of this is a good act in my view. It's at best neutral. If you're kiling someone, it can't be good, even if the end results are mostly good. There is still the thing that you killed someone.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to kill someone in a war, but I wouldn't want to feel that as "good", just as a neccessity. Life is unfair. That's why it is harder to be good than evil.

I think we will derail the thread if we start making it another alignment debate, but for right now lets put this in context of a fantasy world where "good" and "evil" are tangible forces that exist.

Killing well rather destroying/vanquishing undead, demons, devils, constructs ect is full on not an issue of alignment, they are either forces of pure "evil" or are objects that get broken not killed.

To get it back on the topic of Warlocks, I put PC's or NPC's who knowingly make pacts with infernal powers to be just as "evil" as said powers, so to me at least killing a warlock is akin to slaying a demon.

Example, using 3.5 say I have an ongoing campaign with a Paladin in the group, some NPC's (because I would warn a PC) want to joint the group. The Paladin detects evil he does not register as such, NPC A is a rogue who is C.N and lets his criminal past be known this might creat tennsion in the group and they might choose to refuse to travel with him or accept his aid but that would be a fun roleplaying situation. NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered. The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil. The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.


The rest of what I want to say I just realized is not really appropriat for these forums, but just understand that to me not all life is sacred, actions by individuals make them in my mind forces of evil in this or a fantasy world and so destroying them is a good act.

 

[Andor]

Example, using 3.5 say I have an ongoing campaign with a Paladin in the group, some NPC's (because I would warn a PC) want to joint the group. The Paladin detects evil he does not register as such, NPC A is a rogue who is C.N and lets his criminal past be known this might creat tennsion in the group and they might choose to refuse to travel with him or accept his aid but that would be a fun roleplaying situation. NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered. The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil. The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.


The rest of what I want to say I just realized is not really appropriat for these forums, but just understand that to me not all life is sacred, actions by individuals make them in my mind forces of evil in this or a fantasy world and so destroying them is a good act.

Why? If the warlock isn't evil or doing evil why is he as bad as a mass murderer? Who said he sold his soul anyway? What if the pact was "I'll give you all this power if you tithe 10% of your loot to the temple of Asmodeus." No souls involved. I suppose you could argue that the Warlock is sponsoring evil acts, but frankly unless you abstain from use of the internal combustion engine I could probably make the argument about you.

A person who makes a pact with evil, sacrificing himself to achieve good ends, is a common trope in fantasy. For that matter so is someone who makes a deal and then strives against his fate (and fails.) What's wrong with D&D supporting these stories out the gate? If you don't want it at your table then veto Infernal Pact warlocks, that still leaves Shadow and Fey Warlocks.

 

[Cadfan]

Okay, the Sorcerer ain't core, or the Gnome.
This ain't the D&D I know.
What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?

Just re-theme it.

Just say, "I'm using the warlock character class, but my character doesn't get his powers from a compact with any greater power. He just has them. They're exactly the same otherwise though."

Bam, you're done.

 

[GreatLemur]

NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered. The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil. The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.

That's basically on par with killing someone because they bought their sword from an evil blacksmith. You're making some huge assumptions about what Warlocks are, and some very strange judgements about how Paladins should behave.

On a lighter note, after watching Metalapocalypse this weekend, I think we really need a revamped bard in the core rules. Fourth Edition needs to make bards METAL!...as Nathan Explosion would say.

Actually, I have heard that done already. With hilarious results.

 

[Paraxis]

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.

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.