Which Warlocks Want We?

[LostSoul]

And it is a catch that may upend her plans, may deny her vengence, may eventually lead to the (from Pelors point of view) redemption of her soul and deny her to Lolth.

She doesn't have to do anything. Which is the problem. The "bargain" is one-sided. There is no catch; she doesn't actually have to be merciful.

I wouldn't mind pacts with good beings if there was a catch.

 

[variant]

Mechanically I prefer the ability to use any power at any time of 3e Warlock. So I would like that concept to be expanded upon. (Still hoping for Talent trees).

 

[Stormonu]

I voted "infrenal", "Dark(?)" and essentials infernal hexblade.

I do not use warlocks in my game world, but the very concept of a "pact" with some greater power to "give" you power in exchange for...something...at some point...while being a very valid fantasy archetype (from Faust on down), seems to demand a "dark/evil" power/outlook of desperation.

The idea that entities willing to say, "oh, ok, here's some power in exchange for something" are NOT "evil" or after some ulterior motive just doesn't mesh with me/my sensibilities.

Naturally, this is coming from someone who uses and likes 9=point alignment in their games...so I don't expect things will develop that way in game to allow for "shiny happy warlocks holding pacts" heroic characters.

But would be nice if Warlocks gave Assassins some company in the "must be evil" or at least "not good" camp. Even someone who is not "evil" entering into a pact with some dark power must be a) very desperate and/or b) knowing that they are taking their soul into someone else's hands and/or c) have the "questionable" ethics or morals to stoop to such a grab for power/feel it is an acceptable course of action.

--SD

Why does a pact demand "evil" or desperation? A cleric's bond to his god could be described as a form of pact ("Follow my tenets and ye shall be rewarded with miracles"), and there are clearly good clerics as well as evil.

You could have celestials that have made bargains with mortals to use their powers in the pursuit of noble ends (sort of like Constantine).

You could have fickle genies whom by manipulations of contracts with and laws with mortals are required to serve and fulfill mortal whims (Sha'ir). Essentially, a spell lawyer.

You could have powerful mortals that have learned the binding power of the spoken law that constructed the universe and defined it's shape; they can alter reality when these "word laws" are spoken (truenamers).

Ancient primordials might have enacted pacts with mortals in return for aid during their war with the gods - pacts they are still bound to honor (by no less than the victorious gods themselves to keep the primordials power weakened), even though the primordials have been defeated and chained.

None of these require an evil or desperate individual to wield as Warlock pact powers.

 

[Shemeska]

Where's my option for none of the above?

I didn't really care for the warlock in 3.x, nor in 4e.

 

[LostSoul]

All interesting characters are desperate.

But that's not the problem with warlocks. It is: they don't have to do anything related to their pact or bargain. They get their powers and that's it.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I'd like to be expanded is the warlock's relationship to their patron. The "Wish Upon A Star" hinted this and it was one of my favorites.

An egostistic warlock would think they got ahead and recieved an extra power through they charm. Little do they know.

A naive warlock who accidentally made a pact would could spontaneously learn new invocations.

An partial insane warlock who knows the true nature of their horrible deal could tap into their full power.


As for patrons.

I prefer:
Deities and those with divine access (angels and other celestials, primordials) create clerics, paladins, and priests as they can grant spells.


Those who cannot grant spells... pump arcane power into mortals and create warlocks. Those that care anyways
All Devils
Some demons
Most Fey
Dark creatures of the shadows
Weird beings behind the stars (Oh are they the Stars... dun dun dun)

 

[steeldragons]

Sure. There are some classes (and races) that I don't necessarily use in my campaigns for one reason or another.

May I ask - I can understand your principle regarding pacts with typically evil forces (e.g. infernal pacts), do you feel the same about the non evil sources of power for the class - fey and star, for instance?

Well, that's kinda the thing, I don't consider them valid power sources for, what I understand the archetype of the class to be.

Stories where fairies/fey creatures make deals with mortals are common enough. But they undertake something for the mortal (a la Rumplestilskein) or give them some enchanted item from the fey world and expect a price. Other than certain iterations of Arthurian myth where Morgan/Morgaine/Morgana is either 1) part Fey herself or 2) communes with/taught her magic by fey, I can't really think of anything to support the idea that a fey lord is going to give you "arcane power" to do with as you wish.

