Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 3827245" data-attributes="member: 36160">I can see the objection -- or at least, my interpretation of the objection -- but I disagree.I read "I don't want evil classes in the PHB" as "I don't want classes whose activities are extraordinarily unsavory". They're evil not in the sense of "must be evil" but in the sense of "darn hard to be good".Evil clerics must be evil. Necromancy specialized wizards, however, are merely encouraged to be evil. You can play a lawful good necromancer (often by picking the powers which are directly concerned with undead and the stopping thereof), for instance.This description of the warlock was mostly/entirely unwholesome, what with the sending people to hell, the diabolic pact, and so on.However, that's not just a popular and mythic archetype (even a heroic one!), it's one with room to run with.I suspect you could make a warlock a lot more fun to play, for those with moral objections to them, via the "inherited pact". Think Roy and the until-the-latest-few-strips Oath of Vengeance. He inherited the pact of his father; Roy-the-warlock has powers whose origin he's uncomfortable with, but which he chooses to use to right wrongs and fight evil.And the stealing-souls-bit: D&D is often about breaking, entering, killing, stealing, and pillaging. So long as there's no alignment requirement on the harvest, I'd think this could be a morally neutral power, on par with fireballs and smites: for each evil soul sent to its punishment, the warlock becomes a smidgeon stronger, empowered to get the next one. Especially apt here, then, are slaying demons/devils/undead, as they're "escapees".I see the problem, but I think it's a problem of not-enough-information or a problem of personal spin, and that even with the same viewpoint, the books can be spun the other way.</blockquote>

Verification