Warlocks = evil?

[Zurai]

I'm just guessing here, but for 4e I'm pretty sure we are going to have to abandon how we think warlocks will work in past D&D cosmologies and imagine new metaphysics.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. I couch my responses in 3rd edition terms mainly because we know slightly more than bupkiss about 4E warlocks, except that they are at least the spiritual successor of the 3E version. Especially since the class changed focus across editions (the 3E 'lock is best termed a Controller, while the 4E one is apparently very solidly in the Striker camp), I fully expect a lot of changes across the board.

I still think there's some value in examining what we know, which is mainly 3rd edition stuff. The 4E warlock grew out of the 3E one, after all, so we should be able to at least get some inkling of the end result by examining the starting point. Of course, it could go and pull a butterfly on us and be something almost entirely different. That's life.

I don't think celestial pacts are a good idea for the warlock class.

...

Consider most Evil Paladin classes that basically just swap the words "good" and "evil" in the core 3e paladin class ... better if they went ahead and started fresh, and designed a class for Paladins of Evil from the ground up, with their own vision

Well, they're doing just that with the 4E paladin - designing a class that used to be the utter definition of Lawful Good and letting Evil paladins exist within the same base class. I'm going to go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they did it in a way that makes sense. Mainly because I've already done so in my homebrew, but also because they're professional game designers and that's what they're paid to do.

So, given that, why can't 4E warlocks grow from a class that didn't really make sense to have a Celestial origin into one that does?

 

[Stone Dog]

Oh, I'm sure you're right.

That doesn't happen often.

I couch my responses in 3rd edition terms mainly because we know slightly more than bupkiss about 4E warlocks, except that they are at least the spiritual successor of the 3E version. Especially since the class changed focus across editions (the 3E 'lock is best termed a Controller, while the 4E one is apparently very solidly in the Striker camp), I fully expect a lot of changes across the board.

We do know a little bit about 4e cosmology though. It really doesn't look to me like we have celestials as independent agents. Each god appears to have their own private idaho in the Astral Sea and Outer Planes as we know them are things of the past and if this is true I think that celestials will be proper servants of the gods directly. Servitor races, to use a Call of Cthulu term.

In 2nd and 3e (and specific settings like FR or Eberron) I'd basically agree with you and I'd think that a dedicated warlock could find somebody up there willing to make a deal. If you can have an archon dealing weapons to both sides of the Blood War you can have just about anything. In 4th.... I am hesitant to believe that anybody but Asmodeus is willing to break the laws of the universe and allow his servants to pass out arcane power to any mortal willing to write up a contract for it.

In

 

[Cadfan]

So, given that, why can't 4E warlocks grow from a class that didn't really make sense to have a Celestial origin into one that does?

Maybe it can. There's no way to know without seeing the class.

But some problems that might occur would be if the class holds a list of abilities from which you mix and match to create your character. You know, how your 3e warlock works now. You can't just drop in some angel themed abilities and declare things done. If you do, you'll end up with warlocks who use abilities like the hypothetical "Acidic Vomit" and "Seraphic Intercession" at the same time. It hurts the flavor.

Making the same class include pacts with dangerous, unknowable powers AND noble angels would also mean that any default abilities granted to all Warlocks would need to be awfully flavorless, so that they could be envisioned both ways.

 

[The Little Raven]

FIFY

The moderators have stated a number of times that they want people to stop this, since it's just a condescending dismissal of someone else's opinion.

They're called "clerics" and "paladins".

I disagree. Warlocks make deals. Clerics and paladins choose to serve. One is a freelancer, the others are direct employees.

 

[Irda Ranger]

So one bit of flavor the warlock could have (and this was in the document at one point, though it's gone now) was drawing on pacts that had been handed down. For instance, a pact formed between devils and tieflings in the time of the ancient tiefling empire might still apply today, and the devils can't take that power back. So the descendants of the pact-makers can use these infernal powers however they want—and nothing angers the devils more than seeing their power used for good.

Logan --

Thanks for the post. The "someone (a long time ago) did a deal; it has ongoing effects" would be a valid explanation for Warlock powers being used by good characters, I suppose. Whether that works or not given the rules ... well, you'd know better than I, I must assume.

But the article that presented the Warlock powers does not support your position. Not at all. Soul Ruin in particular have an evil name and is described as a "here and now" bargain between the Demon and the Warlock; not some power (like laser-beam eyes) that is inherited and ongoing.

Also, if good Warlocks are possible, or even "just" as common as good Rogues, why hide it? Either your position is a minority position within WotC, or they're doing a lousy job of communicating just what this class is/can be.

 

[Xethreau]

Also, if good Warlocks are possible, or even "just" as common as good Rogues, why hide it? Either your position is a minority position within WotC, or they're doing a lousy job of communicating just what this class is/can be.

As much as I like what has been happening with 4e, I think/hope this is the point. I hope that there are ways for a warlock to be good (but creepy), and they just have not elaborated on it any.

 

[Cadfan]

Either your position is a minority position within WotC, or they're doing a lousy job of communicating just what this class is/can be.

They posted one article, weeks ago.

I suppose they could come out and grovel, but nobody respects a toady. The smart move is probably to just publish the book and let complaints rest when it hits the shelves.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

Yes. You are literally the only one. :\

Am I the only one tired of 4E posts that begin "Am I the only one...?"

 

[Gloombunny]

As I know I've pointed out many times in this sort of discussion before, the fey power source has been described by WotC as 'feral'. That doesn't really evoke images of the glittering pixie pulling pranks on the oafish half-orc. That's not to say WotC didn't mischaracterize the power sources and in fact you can have a rainbows-and-bunnies fey-powered warlock, but it's certainly far from given.

Feral doesn't sound evil. It doesn't sound nice, but for the nth time, nice is not the same thing as good.

What's evil about a warlock whose power comes from a somewhat brutal but ultimately morally neutral source? Isn't learning how to kill people with a sword a somewhat brutal but ultimately morally neutral thing? What's the difference?

Why do you all keep talking as if any warlock whose power isn't inherently holy must be evil or Drizz't-like? When did "gets power from angels" become a prerequisite for moral behavior? How can you be ok with fighters and wizards and rogues who act ruthlessly in the pursuit of justice but not with a warlock using their magic the same way? I wish someone would explain this to me, 'cuz I just can't make sense of it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

What's evil about a warlock whose power comes from a somewhat brutal but ultimately morally neutral source?

I don't believe anyone has said it is. We've complained that 1) the Infernal Warlocks are evil, and 2) there's no obviously Good choice. Both of those are consistent with "Feral/Shadowy exist, and they're creepy.

Just to be clear, I'm cool with creepy as a choice. I just want Good to be a choice too. Preferably even more than one "kind" of Good. You know, like Clerics.

Why do you all keep talking as if any warlock whose power isn't inherently holy must be evil or Drizz't-like? When did "gets power from angels" become a prerequisite for moral behavior? How can you be ok with fighters and wizards and rogues who act ruthlessly in the pursuit of justice but not with a warlock using their magic the same way? I wish someone would explain this to me, 'cuz I just can't make sense of it.

The difference is that Warlocks get their powers from outsiders. That says a lot about the alignemnt (big-A or little-a) of the person who asks for/gets/uses those powers.

Fighters, wizard and rogues don't have to work with angels to be good because they don't work with any outsiders at all for their daily powers. They can just be good, evil, or any point in between however they choose. But a class that gets its powers from outsiders doesn't have quite the same flexibility.

Now, Wotc_Logan brought up the point that Warlocks could somehow be "stealing" the powers of Devils, and using it for good ends. If the Warlock is truly independent of their power-source's desires, that changes a lot. Both the flavor (which has been badly misrepresented) and the Alignment consequences.

Though personally I'm STILL disappointed there's no "Elemental" Warlock who gets his powers from dealing with Djinn, Efreet and Dao. And I'd also like to see a Angelic/Super-Eladrin Warlock. Personally to think of an "mostly good" Warlock "I do good, but on my own terms. You helping or not?"