# Design & Development: The Warlock



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 12, 2007)

*Discuss.*


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 12, 2007)

> Rather than relying only on eldritch blast, you'll also have an arsenal of curses (send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces)[...]



I think I just had an evilgasm...


----------



## MerricB (Oct 12, 2007)

Uh... cool?



Favourite bit: " an arsenal of curses (send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces)".

That sounds fun.

I'm really getting the vibe that the existing spell-system will look very, very different once we see "powers" in full flow for 4e.

Cheers,
Merric


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Sigh. It looks like the warlock will still be primarily dark-flavored in 4e, while the paladin gets counterparts of other alignments.

Still, nothing stopping me from creating light-flavored patrons, pacts and abilities.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 12, 2007)

> After some initial shock, everyone admitted that the warlock's eldritch blast didn't break the game.




Not quite everyone - I still see arguments about it...

The 4e warlock sounds like a fun but very dark class, and nicely contrasted with the wizard. I'm still not sure whether it's arcane or divine, but leaning towards arcane.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

> A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons?



Curious. Now, Infernal is obvious.

Shadowy? Does this imply moral ambiguity, or straight up shadow-realm stuff?

Feral? Are we talkin' Demons and their angry natures? Or perhaps more Fae-like? Given they're otherworldly, I don't know. Maybe this class might be connected to the Far Realm? The Raw power of Nature?

I like. 

Though it does concern me that the class might be the one-trick pony people are saying it is. "Evil evil evil".


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 12, 2007)

Jab jab forward short fierce!

I like that the class is intrinsically dark-flavored.  It's really not analogous to pre-4e paladins, because dark flavor doesn't mean evil character.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 12, 2007)

Teleport _and_ turn invisible.

I guess teleport is confirmed. Not that this is a big surprise but still.

Warlock is one of those classes _I_ will never play but I like it more than the ones I used to not play; monk, druid, and bard.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 12, 2007)

Pretty official now that the warlock killed the binder and took his stuff, at least in the flavor department.

If anything, it looks more Divine than Arcane now, with the talk of making pacts with supernatural patrons and receiving "Boons of Souls" from them.

Argh, Boon of Soul... Don't like that name too much... Oh well.

It sounds pretty cool.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Curious. Now, Infernal is obvious.
> 
> Shadowy? Does this imply moral ambiguity, or straight up shadow-realm stuff?
> 
> Feral? Are we talkin' Demons and their angry natures? Or perhaps more Fae-like? Given they're otherworldly, I don't know. Maybe this class might be connected to the Far Realm? The Raw power of Nature?



Now that you mention it, that does make it really sound like warlocks can choose from the Abyss, the Shadowfell, and the Feywild for their pacts.  I'm curious as to how that'll turn out, if so.  Giving a class too many fluff options has the drawback of making things that should be mechanically distinct too similar.  (Like how 3e clerics all have almost exactly the same powers regardless of which god they're getting them from.)


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Curious. Now, Infernal is obvious.
> 
> Shadowy? Does this imply moral ambiguity, or straight up shadow-realm stuff?
> 
> ...




What if the patrons are named? Maybe it won't say "made a pact with an infernal being" but rather "made a pact with the devil Asmodeus." 

Or Orcus, or Vecna, or Mordenkainen.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Now that you mention it, that does make it really sound like warlocks can choose from the Abyss, the Shadowfell, and the Feywild for their pacts./QUOTE]
> Devils are more the pact-sort. You know, deals, selling one's soul, interested in souls, etc etc.
> 
> Question is, what would anyone in the Feywild want with souls?


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I like that the class is intrinsically dark-flavored.  It's really not analogous to pre-4e paladins, because dark flavor doesn't mean evil character.



True, but it would be nice to have some light-flavored options in there, such as an entity similar to the Silver Flame in Eberron, to empower Lawful or Good warlocks. Some gamers (like me, for example) do like playing (for lack of a better term) unambiguously "good guy" characters.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Oct 12, 2007)

Wow! Me like,me like, me like!


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Devils are more the pact-sort. You know, deals, selling one's soul, interested in souls, etc etc.
> 
> Question is, what would anyone in the Feywild want with souls?



Devils corrupt and imprison souls. Demons eat souls. Fey turn souls into new fey.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Question is, what would anyone in the Feywild want with souls?



My take is: some patrons aren't interested in getting souls, just in the warlock killing his marked enemies. Whatever the warlock's patron is, I'm sure there are creatures that it doesn't like and is willing to reward the warlock for killing.


----------



## DandD (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Devils corrupt and imprison souls. Demons eat souls. Fey turn souls into new fey.



 Or want to play with them. Fey are quite fond of little children, and like to play with them... Until they get bored and throw them away like old toys...


----------



## KingCrab (Oct 12, 2007)

They say they're moving away from save or die effects, yet being sent to hell and coming back in pieces sounds like an all or nothing type of thing to me.   I'm wondering how much save or die they're leaving in the game.


----------



## DandD (Oct 12, 2007)

Perhaps it was just meant as a flavorfull description of a really powerful attack that makes really big damage (and has as a nice side-effect the ability to make your enemy disappear for one round, so that he can't contribute to the fight).


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 12, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> They say they're moving away from save or die effects, yet being sent to hell and coming back in pieces sounds like an all or nothing type of thing to me.   I'm wondering how much save or die they're leaving in the game.



I think you're taking Heinsoo's writing a _little_ too literally there.  The "in more pieces" part is just meant, I think, to indicate that the enemy takes a lot of damage from being in hell for a round.


----------



## kerbarian (Oct 12, 2007)

"Our understanding of the party roles indicates that the sorcerer and the wizard might very well be standing on each other's toes and pointy hats."

To me, this says that the wizard and sorcerer would both be controllers.  No surprise there.  However, since the article is talking about how warlocks fit in well, it implies that the warlock will not be a controller (i.e. won't step on the wizard's toes).


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 12, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> True, but it would be nice to have some light-flavored options in there, such as an entity similar to the Silver Flame in Eberron, to empower Lawful or Good warlocks. Some gamers (like me, for example) do like playing (for lack of a better term) unambiguously "good guy" characters.



Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then?  I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.


----------



## Xyl (Oct 12, 2007)

kerbarian said:
			
		

> To me, this says that the wizard and sorcerer would both be controllers.  No surprise there.  However, since the article is talking about how warlocks fit in well, it implies that the warlock will not be a controller (i.e. won't step on the wizard's toes).



It sounds like the warlock has various damage and movement powers, with a bonus for concentrating attacks on a single opponent - definitely a striker.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Oct 12, 2007)

4E Warlock= 3.5 Warlock/Binder/Hexblade!!! I know what my first 4E character is going to be! WotC can do no wrong for right now. Give me a week, they will make me mad about something. Right now cloud 9!!!


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then?  I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.



Well, nothing about the rogue class precludes having a Lawful and/or Good alignment, or requires the association with Chaotic and/or Evil entities. A rogue could be a Lawful Good government secret agent or city watch detective just as easily as he could be a Chaotic Evil crime lord or killer for hire.

I'll admit that the core warlock seems to be more dark-flavored than I would like, which is a pity since the core mechanics of the warlock (that we've seen so far) could easily be adapted have a light flavor. A Lawful Good warlock's eldritch blast could be silver holy fire, his "curses" (alternate word needed) could expose an opponent to the pure flame of judgement, his conjurations could summon a host of celestial hounds, and movement powers are alignment-neutral.

Like I said, it should be easy enough for me to change if I wanted to. I just think it's a pity that the dark flavor of the warlock seems to be unnecessarily retained when paladins were made more generic.


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 12, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I just think it's a pity that the dark flavor of the warlock seems to be unnecessarily retained when paladins were made more generic.




I guess it's tied to the cosmology. It makes perfect sense to have a warlock making pacts with LG deities instead of demons--except that the LG deities apparently prefer to create clerics.

I agree, however, that it is a shame the darkness in the PH isn't being balanced with light. If we have the Warlock, it would be nice to retain the paladin's saintly flavor.  If we have tieflings, it would be nice to toss aasimar into the mix as well.  

What can I say? When both sides of the coin are presented, the game feels more human to me.


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "...send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces"




I need to go roll up Broodwich the Warlock.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 12, 2007)

Well, unlike everyone else, I didn't like the preview on the warlock. Upon first reading that that it would  curses and make pacts, I thought it might be cool. However, then reading about the class sending an opponent to hell for a round and other abilities, the class  just sounds lame (to keep it polite) to me, but this has been my general opinion of WOTC designed  non-core 3.x classes in general.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 12, 2007)

Ok, after a chain of meh and OMG articles this one Wowed me.
I like the Warlock, I like the fluff and what I saw of the mechanics.
I think there will be a way for a warlock to create a pact with named entity like ORCUS. There must be a way! And if there is none, I will create a way myself. ORCUS must be obeyed.
The Warlock seems very dark flavored, but I bet a few month after the PHB is released we have some EN Worlders who create a "white" Warlock conterpart, who have pacts with celestial enteties. And there is always the Dragon or the coming up PHBs 2+ to address this issue.


But, me being always a critic, I do not llike the Tiefling picture. The Horns are ok, but the Tail is ridiculous. Can you imagine a Fighter in the heaviest Plate with a Tail poppong out on the backside? Maybe it will be an armored Tail? Baah!
I already see the "Horns or Tail" and "thats a long tail" jokes.  



> Then, once we saw the concept art Bill O'Connor provided for tieflings, we knew that we had to commit to including tieflings as a PC race, rather than just hopeful it would work out (more on that in a future Design & Development column).




That made me think too. Di dthey include the Tiefling because the art was cool? Without consulting the players out there if they want him? I hope not.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 12, 2007)

I think it's quite good. But I wanted the Druid in the first PHB...


----------



## BBQ (Oct 12, 2007)

Personally, I think Warlock could end up being one of the most roleplaying-rich classes in 4th edition. While tieflings have the advantage in this area (the blood of fiends runs in their veins, so they might be like the mutants of "X-Men"... shunned by a society they endeavor to protect), a warlock of any race opens up doorways to infinite amounts of interesting interactions (One comes to mind: a character similar to "Spawn" or "Ghost Rider"... a character who makes a deal with some extraplanar being, a powerful immortal or some sort of foul fiend, perhaps even to achieve some kind of goodly end [even if his methods/motivations could be shady], then uses the power gained from that deal to battle the forces they once served.) I love the idea of the roleplaying opportunities opened up by the class (encounters with said extraplanar being's minions, avatars of that creature, delving deep into said creature's realm to reclaim your soul/break your deal... the stories write themselves!). You could definitely make an antihero out of a warlock.

Warlocks will also make tough, cool villains. I like to think of Emperor Palpatine as an evil warlock type. I'm sure there are others.

Needless to say, I'm STOKED for 4e warlocks.


----------



## see (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah, that ends it for me.  There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 12, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> But, me being always a critic, I do not llike the Tiefling picture. The Horns are ok, but the Tail is ridiculous. Can you imagine a Fighter in the heaviest Plate with a Tail poppong out on the backside? Maybe it will be an armored Tail? Baah!
> I already see the "Horns or Tail" and "thats a long tail" jokes.




I hadn't thought of that before. Tieflings have tails?

That's kind of cool. At least it sets them apart anatomically from men. I guess we'll be seeing some feats/powers that require tails.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> Yeah, that ends it for me.  There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".



But... isn't that what most PCs do in a typical D&D campaign?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> But... isn't that what most PCs do in a typical D&D campaign?



Most patrons in D&D games, IMXP, are human nobles, merchants, and wizards. Other than that, he is in fact describing a D&D campaign to the letter.

One could say "mark and murder people for inhuman masters" describes the _detect_  + _smite_ of the paladin perfectly.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 12, 2007)

Infernal patrons : devils, of course
Sahdowy patrons : creatures from the shadowfell ? I guess Shadar Kai (sp ?) are/were warlocks. Think about pacts with vampire lords (something like WoD ghouls...)
Feral : feywild or abyssal ? I can imagine both the formorians and the demons wanting to use the souls you can provide them....


About the "there lacks a "light" side in the PHB. We don't know. Remember the Eladrins ? If they are "light" elves from the feywild, they may balance the tiefling. We already know that there is some kind of "mystery" character in some playtest groups. That means we will have a surprise in the PHB, either a race or a class we did not think about.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 12, 2007)

BBQ said:
			
		

> You could definitely make an antihero out of a warlock.



Oh, so very true. The warlock description gives me a heavy Elric of Melniboné-vibe! Give that warlock a cursed sword, call his patron Arioch, and we basically have our favourite albino!

While the warlock is not a character for every player, it has a good anti-hero-vibe - I like that very much, mainly because of the Elric-vibe!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Oct 12, 2007)

Love that flavor. Especially the Boon of Souls part. Hmm i can hear the multiclassed fighter/warlock screaming "Blood and souls for lord Arioch!"


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 12, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> Yeah, that ends it for me.  There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".



That's a pretty shallow, whiny complaint you have there.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> That's a pretty shallow, whiny complaint you have there.




moderator/
Don't get personal, please.


----------



## Soel (Oct 12, 2007)

I was already looking to make a warlock/binder gestalt for an upcoming campaign. Sounds like they made it easy for me to convert it when 4e comes...

And the "go to hell" ability, that's just precious!


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 12, 2007)

Meh.

I am highly displeased at the loss of the druid, a PC-friendly legacy class, in favor of some flashy new NPC-friendly warlock class.

The absence of druids in the PHB creates a void where a traditional (and vital to my campaign) class exists. Whereas the warlock fills a narrow niche that could easily be filled by wizard or sorcerer.

My first exposure to the warlock was last year with NWN2 and I was pretty underwhelmed; I've not found a reason to play one yet. And the character Jerro is a surly boor... and a party liability, usually being the first to fall in combat.

I see little use for them as a core PHB class. The players in my pnp campaign generally choose to be good-guys. And personally, playing an evil PC holds no appeal, even as a roleplaying "challenge". Bad behavior is contrary to heroic adventuring and detrimental to party cohesion. 

So basically, while the class seems fleshy enough, and the flavor makes them an interesting foe, the warlock will be relegated to NPC status serving as antagonist or short-term patron.

As a PC class, they strike me as mere fodder for rebellious goth and death metal types. I can expect there'll be a wave of half-drow tiefling warlocks soon. 

The darkwave angst is growing a bit thick in this edition.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 12, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Not quite everyone - I still see arguments about it...



I expect he was referring to the designers...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 12, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> I see little use for them as a core PHB class. The players in my pnp campaign generally choose to be good-guys. And personally, playing an evil PC holds no appeal, even as a roleplaying "challenge".



I know, it's a crushing disappointment that they don't write the whole game entirely based on your personal opinions and needs, isn't it?

Still, buck up. Tomorrow's another day.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 12, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> The darkwave angst is growing a bit thick in this edition.



1e had the assassin, a class which had to be of evil alignment.

Gary Gygax = 100% metüll


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 1e had the assassin, a class which had to be of evil alignment.
> 
> Gary Gygax = 100% metüll



Let's not forget one of the most iconic pieces of 1e art.

A Paladin....IN *HELL!!!!!* *screeching power chord solo*

Man, it's almost as if these things existed _before_ Sisters of Mercy. But that couldn't be, right? I mean, then they'd be tapping into mythology and folklore and common cultural supernatural archetypes, rather than teenagers and WoW and anime and other stuff that frightens old people.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 12, 2007)

I also want to add that IMHO the 3.5 Warlock was not introduced because of the concept, which could have been easily covered by Wizard, Sorcerer or even Cleric with an appropriate choice of abilities, but because of the mechanics. It was a clear attempt at getting away from vancian magic and test a spellcaster that would have no daily limits on his magical resources.

I hated it for many reasons in 3.5.

But now that 4e is a different ruleset, and that EVERYONE has daily abilities together with at-will abilities, there is no major mechanical difference between Warlocks and the other characters. So the differences are all in the character concept, and of course in the specific abilities that are being designed based on the concept.

And I have to say I like this 4e concept much more than the 3.5 one. It's much more well-round thought out. It's not too narrow, because there is mention of actually different things, from pacts to souls and perhaps even truenames (and why not blood magic? at this point, the Warlock could be a receptacle of all the "twisted" methods of gathering magic powers). This makes the concept wide enough to fully deserve its own core class.

As I said before, my only regret is that the introduction of the Warlock and the Warlord is being done at the expense of the loss of the Druid, which I think it's really sad, since the Druid is a long-time established core class.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Oh, absolutely unhappy about the apparent lack of the druid. BIIIIIG contributor in my "would you be happier with a 3.5/IH/4e/AE d20 hack?" thoughts, in fact. I like druids.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 12, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Meh.
> 
> I am highly displeased at the loss of the druid, a PC-friendly legacy class, in favor of some flashy new NPC-friendly warlock class.
> 
> The absence of druids in the PHB creates a void where a traditional (and vital to my campaign) class exists. Whereas the warlock fills a narrow niche that could easily be filled by wizard or sorcerer.



Oh, I might miss the Druid, too. (Though one of my favourite characters was a Druid/Shifter, not a pure Druid.)

But how important is the Druid to your world? Is it just the class abilities (Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Animal Companion, Wild Shape)? Or is it the general flavour of an "Agent/Ally of Nature"?

I think other character classes can fit the flavour, too. Possibly even a Warlock (if he has a patron from the Feywild, for example) and very likely a Cleric. 

Admittedly, it still requires more work when adapting your setting.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

This is the first bit of fluff that I don't like from everything 4E.  I don't plan on having those type of characters in my game.  It would have made much more sense to make the flavor a bit more universal.  

I don't play or run WoD games becasue you play the monsters and bad guys, I think this at best should have been an NPC class like the Villian classes out of Iron Heroes.

Taking up space in my PHB for this is a waste to me, Druid or Bard should have taken it's place.

The mechanic parts are also very bad fluff, the whole send to Hell and takes lots of damage for one round sounds like something I would have made up when I was in Junior High.

All in all one class won't make me overly upset with 4E, but this is the first black mark I've seen.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Oct 12, 2007)

Mark me down for not likeing the forced dark flavor of the class.  It doesn't bother me that there are Dark options and I would actually like to see talent treess (oe whatever 4e is going to call them) for really Dark aspects of a PC - but lets get some Light ones as well.  Let the player decide which path they are going to go down.

It's a flavor thing that can be easily changed - at least right now.  Even having the Warlock send a bad guy to hell can be flavor changed to something else.  But if this flavor is built in from the beginning - and it is forced on us from the beginning, I'm wondering how long before there is an ability where it's harder to file off the serial numbers and make it not be Dark.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

And judging by the pure rocksauce that is the Tiefling Warlock sketch, I'd guess that the primary design influence for 4e may be "3e with the volume turned up". 

Which is ****in' _metal _in my book.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> And judging by the pure rocksauce that is the Tiefling Warlock sketch, I'd guess that the primary design influence for 4e may be "3e with the volume turned up".
> 
> Which is ****in' _metal _in my book.





It goes to 11.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> 4e may be "3e with the volume turned up".




But this edition goes to eleven?

I really don't know why people keep harping on about the dark flavour etc, this new article states right there that you can go the feral route, so what's the problem?

I'm gearing up for my killmoulis warlock!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> That's a pretty shallow, whiny complaint you have there.




It's not shallow at all.  D&D in pieces appears to be moving to a "toying with fiends" ia A-OK mindset.  I find it quite distasteful.  So do a considerable minority of D&D players.  I have no problem with the option being there, I'd just prefer a less uberevil warlock option.  I think the feral warlock may be it for me though.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

_Removed by admin._


----------



## Imaro (Oct 12, 2007)

Well first let me say that this is the first Dragon article I found an interesting read, and enjoyed it.

As far as the flavor goes I gotta chime in with the "options" crowd.  Right now I don't think the evil flavor of the warlock should be a forced thing, and as far as the tons of roleplaying possibilities...how would it be any different if the Warlock could choose to make pacts with evil or good.  I for one find evil characters disruptive to a game, unless everyone is on the same page...and making a character who does evil to attain his powers just doesn't sit right with me.

I'm wondering from a roleplaying perspective, how exactly does this work.  If you have an evil being as your patron, who also supplies your powers, I would assume the being wants something in return?  Now you can go the whole Elric/Arioch direction...but even Elric (on more than one occasion) gets slapped down by Arioch for not going with the plan, and eventually the albino turns on him by forsaking chaos.  I can't see a player being happy if a DM uses this type of heavy handed technique to enforce the player's price for his powers.  Or a player who is willing to relenquish his/her power as they become a hero.

Second thing I'm wondering is why is being the slave of a demon/devil/fay cool or heroic enough to be a primary class?  Maybe I don't get the whole "metal" thing (I like hip-hop...not gangsta rap, real hip-hop).  Even in other games with this type of vibe...Warhammer, Stormbringer, etc.  there is a very real price to pay for this type of power (corruption, mutations, demons turning on you, etc.).  Now we don't know enough about the mechanics yet, but if WotC makes this a character with no reprecussions for his/her power I will be sorely dissapointed.  It's this, real mechanical drawbacks and risks, that make this type of character interesting.  The problems I can see arising with this type of mechanic would be... it will disadvantage the player vs. other spellcasters and would certainly cause strife in anything but an evil PC game.

Elric is an interesting character because he attains Stormbringer and summons Arioch for an understandable motive...love.  He is more interesting because he slowly realizes what he's done and unleashed as the world and his personal life suffer the effects of having tilted the world towards chaos.  He is a hero because he tries to deny and fight against these forces and in the end is destroyed by them in trying to  fix what he has wrought.  This is what makes him a hero instead of a villain.  

My biggest worry is that the warlock will just be a spellslinger who is evil with no reprecussions or context of what he/she has done for power.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

edit: never mind.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

If I may?

These concerns can easily seem odd, misplaced, or even shallow to those for whom the difference between imaginary murder & theft and imaginary apostasy appear to be, well, shallow and odd. Both are, in many ways of looking at, morality-neutral; some might even consider imaginary violent crimes to be somewhat worse than imaginary thought crimes, but I digress. Assigning real, personal moral value to one imaginary action, but not another - and it IS important to note that the purchase of a 4e PHB won't put your name on the Satanic Church's mailing list or anything - can seem to come out of deep left field.

I'm not really trying for a discussion - is there like a Cage Match forum or something for these - just trying to chime in from the "huh?" side with a bit of potential reasoning.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.
> 
> Please get over yourself and your religion...



Wow.

*SERIOUSLY* not helping here, man.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.
> 
> Please get over yourself and your religion...





IMHO, that was so not cool.  

Especially when it's a valid point and D&D seems to be basing a big chunk of their mythology on a Chrsitian/Judeo belief systems.  

Anyway I feel a poster has a right to voice their concerns over this.  I certainly can't see letting my 9 year old son play a warlock at this point.  Just to many issues with a class like that I'm not ready to promote or explain to him.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 12, 2007)

Before everyone gets too caught up in the more 'diabolic' flavor with one of the paths...remember that there are two other talent trees they mentioned.  Those arent necessarily going to be tied to dark forces.

Considering most of it is likely going to just be flavor text, nothing says you cant just change the names, either.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah, I edited my response above, as it could derail this.

My point was I'm probably going to be okay with all this in the end, especially with the shadow and feral options.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> *SERIOUSLY* not helping here, man.




Yeah, thanks dad…


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Oct 12, 2007)

I am not fond of classes that are specifically aligned at 1st level. The Warlock should have become a Prestige class, along with the Paladin.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

Moniker said:
			
		

> I am not fond of classes that are specifically aligned at 1st level.




Who stated the warlock will be?


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 12, 2007)

Hmm I was really hoping - and still am - that warlocks would at least have the option of a non-dark path to follow. Maybe not so far as forming pacts with celestials, but at least some more or less neutral entities. 

At first I was hoping to create pacts with anything in the elemental tempest as well as the abyss, and getting a different set of abilities depending on which you choose. Mostly because I think an elemental savant type arcane striker would be awesome. 

But then, if the class is concerned about souls, that kinda rules out demons and elementals right? It's the demons and others of the astral realms that are more concerned with souls, not devils, if I remember correctly. So, maybe one the three paths is actually celestial, and charges the warlock to collect the souls of the damned for purification, salvation, or whatever?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yeah, thanks dad…



 Well apparently _somebody_ needs to come around to teach you how to act amongst adults. Why not go sit down, have a cup of coffee, get some corn flakes nobody pissed in, and try forum posting again?

I can hear mod footsteps from here, man.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Who stated the warlock will be?




It's a good bet the "Shadow" and "Feral" won't be alignment/concept limiting.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely unhappy about the apparent lack of the druid. BIIIIIG contributor in my "would you be happier with a 3.5/IH/4e/AE d20 hack?" thoughts, in fact. I like druids.



Actually, I'm wondering if the (possibly fey-powered) feral warlocks are a stand-in for druids...


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> IMHO, that was so not cool.
> 
> Especially when it's a valid point and D&D seems to be basing a big chunk of their mythology on a Chrsitian/Judeo belief systems.




IMHO, I thought it was quite pithy.


It is not a valid point; it is someone looking at things from their personal religious background (too emotional and non-objective).


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> The Warlock should have become a Prestige class, along with the Paladin.




That is the direction I wish they would have taken, in 3.5 the Warlock class was a major mechanical change and deserved its own class.  Now that all classes have per day,per encounter, and at will abilities there was no need for it as a base class.  Making it a prestige class or a talent tree for Wizard or Sorcorer would be much better.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Well apparently _somebody_ needs to come around to teach you how to act amongst adults.




Ooh, you want to be my daddy, big boy?


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 12, 2007)

Upside: WotC is _totally_ over any fear they may have had of offending the "chic-tracks" crowd.

Downside: no sorcerer at all, and no druid in the PHBI?


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Moniker said:
			
		

> I am not fond of classes that are specifically aligned at 1st level. The Warlock should have become a Prestige class, along with the Paladin.




Paladin's aren't forced into an alignment at 1st level in 4e.

The article didn't state anything about specific alignments that 4e Warlocks must be. Access to scary, otherworldly powers doesn't automatically make one 'evil', after all.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm wondering if the (possibly fey-powered) feral warlocks are a stand-in for druids...



I was about to write a "not for me" response, explaining what druids needed (IMO) to fill their world-building niche...and I could see them giving those to a 'feral' warlock, making him awesome.

So color me....neutral about druid inclusion ATM.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> at least some more or less neutral entities.




FERAL.



> So, maybe one the three paths is actually celestial, and charges the warlock to collect the souls of the damned for purification, salvation, or whatever?




That is wrong on so many levels.  If that would be the only way to have "good" warlocks I'd rathe have them say "only evil alignments"


----------



## Imaro (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> IMHO, I thought it was quite pithy.
> 
> 
> It is not a valid point; it is someone looking at things from their personal religious background (too emotional and non-objective).




And...your response wasn't guided or influenced by your personal background, feelings, whatever...PLEASE.  Anything we say or think is influenced by our personal baggage.  You seem to want someone to antagonize so I'm finished responding to you.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Ooh, you want to be my daddy, big boy?



Sure. Get off that computer and go mow the damn lawn!

More to the point, your definition of pithy is stretched to breaking and as it turns out you're not going to be worth the effort expended to try and keep you from gleefully crapping your way into a ban. So um, get on with your bad self, I guess.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

----


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

For me, flavor is purely for inspiration.  I have absolutely zero problem reflavoring a class.  I do it reflexively when I create a character.  I start from the concept, and build the character using the classes like tools.  The class flavor only helps if it cues me in to new concepts.

So count me unconcerned about the warlock's flavor.

What I'm more interested in is the mechanics.

In 3e, the wizard had vancian magic, the sorcerer had vancian magic with a crude hack built in to it, the psion had spell points designed to approximate vancian magic, and the warlock had a list of abilities it could use at will, plus one generic blast attack that could be customized through a "mix and match" feature of shapes and types.

Now the wizard seems to have some at will abilities, and a tiny bit of vancian magic.  The sorcerer is instantly rendered redundant, since he was just a wizard with a "no cd" crack installed.  The psion isn't redundant, but he will need heavy revision, since his powers used to shadow vancian magic pretty well, except with his own spell point based crack.  The psion has a lot of the characteristics that led to the wizard getting revised, so he'll probably get revised as well.

That leaves the warlock.  He lost one of his major abilities, the nearly exclusive use of at will powers, to the wizard.  I assume that he's going to be more than a wizard with a different power list, since the 4e system seems pretty committed to that.  So I wonder what mechanical features he'll have that a wizard will not have?  

The article mentions
1. marked targets
2. "boon of souls"
3. curses
4. what I interpret to mean pact like abilities with entities from either the infernal realm, the shadow realm, or the fey realm,
5. eldritch blast is still around
6. curses
7. conjurations
8. movement powers

The last 3 are the most important.  I assume the wizard will have access to conjuration, movement powers, and probably curse-like powers since I read that as meaning offensive spells that de-buff.  The wizard also has a "wizard strike" (maybe not the final name) which many suspect is an at will attack power.

So, what will the mechanical difference be?  I'm sure there will be one, since the design team seems committed to having one.  I just don't know what it will be now.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.
> 
> Please get over yourself and your religion...




This and your subsequent comments are stepping over the bounds of civility in this forum.

It seems that you need a short break from ENworld. See you in three days.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

You know, I just wanna own up and say that I wasn't at my best in these recent exchanges. Sorry for making it a little worse.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2007)

The Boon of Souls thing sound very interesting, for the implications: There are things out there that want souls for some purpose, and here is presumably some mechanical benefit for delivery of same.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I know, it's a crushing disappointment that they don't write the whole game entirely based on your personal opinions and needs, isn't it?
> 
> Still, buck up. Tomorrow's another day.




What bit of 'don't get personal' didn't you understand? Having warned you about it on page 1 of the thread, it isn't smart to see how close to the line you can sail.

Banned for seven days.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to email me.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 12, 2007)

A lot of folks are sounding very bothered over the mere suggestion of superficially "dark" flavor (whatever that is), as if an illustration of a character with a skull on his weapon means the PHB will be suggesting Chaotic Evil as an appropriate PC alignment.



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> I don't play or run WoD games becasue you play the monsters and bad guys, I think this at best should have been an NPC class like the Villian classes out of Iron Heroes.



I don't think it makes a lot of sense to assume that the Warlock is necessarily evil.  Remember, it already looks like we're leaving alignment requirements for base classes behind, even for the Paladin.  And the 4e Warlock seems to be _specificically_ offering the possibility of non-evil patron entities



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> The mechanic parts are also very bad fluff, the whole send to Hell and takes lots of damage for one round sounds like something I would have made up when I was in Junior High.



I definitely see your point here, though.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm wondering if the (possibly fey-powered) feral warlocks are a stand-in for druids...




That thought had occurred to me too (and in fact I'm disappointed that I couldn't look clever by being the first one to suggest it).

Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).

I could really run with that idea.


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> That thought had occurred to me too (and in fact I'm disappointed that I couldn't look clever by being the first one to suggest it).
> 
> Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).
> 
> I could really run with that idea.




Seems tailor-made for shifters in Eberron, too. A shifter feral warlock?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Gargoyle (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then?  I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.




Or perhaps he's a DM not looking forward to telling his players that they will not be able to play warlocks because he wants to run a heroic campaign, and he just doesn't see such a dark class as working with his campaign.  
I'm not against having such a class, and I certainly understand that I don't have to have warlocks in my campaigns any more than I need LG paladins.  But I can empathize with folks that don't like the change, not because that class is "not for them" but because it's something of a fundamental change in the game as a whole.  It's a darker D&D, and like it or not it's going to affect a lot of campaigns, because good DM's hate to restrict player choices, and don't have time to rework the warlock to be less "evil-ish".

As far as reworking warlocks to be "less dark" I personally wouldn't think of it.  It would be like reworking the fighter to be less "warrior-ish".  I want my warlocks to be damned souls terrified of death and the judgement they are going to face for the powers they've dared to tap. 

So I like the class and would use it IMC, but that's me.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 12, 2007)

Whoops, didn't see this thread. I promise I looked before posting mine!

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with the evilgasm crowd. Can't wait.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).




Mmm... never thought of this. 

I could see feral warlocks and druids being related, but not the first to take over (i.e. include) the second, because warlocks don't seem to have an attitude of bonding with nature in a sort-of caring way, which IMHO all druids have, but I rather see warlocks as bonding with something due to a utilisticary (sp?) approach. I mean, more like "I bond with nature to plunder its power" than "I bond with nature because nature is good".

Also, I really really think that shapeshifting should become an option for druids, and stop being the defining class feature, because IMHO the druid is too vast a concept to enforce shapeshifting on all of them (there's the natural healer, the treehugger, the animals friend, the wielder of elemental forces, the weather controller...).

Shapeshifting could be the ground where warlocks and druids either meet... or clash. I'm thinking something vaguely similar to good vs evil lycanthropes for instance.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Or perhaps he's a DM not looking forward to telling his players that they will not be able to play warlocks because he wants to run a heroic campaign, and he just doesn't see such a dark class as working with his campaign.
> I'm not against having such a class, and I certainly understand that I don't have to have warlocks in my campaigns any more than I need LG paladins.  But I can empathize with folks that don't like the change, not because that class is "not for them" but because it's something of a fundamental change in the game as a whole.  *It's a darker D&D, and like it or not it's going to affect a lot of campaigns, because good DM's hate to restrict player choices, and don't have time to rework the warlock to be less "evil-ish".*
> 
> As far as reworking warlocks to be "less dark" I personally wouldn't think of it.  It would be like reworking the fighter to be less "warrior-ish".  I want my warlocks to be damned souls terrified of death and the judgement they are going to face for the powers they've dared to tap.
> ...




I disagree, particularly with the part highlighted.  Necromancers were in the PHB in 3e.  They were one amongst several types of wizards.  Evil clerics were in the PHB, just dropped in like a normal, every day thing.

The rules have for years encompassed despoiling corpses for personal gain, and worshipping a literal god of evil.  DMs figured out how to handle this then, and I'm sure they'll figure out how to handle the warlock now.

We just don't think about that because we're used to it.  But when you really consider it, a spellcaster who makes a pact with a something "infernal" is arguably _better_ than a cleric who worships Evil directly.  Fantasy literature has plenty of good, or at least non evil, characters who consort with bad things to obtain magical powers.  Imp familiars and demon summoning are common tropes.  But I can't think of very many good-guy fantasy characters who dig up graves and create shambling horrors of their inhabitants, nor can I think of any _actual worshippers of evil_ that were good guys deep down.


----------



## sidonunspa (Oct 12, 2007)

I just don't like the boon of souls bit...

If it’s a mechanic it limits what I can do with the class flavor (because they need to kill people to power abilities… that’s kind of evil, no?) also it seems they send the souls to their patron.  I have a feeling that warlocks may be limited to “evil villain status” in the Arcanis setting.  And hell, if I was playing a paladin (good alignment) I would be horrified by the “marking of souls” bit.

The rest of it sounds cool… I think they just gave me the perfect villain class. I just don't see it as heroic.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 12, 2007)

Hm.  Now I'm wondering about the whole issue of power sources.  Is the Warlock an arcane class, even though his powers might come from the Nine Hells, the Shadowfell, or the Feywild?  I had been so sure that we'd see shadow/death and fey/nature as distinct power sources in coming PHBs...


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Hm.  Now I'm wondering about the whole issue of power sources.  Is the Warlock an arcane class, even though his powers might come from the Nine Hells, the Shadowfell, or the Feywild?  I had been so sure that we'd see shadow/death and fey/nature as distinct power sources in coming PHBs...




I'm not sure that the arcane, divine, etc classifications are mechanical classifications.  I suspect they're flavor classifications.  Which means that the warlock is arcane if they say its arcane and we believe them.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Curses, Conjurations and Movement powers.

Does anyone think the Warlock has to choose which to focus on, early on? Like the wizard chooses his implements? I'm wondering how a Movement-based Warlock could, well, kick badguy ass. 

Also, I'm curious what the "Acid Bog" power mentioned in one of the playtests qualifies as. Would that be under "Conjurations"?

And I distinctly recall the Demon/Devil article mentioning that Demons aren't interested in souls. So I'm just not thinking that Demons are involved here. Devils, yes.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 12, 2007)

*Oh yes?*



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> That's a pretty shallow, whiny complaint you have there.




Actually that would be where you are very wrong.

At least the message you were replying to was being polite I on the other hand couldn't mke a better reply to thsi thread without going into detail exactly how wrong it is without being accused of being a relgious extremist.
Its just that the warlock as described will never be anything other than the villain of the piece as described and they really should have worded it better or better yet actually made this release be about something worth reading... like warlords for example or anything other than this well I guess I proved myself right looking at how long this message is going.
Well enough said lets see what veryone else said.


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then?  I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.



Thing is, the warlock class is exactly for me. I loved the idea behind the mechanics when the class first came out. An arcane magic user who has access to a few select abilities but can use them all the time? It was everything I thought the sorcerer should have been.

It was just so unfortunate that it was such a pain in the ass to pry the flavor out of the mechanics. I wouldn't have much cared if the whole infernal power thing was just in the flavor text, the same way sorcerers connections to dragons are in its flavor text. But while I can ignore that sorcerer flavor text and easily make a sorcerer who had more fey-like powers, or one who just liked blasting things, or whatever else, I couldn't really do that with the warlock. Not when half its powers are about summoning swarms of bats, growing bat-like wings, turning into a hellcat, etc.

With 4E, I was hoping they'd give the class a bit more flexibility, but this article doesn't leave me optimistic. It'd be a small victory if one of the options for the 4E warlock was more of a connection with fey, but I still would have liked to have seen flexibility akin to that of sorcerers, wizards, and clerics because of how much I liked the idea behind the mechanics.

Oh well. Hopefully the 4E sorcerer will be more of what I'm hoping for.


----------



## SCMrks (Oct 12, 2007)

I don't mind the dark/evil options for those who want to play them and to be used as interesting bad guys but I have a concern about how this will affect the growth of the game. I think D&D 4th Ed will be on the news just like the protests against Harry Potter and video games that promote killing cops and committing crimes made the news. And when it is mentioned that D&D promotes being a half demon race that makes pacts with demons to gain powers many parents will not let their kids check out the game. 

And if there is a tragedy in which a kid commits suicide or commits a school shooting and a Player's Handbook is found in the kids bedroom, the tragedy will be depicted as D&D's fault. I'm not saying the claim would be true but how the media would say it to make a story.

And just like people sue gun makers because of a shooting or sue McDonalds because fast food made them fat, I see lawsuits coming against WotC because D&D made their kid suicidal.

I think the tiefling and warlock would have been better in another options book instead of in the basic PHB that everyone needs to buy to begin playing the game.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> It was just so unfortunate that it was such a pain in the ass to pry the flavor out of the mechanics. I wouldn't have much cared if the whole infernal power thing was just in the flavor text, the same way sorcerers connections to dragons are in its flavor text. But while I can ignore that sorcerer flavor text and easily make a sorcerer who had more fey-like powers, or one who just liked blasting things, or whatever else, I couldn't really do that with the warlock. Not when half its powers are about summoning swarms of bats, growing bat-like wings, turning into a hellcat, etc.



Because it's impossible to say "You summon a swarm of spear-wielding pixies" while using the bat swarm stats, or "The bat wings are actually fairie wings". It's like saying _Magic Missile_ is limiting because the flavor text says rays of magical energy. Every mage player I've ever known has tailored their MM thematically to the caster. So exactly how can't you do that with the Warlock?

Keep the mechanics of the invocation, and change the flavor of the invocation's appearance.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

SCMrks said:
			
		

> And if there is a tragedy in which a kid commits suicide or commits a school shooting and a Player's Handbook is found in the kids bedroom, the tragedy will be depicted as D&D's fault. I'm not saying the claim would be true but how the media would say it to make a story.



Hate to break it to you, but during the DC Sniper, the supposed profile of the shooter had him playing D&D because it facilitates violent fantasies. 

What you describe is still possible and likely even if the Warlock and Tiefling weren't a part of teh PHB. Because D&D is all about breaking, entering and murder (Rogue), unrepentant and savage violence (Fighter, barbarian), worshiping imaginary entities for magic (Clerics). The game revolves around killing people and taking their things. In the eyes of the people that say "D&D is bad", whether you kill people when your class is Warlock or Wizard doesn't matter to them. 



> And just like people sue gun makers because of a shooting or sue McDonalds because fast food made them fat, I see lawsuits coming against WotC because D&D made their kid suicidal.



So, has anyone ever sued Marilyn Manson or video game makers for suicidal teens?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 12, 2007)

I can see where some of the concern is coming from regarding the flavor of "pact-making" and the overall devilish/demonic implications of this edition.  Ever since we've known about Points of Light, it's been obvious that WotC was going for something much darker and grittier this edition.  That isn't going to fly for everyone.  Luckily the flavor is so generic that it can be ignored, but I'm starting to see why the general philosophy might make folks uncomfortable.

As it concerns the warlock specifically, I don't think the problem is insurmountable.  The somewhat questionable nature of achieving their powers does not necessarily require a sociopathic and sadistic personality.  Obviously if you're making pacts with devils and demons, chances are you are Neutral at best.  But with regards to Feral and Shadow pacts, there are strong arguments going the other way.  A Bruce Wayne/Batman type personality comes to mind immediately, where a warlock might use the horrifying powers of the Shadowfell to put an end to corruption and evil.  While this probably isn't the guy you'd invite over for biscuits, that in no way makes him Evil.

Even someone who has pact with a malevolent outsider is not necessarily a bloodthirsty power-monger.  Perhaps someone was forced into the pact.  "Bind yourself to the demon Rashagol or your girlfriend gets it!"  That kind of thing.  There are a lot of possibilities for the character, no matter what kind of pact a player chooses.

I'm sad to see the Sorcerer go, but I think the warlock will make a solid replacement, at least for now.  Eventually I'd like to see the Sorcerer make its way back into the game.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2007)

After taking a look at this, I'm going to seriously suggest that WotC take a look at the Warlock and tone down some of these abilities and take a look at the flavor behind it.

Is it because I'm scared of "dark" things? Not in the least. The reason for it is because we're only going to have a relatively small number of classes available in the core, and presumably in the SRD, and a class like this is simply not going to be as useful for games as some of the others that are getting moved to supplements. 

Like it or not, the majority of D&D campaigns are heroic in nature, and the warlocks flavor (and some of the crunch) clashes with that. If you take a look at Organized Play in the RPGA (arguably one of the largest groups of gamers around) evil characters are banned, and evil actions are a quick ticket to having your character turned into an NPC.

I don't think it would be very hard to adjust the flavor of the class that much.

Now I'm not trying to say that any particular kind of campaign is bad, or that playing a warlock isn't a good thing, only that we have such a small number of "core at launch" classes, that do we really want to include one that is of questionable utility for many groups?

--Steve


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 12, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Like it or not, the majority of D&D campaigns are heroic in nature, and the warlocks flavor (and some of the crunch) clashes with that.



How do you know this? We haven't actually seen any of the crunch, and only a brief, incomplete summary of the flavor. The warlock class description in the upcoming PHB is going to be a few _pages_ long. We still don't know how they're completely envisioned as a standard class.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Oct 12, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I expect he was referring to the designers...



Yeah. I'm getting the feeling they don't playtest out of combat consequences to the rule changes.


----------



## useridunavailable (Oct 12, 2007)

Personally, I like it.  Enduring effectiveness notwithstanding, I always found the 3.5 Warlock a bit below the power curve.  Yeah, there were a few decent incantations, and the Eldritch Blast did _okay_ damage (better with a few items from the MIC), but in terms of "kill it before it kills you" knockout power, I found it essentially unplayable in our group.  If a character isn't truly devastating with our player base, it won't be able to stand up against multiple monsters 4-5 CR above our party level (the "before breakfast" encounter standard) like the rest of the party can.  The guy walking around with the ranged joy buzzer just wasn't going to cut it.  However, this view changed quite a bit with the release of _Complete Mage_, which really gave the Warlock a lot more options.  Eldritch Theurge?  He can zap a creature with his Eldritch Blast and then have a _Fireball_ explode on the point of impact?  Now _that's_ cool!  I'll bet they give the 4e Lock some neat options like that--otherwise, he'll just get stale.

Also, for those who are concerned about the dark flavor of the Warlock, I encourage you to take a look at the Enlightened Spirit from _Complete Mage_  It's kind of like a Warlock/Paladin hybrid who rejects the dark forces from whence its powers originated and gets some really cool stuff from the forces of good.  Also, perhaps the Feywild pact could be with some type of Eladrin?  The term "pact" doesn't necessarily have a nefarious connotation...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I think you're taking Heinsoo's writing a _little_ too literally there.  The "in more pieces" part is just meant, I think, to indicate that the enemy takes a lot of damage from being in hell for a round.



You know what would be nice?  If people would take the previews and interpret them in a way that renders an internally-consistent explanation.  If you are faced with interpretation A, which makes sense (like Gloombunny's here) and interpretation B, which doesn't, choose A.  

If they say they're trying to avoid save-or-die effects, and they post something that may or may not be a save-or-die effect, the logical interpretation is that it's not a save-or-die effect.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> How do you know this? We haven't actually seen any of the crunch, and only a brief, incomplete summary of the flavor. The warlock class description in the upcoming PHB is going to be a few _pages_ long. We still don't know how they're completely envisioned as a standard class.



We don't.    Ultimately we don't know anything about what the final class will be, so you may consider this preemptive griping, which has been known to have real effects. But for right now, I only know what I've read.

--Steve


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Yeah, I edited my response above, as it could derail this.
> 
> My point was I'm probably going to be okay with all this in the end, especially with the shadow and feral options.



Thank you for retracting.  Two bans later, it's clear why discussion of religion on these boards is prohibited.


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2007)

I think that this may cause me to seriously debate whether I buy the new books.  I do not allow evil characters in my game.  It is not the flavor I enjoy and it has only caused issues for me in the past.  I dislike having an evil-aligned character class in the PHB and I think it will only serve to further make life difficult for GMs as they can now not even be able to say core only.  I do not like the fact that I would have to restrict classes and races from the PHB at the start.

Sad news.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

Did you permit necromancy specialized wizards, and clerics who worshiped evil gods?

If so, why, and if not, why is this different?


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, has anyone ever sued Marilyn Manson or video game makers for suicidal teens?




I've been considering a suit against Kelly Clarkson and Real Housewives of Orange County for suicidal middle-ages guys.   

I agree that if the class focuses on the darker aspects of the warlock, it's a little too focused for a PHB I.  Still, we don't really know that this is the case.  I think the class would work great with someone who gains power from Fey or other good-aligned demigods or lesser divine beings.

Still, I personally think it sounds pretty cool and wouldn't mind playing one.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I think that this may cause me to seriously debate whether I buy the new books.  I do not allow evil characters in my game.  It is not the flavor I enjoy and it has only caused issues for me in the past.  I dislike having an evil-aligned character class in the PHB and I think it will only serve to further make life difficult for GMs as they can now not even be able to say core only.  I do not like the fact that I would have to restrict classes and races from the PHB at the start.
> 
> Sad news.



I suspect that instead of being outright evil, the warlock will be, as in its current incarnation, a class that walks the line between right and wrong. There are enough fans out there of Wolverine and his ilk to warrant the inclusion of an inherently "bad boy" class--my sense is that the warlock will be a great villain, an excellent adventurer, and an edgy, dark "good guy."


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

"No evil alignments" is not, in fact, "just core". It is "just core, except 1/3 of the alignments, several gods, and a chunk of the spells". I'm afraid "Now I have to forbid more things!" isn't really much of a compelling and widely applicable argument. Vote with your wallet, by all means, but understand what you're actually doing.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I dislike having an evil-aligned character class in the PHB




Why do people keep repeating this as if it were true?

*There is NO indication that the 4e Warlock is an evil-only class.*

_In fact, I'll wager that the 4e Warlock has *no* alignment restrictions upon it at all._


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 12, 2007)

How many pages does this thread have to go on before people get that FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL? Say it with me:

FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!

FERAL DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL!

Hmm, what's that 3rd source they mention? FERAL! Is feral evil? Not by definition, NO!

Here's a character concept based on the tidbits of info we have:

Shineygood Darkbane, LG warlock.

Shineygood's parents were priests of Pelor. Though somewhat disappointed that he didn't follow their path, Shineygood's devotion to hunting down the enemies of Truth & Justice have made them very proud.

As a youth, Shineygood stumbled open a tome in the church archives which described rites by which some members of the order make pacts with otherworldly allies in the Feywild. Though the tome cautioned of the need to be careful in dealing with beings not committed to the order which makes the church strong, it also spoke of the great deeds which those strong in their faith had been able to achieve through the power gained by such pacts.

When he discussed this with his parents, Shineygood learned that they were aware of these 'warlocks', and were able to tell him a bit more about the nature of the work they did - traveling the world, seeking always the darkest places to bring the burning light of Pelor to shine, and marking the unrepentant for punishment by Pelor's allies among the fey. Shineygood studied the tome carefully, and gained the approval of the church elders to take part in the rites which would bind him to fight the forces of evil with the aid of his oathsworn fey patron, a <insert powerful 4e Feywild race> named Feyriel.

Although they have had some lively discussions through their mental link* on the relative value of hiercarchy and obediance vs. individual freedom in the service of good, with Feyriel's help Shineygood has been able to defeat many evil foes in the years since, often granting them a glimpse of the doom that awaits them in the afterlife in hopes that they might repent and surrender (though, sadly, few ever do).

*[_Note: a tiny bit of my own flavor text here._]


OK, there's a completely non-dark non-evil warlock who fits every tiny piece of information we have on the class so far. Can we drop the 'too dark! too dark! have to be evil!' alarmist stuff now?




> Not when half its powers are about summoning swarms of bats, growing bat-like wings, turning into a hellcat, etc.




Well, are druids evil in your campaign? I mean, they summon swarms of vermin (EEEVIIIIL NASSSTY vermin!) & can turn into a bat (not just the wings -- the whole EEEVIIIL NASSSTY batses!). Mwahahaha!  

(Joking aside, just swap the visual on the hellcat for something else & you're good to go with a 3.5 warlock who's good - check the CA rules text for the bit on fey ancestry being an alternate source of their powers, which is how I did my warlock.)


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Did you permit necromancy specialized wizards, and clerics who worshiped evil gods?
> 
> If so, why, and if not, why is this different?




Nope, but those were options of classes.  A player could still play the class in a non-evil function.  This is completely different and I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."