As for a "star pact", I really have no understanding what that means/the fluff is for those. Like an "astrologer/oracle" type thing? Cool concept, but not a "warlock."

They just strike me as a "to even the scales, and keep the 'devil wicked demon mongering game of Satan' howlers at bay, we'll throw these options in so people can be/have 'Good [or at least non-evil] warlock' PCs" with no actual connection to the archetype.

Would it make a difference if the class were named in a D&D way which had no correlation to history (e.g. Battle Magician or some such)?

Well, I'm sure that might make it more palatable. But the whole idea, in the case of a "Battle Magician" or some such, of having to have/make "a pact" then becomes superfluous. Even making it a "Pactbound Wizard" or something like that sort of demands, to my mind, a "pact with [a] devil". That's the strongest archetype.

So, I'm kind of thinking, to answer your question, that 'No. Changing the name of the class, while maintaining "a caster who gets their magic through some kind of deal with greater 'unknown/out there' powers" background/fluff would still strike me as something in, or quickly/ever edging toward, the "evil" zone.

note - I'm not trying to change your mind, just interested on your wider view on the class.

Not at all. No worries. I suppose, the simplest answer is- I don't have a "wider view" of the class.

Warlocks make pacts to gain their magic. The creatures who are willing to make such "deals" are inherently after increasing their own power through those pacts...and the only creatures (powerful enough) that strike me as willing/wanting/even eager to do so are "evil" or at least "sinister" in some fashion. The warlock is in an ever-losing proposition. If you can find a way to "get out of it/save your soul" at the ultimate time, then fine...but you're not then going to be keeping your powers...and likely will have a very serious foe holding a grudge over you for the rest of your days.

It's like, on a similar note, Paladins. That's the archetype, the chivalrous shining knight. Sure, have your Blackguards or your Avengers or whatever you want to call non-LG Paladin-esque "Black Knight" classes with Paladin-esque and/or reversed-Paladin powers. But that doesn't make them Paladins and they shouldn't get every-/anything/the same powers a LG paladin gets.

I have serious objection to the ever-increasing perception that the game must allow players to (and have RULES that say they can) "have my cake and eat it too"...for any class! That I want to play this class, get all of the powers and in-game fun stuff without any of the repercussions or restrictions.

I want to be a "holy warrior champion of X! But I shouldn't have to be LG!" or "I can follow my own code/act however I want and still get these bells and whistles." Fine, have it. But you're not a "paladin" nor get everything a paladin can do. That's not the archetype on which the class was created.

Again, just my take.
Cheers and happy Humpday, all.
--SD

 

[Someone]

elder itch blast

Sounds nasty!

 

[Minigiant]

As for a "star pact", I really have no understanding what that means/the fluff is for those. Like an "astrologer/oracle" type thing? Cool concept, but not a "warlock."

Star pact warlocks are accidents.
These are people who look into the night sky, look at this constellation, but accidentally say the name of that constellation, feel a sudden draining flash of cold, and watch a blast of weird energy fly out of their hands.

They sleep and dream of the graph on page 12 of the Revelations of Melech floating over an astrological chart of the northern moons. Then realize they match. They frantically attempt to scribe them together by every time they do, someone whispers and burns the paper. Each time the burning is lighter but the whisper gets louder. Most people stop but the eventual star pact warlock follows every nightmare's message and every strange situation until they learn saying Zhuudun's name in ancient Elvish is an arcane curse.

 

[triqui]

You can use some variant of wizard or sorcerer for the simple blaster mage, and the swordmage, bladesinger, and duskblade were all better takes on a gish class than the hexblade for a standard campaign (where people who cut deals with demons and devils are the villains).

Elric of Melnibone was the villain? John Constantine? Solomon Kane? The Ghost Rider? Lady and Soulcatcher from The Black Company? Dorian Hawkmoon? Harry Dresden? Severus Schnape? Raistlin Majere? Hellboy? Faust? The Dragon Reborn in The Wheel of Time? Riddick? Bo from Lost Girl? The Winchester brothers in Supernatural?

People should REALLY REALLY try to understand that Tolkien =/= D&D