Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 4699675" data-attributes="member: 71756">I disagree. This is a bit unusual for me as I, for one, liked the idea of opening paladins up. However, I still like alignment restrictions (such as the new restriction that paladins must be the exact alignment of their deity), because I think they add flavor.For some classes, who are supposed to versatile a lack of restrictions makes sense. Wizards or rogues for instance. Other classes make sense to have restrictions with options - like the divine classes, who can be of any alignment but are required to share the alignment or a close variant of their deity's. However, I think in some cases, alignment is an essential part of the class's fluff.Warlocks are a good example. The whole point of the warlock is an arcanist who chooses the quick and dirty path to power over the safer but more arduous methods used by wizards/swordmages (and bards to some limited extent) or through inborn talent like sorcerers. If you remove this element, warlocks are essentially wizards or sorcerers with different slightly different mechanics.I can see the appeal of the latter idea, but I think that, really, when it gets down to it, the name "warlock" has negative connotations. I think it's useful to keep those connotations. True, paladin generally has good connotations but it also is a synonym for knight. Warlock simply means "oathbreaker" (which is sort of ironic, given that warlocks are tied to Faustian tradition).That said, I'm not against good warlocks. In my games I use the old 3.5 alignment requirements - chaotic or evil - not necessarily both. So a chaotic good warlock is, in my mind, wholly viable. As an alternative alignment restriction, I can also see variants depending on the pact. Perhaps an infernal warlock, for instance, couldn't really make a pact if they were chaotic (since devils are so reputably lawful) while a fey pact might be more open to good alignments (since, while dangerous, fey are not usually evil).However, I am wholly against the idea of "celestial" pacts, wherein a warlock gains power through some angel or somesuch. That, to me, treads on the territory of divine power and, more to the point, goes against the entire feel of the warlock. When it comes down to it, I can't really see a lawful good entity promoting the quick and dirty path to power, really.</blockquote>

Verification