The warlock is a bad class for the core PHB.  Maybe it will sell more books as people have to collect the core classes that they love; however, I was used to buying all the books anyway.    Maybe I will consider upgrading to 4e down the road when they give me options for bard and druid.  However, the warlock news will keep me from upgrading to 4e in May.  I will continue to play 3.5 and just begin redesigning the parts that I do not like from that system.  There are some aspects of 4e that I really enjoy, but enough bad parts to have pushed me away.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

I can see the objection -- or at least, my interpretation of the objection -- but I disagree.

I read "I don't want evil classes in the PHB" as "I don't want classes whose activities are extraordinarily unsavory". They're evil not in the sense of "must be evil" but in the sense of "darn hard to be good".

Evil clerics must be evil. Necromancy specialized wizards, however, are merely encouraged to be evil. You can play a lawful good necromancer (often by picking the powers which are directly concerned with undead and the stopping thereof), for instance.

This description of the warlock was mostly/entirely unwholesome, what with the sending people to hell, the diabolic pact, and so on.

However, that's not just a popular and mythic archetype (even a heroic one!), it's one with room to run with.

I suspect you could make a warlock a lot more fun to play, for those with moral objections to them, via the "inherited pact". Think Roy and the until-the-latest-few-strips Oath of Vengeance. He inherited the pact of his father; Roy-the-warlock has powers whose origin he's uncomfortable with, but which he chooses to use to right wrongs and fight evil.

And the stealing-souls-bit: D&D is often about breaking, entering, killing, stealing, and pillaging. So long as there's no alignment requirement on the harvest, I'd think this could be a morally neutral power, on par with fireballs and smites: for each evil soul sent to its punishment, the warlock becomes a smidgeon stronger, empowered to get the next one. Especially apt here, then, are slaying demons/devils/undead, as they're "escapees".

I see the problem, but I think it's a problem of not-enough-information or a problem of personal spin, and that even with the same viewpoint, the books can be spun the other way.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Nope, but those were options of classes.  A player could still play the class in a non-evil function.




Just like they can with a 4e warlock.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 12, 2007)

> Nope, but those were options of classes.




Right, & thus completely different from the option for a warlock to play an evil infernal-pact or a NOT evil feral-pact.

Or, you know, not really different at all.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Nope, but those were options of classes.  A player could still play the class in a non-evil function.  This is completely different and I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."
> 
> The warlock is a bad class for the core PHB.  Maybe it will sell more books as people have to collect the core classes that they love; however, I was used to buying all the books anyway.    Maybe I will consider upgrading to 4e down the road when they give me options for bard and druid.  However, the warlock news will keep me from upgrading to 4e in May.  I will continue to play 3.5 and just begin redesigning the parts that I do not like from that system.  There are some aspects of 4e that I really enjoy, but enough bad parts to have pushed me away.




There are 3 choices.  "Infernal," "feral," and "shadowy."

Infernal is the best case for arguing that its evil.  Spellcasters who consort with demons but who aren't evil are not uncommon in fantasy, but the norm is for them to be evil, so fine.

Feral has _never_ meant evil in D&D.  Its most typical meaning in terms of alignment is "true neutral," as it usually refers to forces of pure nature.

"Shadowy" is new.  It probably means the Shadowfell.  This might be undead themed, or it might be themed more like the Shadowcaster, which was another class with no particular alignment connotation.

So of 3 choices, we've got one that's traditionally evil, one that's traditionally neutral, and one that's unknown.

I don't think it's THAT bad.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Favourite bit: " an arsenal of curses (send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces)".
> 
> That sounds fun.




Best spell in Planescape: Torment.

Tore open a small portal to the ... Abyss, I think ... which sucked a single target through.  The spell animation involved lots of slashing, stabbing, and screaming noises. On a failed save, he came back in tiny, tiny pieces (dead).  On a successful save, he came back with a lot of damage.

It was much better than the good-aligned version (which just summoned a bunch of celestials).

In other words, I'm for it.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Right, & thus completely different from the option for a warlock to play an evil infernal-pact or a NOT evil feral-pact.



Or a non-evil infernal pact.   You may well be able to do that too.  Isn't there a TV show on right now where a guy's parents sold him out to Satan at birth for riches?  On his 21st birthday Satan shows up and starts putting him to work.  Something like that might apply.  Or just thinking they had no choice in the matter like Ghost Rider.   Not every infernal warlock has to be Elric.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Also (maybe this is threadcrap? Where _should_ I be posting about wanting the druid?  ), I actually don't want the druid in the core PHB. Shocking, perhaps.

But I want characters that can fill the druid's niche in the party very badly. I want the druid to have a separate power source than the cleric: if they use the same one, then I'd rather just have the druid be a kind of cleric (and that would have been okay, too).

But this way, we can break out the Shapeshifter (Nature Defender?), Shaman (Nature Leader?), and nature-wizard (Nature Controller?) roles that the druid currently fills. I actually quite like that; make each one able to do its schtick well, and everyone benefits. Appropriate spells, appropriate monsters, appropriate items, and a ton of thought given to them, specifically.

These are not just separate roles, they're entirely different archetypes and they show up disassociated in The Literature all the time.

I guess I'm just saying it'd be hard for them to fit the 3.5 druid into 4.0, especially in one book. And if they changed it to fit, I know that there would still be complaints, so I'm glad they're taking the time to do it right.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."



Man, I should append this to all of my posts.  It would save me a lot of tedious "not being right all the time."


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> So of 3 choices, we've got one that's traditionally evil, one that's traditionally neutral, and one that's unknown.




Alternatively, you have three choices: one that's traditionally lawful, one essentially neutral, and one that appears fairly chaotic.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 12, 2007)

Hmmm... what happened to draconic heritage? Think that this is saved for the sorcerer?

By the way, brillinat insight on the feral --> druid... Like Planesailing said, wish I'd had the foresight to comment on that


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Just like they can with a 4e warlock.




That's not the flavor option they gave in their article to get people interested in Warlocks.  I do find it funny that people feel the need to argue with my choice regarding the news and my opinion on the matter.  Why the hell does it matter to you if I am not upgrading to 4e?  

There are way too many fanboys around here these days.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons?




Uhm, tieflings are spawn of infernal creatures so = EVIL tone

Making pacts with infernal patrons = EVIL tone



> I'm leaving the specific pacts out of this, but I will say that the pacts provide direct benefits when you send an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward; your patrons show their gratitude by giving you a Boon of Souls.




Sending an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward = Killing ie EVIL tone

Your patron shows their gratitude by giving you a Boon of Souls = Killing for sake of killing ie EVIL  (Also this is the first thing that screams taken straight from World of Warcraft to me and I was a big supporter of how 4E was not video gamey, soul shards anyone)



> send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces




This is the most evil thing so far, sending someone to the lower planes doesn't sound like anything a non-evil being would do.  Note it doesn't say send to Feywild or Shadowfell if you've made pacts with those forces, nope you send the to Hell.

So sure maybe they don't have any alignment restrictions at all but all the fluff is EVIL.

You could say that a paladin can be any alignment but if you don't change the fluff and effect of his powers he is still a force for GOOD.  Same goes here.

Ohh and if they summon pets then the whole 4E=WOW debate is closed and the side I want to win has lost...so please please WoTC don't let warlocks summon infernal creatures.


----------



## Sigdel (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Also, I'm curious what the "Acid Bog" power mentioned in one of the playtests qualifies as. Would that be under "Conjurations"?




The Acid Bog thing is nothing new to the warlock in 4e. It was a new invocation for the calss in the book _Complete Mage_ and it was called Caustic Mire. Its on page 123 and the description of the power is on 98.


----------



## Counterspin (Oct 12, 2007)

Groups that want to pick on D&D don't need a good reason, because they're perfectly willing to make some up.  I don't think they should be taken into account when making decisions.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> That's not the flavor option they gave in their article to get people interested in Warlocks.  I do find it funny that people feel the need to argue with my choice regarding the news and my opinion on the matter.  Why the hell does it matter to you if I am not upgrading to 4e?
> 
> There are way too many fanboys around here these days.




I couldn't care less if you never play 4e. 

But when you make false or misleading claims ("warlocks are an evil-aligned class"), it's reasonable to expect to be called on it. 

And please don't call people names.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> This is the most evil thing so far, sending someone to the lower planes doesn't sound like anything a non-evil being would do.  Note it doesn't say send to Feywild or Shadowfell if you've made pacts with those forces, nope you send the to Hell.




Umm.  I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that different warlocks with different patrons have different powers.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Ohh and if they summon pets then the whole 4E=WOW debate is closed and the side I want to win has lost...so please please WoTC don't let warlocks summon infernal creatures.



