Warlocks = evil?

[Voss]

Actually, Logan brought up the point that at one time they had that idea, but they ditched it.

Just like I think the 'between the stars bit' is also gone. The document for R&C went to the printers before the design article on warlocks was posted, which didn't mention it. R&C also mentions extra damage through the curse abilities, which were mentioned in a podcast as having been ditched.

 

[Gloombunny]

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... a class that gets its powers from outsiders doesn't have quite the same flexibility.

But... why? Is that under the assumption that warlocks have to be serving their pact-entities' desires in order to get the power?

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.

I guess I haven't been interpreting the flavor the same way as you, 'cuz I hadn't thought there was anything yet really indicating one way or the other to what degree warlocks have to be working for their devils/fairies/shadows/whatever.

Though personally I'm STILL disappointed there's no "Elemental" Warlock who gets his powers from dealing with Djinn, Efreet and Dao.

That sounds kinda cool...

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?"

But this? Nothing personal, but I hope you're disappointed on this one. I feel like it would badly distort the flavor of the class. I don't think warlock should be a generic deals-with-extraplanar-entities class. The "dark" flavor is the core of the concept, IMO. Actually, I guess even what I was thinking of when you mentioned djinn is probably a lot darker than what you had in mind.

A non-clerical empowered-by-angels-to-kick-ass class could be interesting, to be sure, I just think it should be a different class than warlock.

 

[The Little Raven]

That says a lot about the alignemnt (big-A or little-a) of the person who asks for/gets/uses those powers.

Yeah, but this isn't clear. Is the guy that is willing to sacrifice his soul for the power to save his people evil? Is the philosophy "by any means necessary" inherently evil? If the end is good, do the means really make the person evil? That's the problem with trying to classify vague actions such as pacts as Good or Evil, because people are really more complex than that. I think the goodness or evilness of it comes from all the details, not from the basic framework of "caster who derives power from pacts with outsiders of different types."

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?"

Who says we won't see this? Remember, we're talking about the core book, which can't fit every option into it. It's more likely that they'd present each class with a few different builds/flavor options, then add more in the future (like maybe the "stars" stuff being in PHB2, along with elemental and celestial warlocks).

 

[Hussar]

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.


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?"

Again, you REALLY need to look at Tome of Magic for how this is done. Please take a look at the link I provided. There's all the answers. You can play a perfectly good Binder, despite the fact that the vestiges you bind aren't very nice sometimes.

You are assuming that warlocks have to deal directly with "living" outsiders. That you cannot have a, for lack of better term, "Philosophy" warlock similar to a philosophy priest. Why do you assume that? A warlock may get his powers directly from the plane of origin, rather than any individual outsider. After all, 3e had the Abyss as somewhat sentient. I'm sure that other planes could be similar.

So, a Feral warlock is born with an inherent link to the plane of Feywild and draws his abilities from that. Because we now know that he's based on the binder, he'll have to renew that tie periodically and choose from a small (if similar to the binder - about 5) suite of linked abilities that he can use.

The Soul Ruin ability is likely one of the suite abilities that come with a particular binding. Probably from binding an evil source. If you choose to play a "good" warlock, you will simply not choose those sources.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Thing is, with the removal of alignment based mechanics and the reordering of outsiders, it's quite likely that the whole "Outsiders as an embodiment of a particular alignment" dealeo will be scrapped, which would make this not really the case.

 

[Xethreau]

Thing is, with the removal of alignment based mechanics and the reordering of outsiders, it's quite likely that the whole "Outsiders as an embodiment of a particular alignment" dealeo will be scrapped, which would make this not really the case.

I sure hope that is the case, because I thought that idea was dumb...

I do wish that Warlocks could make pacts with more types of beings. Dragons, elementals, djinn and even some angels would be neat. (My justification for angels is that perhaps that there are some not opposed to buying the alliances of otherwise unaligned beings with power, with the stipulation that they use do not use the power for evil.)

... I think I just realized that I love the warlock's flavor...

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

I like the idea of devils being compelled by some sort of agreement or law set down in eons past, but I'd have it such that it's not descendents of the deal-makers benefitting without doing anything, but rather that if a mortal follows certain rules in dealing with devils, the devils are compelled to follow certain rules in response. Like, a warlock might ritually sacrifice a goat to a devil and get cool powers in exchange. The devil might not even want the damn goat, but he has to give the warlock power anyway because that's the rule.



I guess this is kinda like Exalted, where sorcerers can summon and command demons partly because Thousands Of Years Ago, ancient sorcerers and heroes defeated the demon princes in a huge war, and the demons' terms of surrender included being imprisoned in hell except when following the orders of a sorcerer who summons them with certain rites.

 

[Death Dealer]

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

Maybe your Warlock can be D&D's answer to the Ghost Rider. Chase down evil souls and punish them with the penance stare (curses) or fry them with a blast of hell fire (eldritch/arcane blast).

 

[D.Shaffer]

King Solomon anyone?
In folklore he is well known for the ability to command and control demons through the Seal of Solomon. He's not generally considered an evil character in these. I can easilly see someone following a similar tradition, gaining abilities from devils/demons through similar means and not being considered evil in the slightest.

 

[ptolemy18]

Am I the only one who's always disliked warlocks? They strike me as the most boring, gothy idea for a class that doesn't really add anything that a Wizard doesn't already have, and they do it in the most annoying ways possible.

That used to be the case in 3E... but now that they've "narrowed" Wizards so much (something that bugs me since I hardly ever play non-spellcasters, but oh well... I'm just crossing my fingers and waiting to see when and if they reintroduce Monster Summoning), it almost seems like the Warlock is absorbing some of the flavor and powers of the traditional Necromancer Specialist Wizard. Like a necromancer, it seems that many of their powers are "curse" effects and are aimed at a specific foe (in tune with the idea of the Warlock as a "Striker" class), whereas the Wizards are being herded towards large-scale Evocation effects.

As for the dark, Gothy aura surrounding the Warlock class, it seems like this is probably mostly flavor text, since they are diminishing the importance of alignment and allowing "unaligned" characters. :/ So it'll be like in a typical anime series (sorry for saying the "a" word... okay, let's also say, a typical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) where you have some guy who is a devilish Tiefling Warlock who looks totally evil and has some dark tragic past but when push comes to shove he fights the Pit Fiend along with everyone else.