The warlock alignment requirement of being Evil or Chaotic, a good or bad thing?

[Nonlethal Force]

I think alignment restrictions in general are capable of being tossed to the wind. I think the warlock alignment restrictions are actually rather nonsensical. Being able to god from LE to CG demonstrates on thing:

Warlocks are able to apreciate order, but only if it is evil. Warlocks are able to appreciate good, but only if it is chaotic. Please! If a warlock out there is able to appreciate lawfulness and another warlock out there is capable of appreciating goodness ... then my guess is that somewhere in the grand scheme of things someone can come up with a rationale for a warlock to be able to appreciate lawful goodness. [The same for the other neglected alignments.]

But, take my opinion with a slight grain of salt. I also allow lawful barbarians, non-lawful monks, and <gasp> paladins who are not LG! So ... understand that my position is already not the "norm" and I admit it.

Aside:

To be honest, I think the warlock alignment restriction probably came to being with a train of thought along these lines:

Designer 1: "I'm tired of the straight 'non-_____' alignment restrictions."
Designer 2: "Yeah, me too. Let's see if we can come up with something new and fresh."
Designer 3: "Hey, I know! What about combining two linear restrictions together."
Designer 1: "Ohh, I like it. It's new and fresh!"
Designer 2: "So, we could say any evil or any chaotic?"
Designer 3: "Yep. That'd work"
Designers 1 and 2 together: "Brilliant!"

And I think that's about as harmless as the forethought was. I'd like to imagine that it was a simple harmless thought along those lines that brought this warlock restriction into play. Unfortunately, I don't think it was a good idea. I'd rather base classes have no alignment restrictions at all ... and that's the way I play 'em.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think it's a silly idea for the Warlock, in particular.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that a base class should never, ever, ever have an alignment restriction. If a concept specifically calls for an alignment restriction (paladin), then that makes it a poster child for a PrC that got mis-filed. Otherwise, it's a design that's unnecessarily limiting (see: barbarian, bard, druid, monk, warlock, hexblade -- none of which have any reason to have a restricted alignment other than a designer thinking too narrowly).

Word.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I love the idea of the Warlock and due to the nature of the powers I personally think the Chaotic or Evil alignment requirement works fine. However, I would like to see either the Warlock expanded to include individuals empowered by entities of other alignments (Good and Neutral) along with new powers that make sense for those entities to grant. Maybe have one class and separate invocation lists for each alignment category (at least good and evil, lawful and chaotic... I'd say Neutral could pick from either).

 

[BryonD]

Negative.

But not a real big deal.

 

[Nyaricus]

In the context of D&D with alignments, it is a Good Thing (tm). I like the warlock being a devil-spawn type, and if I need a varietn for a player, I can hook them up with one of these, by Shadowfoot on the Wizards Boards.

In the context of how I play D&D (that is, no alignments) then it doesn't really matter - it's all fluff in the context of the characters background.

I voted for "in the context of D&D", but you all know where my heart is

 

[Drowbane]

I dislike most alignment restrictions (I'm used to the Paladin's... but it should be a PrC anyways!)... so Negative.

However the restriction doesn't bug me so much as I tend to play either C/G or N/E anyways.

 

[Drowbane]

...In my campaigns, Warlocks replace Sorcerers...

You rock, Sir!

 

[Master of the Game]

It bugs me, since I can't play the class I want (monk/warlock). The only option would be to go LE, and we don't play evil campaigns. I just don't see any use in it, but then I'm not a big fan of alignment restrictions for base classes anyways. Heck, who'd want to play in a game whe Sho'Nuff couldn't be a monk because he was too chaotic

And Paladins... I always thought they were prestige class material anyways.

 

[Drowbane]

It bugs me, since I can't play the class I want (monk/warlock). The only option would be to go LE, and we don't play evil campaigns. I just don't see any use in it, but then I'm not a big fan of alignment restrictions for base classes anyways. Heck, who'd want to play in a game whe Sho'Nuff couldn't be a monk because he was too chaotic

And Paladins... I always thought they were prestige class material anyways.

nice pic! I gotta yoink that for an upcoming gestalt Monk | Warlock NPC.

 

[vulcan_idic]

In general I really like the alignment restriction as being really flavorful.

That being said I perhaps have less of an issue with the downsides mentioned above for two reasons - (1) I use the alternative warlocks here in addition to the RAW warlock, and (2) I tend to see things like alignment restrictions more as suggestions than set in stone unbendable rules - and a bent rule like that after having been discussed with a DM so they can Rule #0 it is Grade-A adventure hook/story creation material.