There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[WayneLigon]

I rather doubt this real "book of the dead" was something Lovecraft was even aware of, and the only link with the fictional book is that it has ritual magic.

Given his scholarly inclinations and that he regularly corresponded with other men with a writer's interest in weirdness and that a number of his stories feature Egyptian imagery and references, I'd be very surprised if he had not been aware of it.

 

[see]

4e has no more 'options' for evil characters than 1e did.

AD&D 1e had ten base classes, three of which were barred to evil characters (paladin, ranger, and druid), for seven starting class options for evil characters. D&D 4e is apparently going to have at least eight base classes, none barred for evil alignment, for eight or more starting class options for evil characters.

 

[Anthtriel]

AD&D 1e had ten base classes, three of which were barred to evil characters (paladin, ranger, and druid), for seven starting class options for evil characters. D&D 4e is apparently going to have at least eight base classes, none barred for evil alignment, for eight or more starting class options for evil characters.

You are spot on. And as 3E has TEN classes for evil characters, we can clearly see that 3E favors evil characters. Thankfully 4E will fix that.

To offer someone power only for killing foes — not defeating foes, but specifically and solely killing them — is to tempt that someone to murder a foe who surrenders. Any entity that desires to tempt people to commit murder, or doesn't care that it is tempting people to commit murder, is (at least as far as I am concerned) evil. The game rules might try to claim that some aren't evil, but the patrons should be judged by what they do.

Well, Tyr tempts paladins to smite enemies with their hammers and swords, to murder them. Yet I don't tink Tyr or paladins are evil.

 

[Celebrim]

Warlocks, in 3.5, didn't have to make pacts with anybody. The character had inherent powers, albeit derived from dark ancestry.

Let's look at the 4e warlock, with his Boon of Souls.

It is apparent no non-evil entity would offer the Boon of Souls. To offer someone power only for killing foes — not defeating foes, but specifically and solely killing them — is to tempt that someone to murder a foe who surrenders. Any entity that desires to tempt people to commit murder, or doesn't care that it is tempting people to commit murder, is (at least as far as I am concerned) evil. The game rules might try to claim that some aren't evil, but the patrons should be judged by what they do. They all offer the Boon of Souls (apparently), so they are all evil, whatever the authors put in the "alignment" box.

Excellent post. This is the sort of clear lucid reasoning about alignment which has been so lacking the writers of D&D in every edition, and it is the lack of this sort of understanding which has left D&D's alignment (and all the official writing about it) such an incoherent mess.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, Tyr tempts paladins to smite enemies with their hammers and swords, to murder them.

Reaching, reaching....

 

[TwinBahamut]

We don't know whether Boon of Souls is an ability that is shared by all warlocks or not. It might be limited to those of fiendish origin, or might be completely optional. I think it is a little early to be basing opinions of the whole class based on that one ability...

 

[Lanefan]

AD&D 1e had ten base classes, three of which were barred to evil characters (paladin, ranger, and druid), for seven starting class options for evil characters. D&D 4e is apparently going to have at least eight base classes, none barred for evil alignment, for eight or more starting class options for evil characters.

1e also had a few classes barred to good characters (Assassin, Druid, and I'm not sure about Thief). Given as how 3e's reduction on limitations looks like it'll carry on into 4e, I'll go out on a short limb and say none of 4e's 8 classes will be barred for good alignment either...which means that by default they're gonna have to dream up a mechanic by which a Good Warlock can function.

I'd wish them luck, except 4e has no wish, which makes it an empty gesture...

Lanefan

 

[Nifft]

I'd wish them luck, except 4e has no wish, which makes it an empty gesture...

Uh-huh. Like you have 5k XP to blow on something like that.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Anthtriel]

Reaching, reaching....

Is that supposed to be a counter-argument?

Murder is pretty common among default D&D-Heroes, and paladins, the most virtuous among them all, gain bonus LETHAL damage on smite attacks to, yes, explicitly murder their enemies.

What's the big difference between something that kills people, and something that gives you a boost when you have killed them? Is Cleave more evil than Power Attack?

 

[WizarDru]

It is apparent no non-evil entity would offer the Boon of Souls. To offer someone power only for killing foes — not defeating foes, but specifically and solely killing them — is to tempt that someone to murder a foe who surrenders.

I'm not sure that I follow you on that one. Some clerics and paladins in D&D, by definition, are granted powers for just this purpose. Servants of deities like St. Cuthbert are strongly encouraged to take the fight to evil with no mercy or remorse...evil is not to be spared the swift sword of justice. Unless we begin to classify things like the War domain as inherently evil, which is a valid choice for some I would wager, but not for all.

All we know of the Boon of Souls is that the patron of the Warlock, who may be one of three sources (possibly Shadow, Infernal or Feral, from another note in the article), grants the Warlock some sort of bonus when he kills his enemies. This almost certainly could be evil...but I can envision many situations when it would not be. A righteous smiting of an irredeemable villain would not be consider evil by many in the context of D&D's rough justice, I'd wager. Certainly, a class ability like Smith Evil is not meant for use in molly-coddling the paladin's enemies. It is meant for ending their threat, permanently. Just as any number of class spells and abilities are, such as burning hands, chain lightining or holy sword.

The typical D&D adventurer's life involves killing evil things and taking their stuff. The real issue is more one of context. If the patron was a 'feral' being, such as some druidic force of nature, and the warlock received a boon for giving in to the nature of 'tooth and claw'...would that be evil? Is the act of a coup-de-grace on monster that was trying to kill you, instead of healing that monster to health and trying to rehabilitate it, actively evil? The moral code of a D&D character is not so simple a thing, I'd venture.