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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jaldaen" data-source="post: 3828426" data-attributes="member: 214"><p>It seems to me that if WotC went through all the trouble of making the Paladin easily playable by other alignments ("Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E.")... then why not do the same for Warlocks? I mean the PHB should have the "standard" classes and races in the game and it seems to me that WotC has decided that in the interest of driving home the point that all PHBs, MMs, and DMGs are core that they are holding some of the classes, monters, etc... back to encourage the purchase of these other "core" books. To me the problem isn't with the Warlock being evil, but that its flavor and powers seem to lean evil in a book that should include standard classes that can be played in D&D. I'd be okay with the warlock if they "paladined" it and made a version for the good aligned, but none of the mentioned options seems to lean toward good... and to be honest the special ability "Boon of Souls" would be very difficult to make fit a good alignment. Last, but not least there seems to be only 8 classes in the PHB and with the Warlock taking up one of the slots if a DM wants a good themed game his players will only have 7 classes to really choose from, whereas an evil campaign will have all 8 easily available b/c paladins of evil are in... It just seems counter intuitive to include a class with such heavy alignment flavor in the first PHB. Now if there were a few more classes in the PHB I'd feel differently, but 8 with one leaning evil makes it a bit too slim for my taste. I certainly hope that playtesting proves to result in a more alignment nuetral Warlock, but I'm not certain that will happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification