Warlocks = evil?

[rounser]

That said, I find warlocks to be one of the more interesting things to come out of D&D in the last two editions.

Yup, they put a new spin on D&D magic in more than one way, and have a very solid archetype.

I find oozemasters a kind of fascinating development too, for some reason...they seem an even more definitive "mad scientist" class than wild mages.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

It's not so much evil as creepy.

As long as they look like they could be evil, it works.

Brad

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I don't know, but they strikes me as easily turned to dragonic or fey sources of pwoer, maybe... maybe even divine...

 

[Hussar]

Well, since it looks like they've ganked the binder for this class, you could definitely have the creepyness without the evil. As a huge fan of the binder, I'm loving this development.

After all, binders consort with all sorts of evilness, but aren't evil in themselves. Most of the vestiges were demons, undead, or evil gods after all.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Based on the info so far, Warlocks draw their power from evil sources. They cast stuff like Soul Ruin which sounds all sorts of evil magic.

How can this class be most any alignnment?

AFAIC, it can't. This has been discussed before and, as frankthedm posits, some people feel you can use an evil (or "just feral") power source for good ends. I don't see it that way. If you really wanted to be good, every other class (not just paladin) can be "Good" with a capital-G. You could have been a Wizard or a Ranger, but you chose to make a deal with a demon.

As others have mentioned, you could write into your character history that you were "tricked" into entering into the pact, or somehow "destiny" caused you to be a Warlock, or your parents sold your soul to a demon on your behalf (the plot of a current TV show, apparently), but really, how often can this happen? As character backgrounds go, I think it would get old to always have to come up for reasons why you're not evil.

And that still doesn't explain why you keep using your ability to ruin people's souls. Not evil? I don't think so.

To me, the infernal power sourcing sounds too limiting. I like the idea of a planar empowered spellcaster who could choose the infernal planes for power, but the Warlock appears to be the new assassin...aka, the PC class that never fit well with any party back in 1e.

Yup.

 

[rounser]

but really, how often can this happen?

About as often as good, surface-dwelling drow?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I don't know, but they strikes me as easily turned to dragonic or fey sources of pwoer, maybe... maybe even divine...

I really like the idea of a warlock making a pact with a dragon for power.

 

[Hussar]

AFAIC, it can't. This has been discussed before and, as frankthedm posits, some people feel you can use an evil (or "just feral") power source for good ends. I don't see it that way. If you really wanted to be good, every other class (not just paladin) can be "Good" with a capital-G. You could have been a Wizard or a Ranger, but you chose to make a deal with a demon.

As others have mentioned, you could write into your character history that you were "tricked" into entering into the pact, or somehow "destiny" caused you to be a Warlock, or your parents sold your soul to a demon on your behalf (the plot of a current TV show, apparently), but really, how often can this happen? As character backgrounds go, I think it would get old to always have to come up for reasons why you're not evil.

And that still doesn't explain why you keep using your ability to ruin people's souls. Not evil? I don't think so.


Yup.

Irda Ranger, have you read Tome of Magic? Right there is your answer as to how you can use evilish sounding stuff without being evil at all. Right now, my binder is bound to Acerak - Y'know the demilich from Tomb of Horrors? Yet, he's not evil.

ToM is the go to source for spoilers here.

 

[drothgery]

Am I the only one who's always disliked warlocks?

I always disliked the flavor of warlocks, though an arcanist completely free of resource-tracking has a lot of appeal. And I think they did the same style of mechanics much better with the Dragonfire Adept in Dragon Magic.

 

[Goobermunch]

AFAIC, it can't. This has been discussed before and, as frankthedm posits, some people feel you can use an evil (or "just feral") power source for good ends. I don't see it that way. If you really wanted to be good, every other class (not just paladin) can be "Good" with a capital-G. You could have been a Wizard or a Ranger, but you chose to make a deal with a demon.

As others have mentioned, you could write into your character history that you were "tricked" into entering into the pact, or somehow "destiny" caused you to be a Warlock, or your parents sold your soul to a demon on your behalf (the plot of a current TV show, apparently), but really, how often can this happen? As character backgrounds go, I think it would get old to always have to come up for reasons why you're not evil.

And that still doesn't explain why you keep using your ability to ruin people's souls. Not evil? I don't think so.

I don't know. I kinda like the idea of playing an infernal warlock who gets his power from an imp he beat up and imprisoned. Now, he uses the imp's power to fight for what is right and good. If the opportunity comes up, maybe he'll imprison a stronger demon.

The beauty of this option is that it must make the imprisoned demon miserable, seeing its powers used for sunshine and bunnies. I don't know if the RAW will permit this concept, but I kinda like it.

With regard to the term Soul Ruin, you assume it means to cause the ruin of another's soul. That's one option. Maybe it means expediting the just rewards for a soul that's already ruined. Until we see what the power does and what the fluff requires, we can't know.

No one has come out and said that the warlock's power involves taking the soul of an innocent and destroying it. As long as the rules permit multiple explanations for what a warlock does, the class need not be evil.

--G