Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3834013" data-attributes="member: 48965">I still hope the warlock has clearly delineated power sources that are good, evil and neutral.&nbsp; People keep talkng about the &quot;option&quot; 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.&nbsp; 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.).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Without this realization and struggle these characters would ultimately be villains.&nbsp; Now how many players are going to voluntarily weaken themselves by forsaking their patron if they choose warlock in the first place?&nbsp; Is the game, from a balance perspective even set up to handle such a character concept?&nbsp; Anyone who says it is...wel they're making a wider assumption than those assuming&nbsp; feral &amp; shadow=/=good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3834013, member: 48965"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification