Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6462999" data-attributes="member: 6786252">I consider cursing, of any ilk, to be dark magic.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Frankly speaking, that's not a good character - that's pretty amoral and Id driven at best, outright cruel at the worst.&nbsp; Making someone suffer like that, even mildly, is not a good action.&nbsp; Remember, the fey of lore are not nice.&nbsp;&nbsp; They were feared by people for a reason.Also remember that you can have pacts with Fiends and Beholders and still be a good aligned character; dark magic does not make you evil.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise, you can be a paladin without being good.&nbsp; Those are just two examples I threw out.&nbsp;&nbsp; The entire class is like that.&nbsp;&nbsp; If it was just one thing, then sure, I'd say it was a reach.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the entire class has names and references like that.&nbsp; &nbsp; You can't just ignore it all.Well, I suppose you could, but I find that to be nothing more than cherry picking what you want to keep.&nbsp;&nbsp; When taken as a whole, the warlock definitely has a dark edge to it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The warlock's lore, from the first time it appeared in 3e, through the sister-classes of binder and hexblade, to 4e, has been dark magic user and researcher of forbidden lore.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I was asked why I considered the sorcerer, and I responded with my views, and then was accused of ignoring the fluff of the class, and responded by pointing out more fluff.&nbsp; &nbsp; Of course I was arguing to defend my case!&nbsp; I'm the one being accused!&nbsp; &nbsp; I was the one who had to defend my view of the warlock, not tell anyone else they couldn't play theirs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6462999, member: 6786252"] I consider cursing, of any ilk, to be dark magic. Frankly speaking, that's not a good character - that's pretty amoral and Id driven at best, outright cruel at the worst. Making someone suffer like that, even mildly, is not a good action. Remember, the fey of lore are not [I]nice[/I]. They were feared by people for a reason. Also remember that you can have pacts with Fiends and Beholders and still be a good aligned character; dark magic does not make you evil. Likewise, you can be a paladin without being good. Those are just two examples I threw out. The entire class is like that. If it was just one thing, then sure, I'd say it was a reach. But the entire class has names and references like that. You can't just ignore it all. Well, I suppose you could, but I find that to be nothing more than cherry picking what you want to keep. When taken as a whole, the warlock definitely has a dark edge to it. The warlock's lore, from the first time it appeared in 3e, through the sister-classes of binder and hexblade, to 4e, has been dark magic user and researcher of forbidden lore. I was asked why I considered the sorcerer, and I responded with my views, and then was accused of ignoring the fluff of the class, and responded by pointing out more fluff. Of course I was arguing to defend my case! I'm the one being accused! I was the one who had to defend my view of the warlock, not tell anyone else they couldn't play theirs. [/QUOTE]

Verification