Right!  NO previous version of D&D had characters with pets!  This is clearly STRAIGHT from videogames!


Also I think the feral and shadow patrons will have feral and shadowy fluff.  I doubt every warlock sends people to hell for a bit.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 12, 2007)

Removed post because the issue has already been solved.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Infernal is pretty specifically LE.

We don't know the spin on shadowy beings -- my guess is NN or NE.

We also don't know the spin on 'feral', which I hope means fey, but probably translates to CN.

As to the opening a pit to hell: Probably only the infernals grant access to that power, Paraxis. I'm not sure what Soul Shards are, but I'm pretty sure Death Knell wasn't dissimilar to this power, and that there have been a few characters empowered by the flow of souls.

As to summoning: It seems very natural that they'd have this power! They've got a pact with some sort of shadowy creature, it's *very* mythic.

If it seems videogamey ( ::scrubs tongue:: ) then it's because they had the good idea first, not because it's inherently opposed to good style.

Or, to phrase it again: Wizards have been summoning creatures since the seventies. _Somebody_ should be able to summon. The guy who's cosy with the fiends/spirits/fey makes a lot of sense as the guy who should summon fiends/spirits/fey.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> That's not the flavor option they gave in their article to get people interested in Warlocks.  I do find it funny that people feel the need to argue with my choice regarding the news and my opinion on the matter.



Well, your opinion appears to be ill-informed, or at least based on a partial understanding of the material. People are trying to help.


			
				Belen said:
			
		

> Why the hell does it matter to you if I am not upgrading to 4e?
> 
> There are way too many fanboys around here these days.



Psssst. They're generally in the 4e forum. As it's pretty much about 4e, which you don't want to upgrade to, a solution to your two problems seems to present itself.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 12, 2007)

Pacts with otherworldly beings granting power sounds like a valid fantasy trope and a cool story/character element to me. 

Now, maybe it is a bit to "angsty" for regular D&D, but a character trying to use forces of evil for good, but always risking losing his benevolent goals from his eyes sounds interesting. 

Since alignment is apparently no longer a strong mechanical term as it was in 3rd edition, I think this will give a lot more interesting options for the characters story development.

Now, for a campaign that isn't built for moral ambiguity, the Warlock might be the wrong class. But for other types it seems a good fit.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> You have it right there in your own post:  "personal opinions."
> 
> People have them.  The fella you quote was expressing his.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your sarcastic jab--unless you are crushingly disappointed that not everyone likes every aspect of 4e that has been revealed so far....



Okay, you're just the most recent person in this thread to do so, so apologies for picking on you, but...

Holy hell, folks. The mods have already made a decision and enforced it. Piling on a man who's already been removed from the thread is simply poor form.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2007)

The part I'm surprised that I've seen few comment on in this thread is how CLOSELY this resembles the World of Warcraft Warlock -- down to "marking a soul", to the summoning of mouths to bite enemies, etc. Hopefully, Blizzard won't sue.  (edited because I missed the middle of Praxis' post.)

This doesn't sound like it'll be a class for me, not because of flavor (which I'm fine with), but the mechanics.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Infernal is pretty specifically LE.



I am looking forward to playing a fire and brimstone LG warlock with infernal powers.  Helping the innocent, defending the weak and punishing the wicked with a taste of the damnation that waits for them.  

"Repent your wicked ways or the fires of hell await you!"
"I'll never repent!  I'll destroy you all!"  BAMFBAMF  "OW OW OW OW!!!!"
"Told you!"


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But when you make false or misleading claims ("warlocks are an evil-aligned class"), it's reasonable to expect to be called on it.




I read the article.  I drew my own conclusions.  I find it neither false nor misleading.  If Wizards wanted to make it clear, then it would have been an easy fix.  The article is dark.  It focuses on what I consider to be dark and evil.  Thus, I formed a conclusion.  You may disagree with that conclusion; however, I would bet that the class says "any non-good."  

I have never seen dark, emotionally scarred, angsty loner anti-hero done well.  It is one of those "unfun" for the group styles of playing.

In any event, the fact that tieflings and warlocks are in the core PHB will keep my from upgrading.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> In any event, the fact that tieflings and warlocks are in the core PHB will keep my from upgrading.




... and since, therefore, you have no further interest in 4E, you'll be ... ?


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> Right! NO previous version of D&D had characters with pets! This is clearly STRAIGHT from videogames!




Sure they did, and before I continue I think literature and D&D has had much more impact on WOW and other games then those games have had on any version of D&D.

Ok, 
Name Warlock=same as that of the class in WOW.
Targets a creature and if kills it then is rewarded with a Boon of Souls=killing a target and making a soul shard from WOW.

Those two things alone are not that bad, add in having a summonable pet (Imp, Succubus, ect...) is just so much like the WOW version of warlock to not be a complete and cheap copy.

I would figure that the design team had more creative talents then to just photocopy stuff from the video game they probably play all day at work when they should be coming up with better stuff then what I've seen so far with this current Warlock.



> Umm. I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that different warlocks with different patrons have different powers.




I guess we will have to wait and see, but I doubt it.  The whole Shadow and Feral stuff is just like the fluff text from the 3.5 Warlock where it can be from any Outsider....but all the powers and abilities had strong infernal influence.

Don't get me wrong as an NPC class or as a class from a splat book that doesn't take up space in the first PHB and limit the available stuff from the SRD the warlock is a fine addition to the game.   But has a very dark feel to it, in a game where you are supposed to be part of the points of light in darkness, and a more traditional class like Druid or Bard would be better for the core PHB.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... and since, therefore, you have no further interest in 4E, you'll be ... ?



Spending time talking about things unwanted and unlooked for apparently.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I read the article.  I drew my own conclusions.  I find it neither false nor misleading.




This is fair enough. It's reasonable that you would not find your own conclusions false and misleading.


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Psssst. They're generally in the 4e forum. As it's pretty much about 4e, which you don't want to upgrade to, a solution to your two problems seems to present itself.




You're right.  Since I had been following the news about 4e and did not make the decision until this thread, then I obviously had no right to be paying attention to this forum.  I forgot it was only for fanboys who consider 4e the second coming.

I will now remove myself from here and please feel free to come to Circvs Maximvs sometime where I can be quite candid when speaking to you.


----------



## Grog (Oct 12, 2007)

It's probably worth pointing out that 1st edition had an evil-only class in the PHB (the Assassin). So the idea of an evil-only class has been done before, and in the core rules.

That said, I do hope the warlock isn't evil-only (or, if alignment is being drastically overhauled/done away with, that the flavor will allow for non evil-ish options).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> This is the most evil thing so far, sending someone to the lower planes doesn't sound like anything a non-evil being would do.  Note it doesn't say send to Feywild or Shadowfell if you've made pacts with those forces, nope you send the to Hell.



It doesn't say that a Warlock with these patrons will have access to the same ability.

And actually, sending people to the lower planes is what you do all the time in D&D if you kill evil people. At least that's what some of the rulebooks and settings say - people that are evil go the planes devoted for their alignments. 

And I don't really see burning someone through ashes with a fireball as being morally better than sending him to hell for a few seconds - but then, neither ever happened to me, so I might be totally wrong and the latter is worse.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> I am looking forward to playing a fire and brimstone LG warlock with infernal powers. Helping the innocent, defending the weak and punishing the wicked with a taste of the damnation that waits for them.
> 
> "Repent your wicked ways or the fires of hell await you!"
> "I'll never repent! I'll destroy you all!" BAMFBAMF "OW OW OW OW!!!!"
> "Told you!"




Sorry, I meant the alignments of the bosses of each power source. It's the most natural alignment to have while using their powers.

But I, too, doubt it's a prerequisite and if I ever played a warlock, I'd probably play against type, also.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> You're right.  Since I had been following the news about 4e and did not make the decision until this thread, then I obviously had no right to be paying attention to this forum.  I forgot it was only for fanboys who consider 4e the second coming.



Read it how you like. I don't think I said "Why have you been here all this time". I suggested your (obviously new) dislike of the core warlock and (potentially new, at least newly aggravated) hatred of "fanboys" might have a common solution.



> I will now remove myself from here and please feel free to come to Circvs Maximvs sometime where I can be quite candid when speaking to you.



Ooh, promise? I'll bring the wine.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> You may disagree with that conclusion; however, I would bet that the class says "any non-good."




Care to make a friendly wager on that? Because I'm confident that the 4e design team won't be making the same mistakes as the 3e team did.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I forgot it was only for fanboys who consider 4e the second coming.




And _again _with the name calling.

sheesh.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 12, 2007)

> Sending an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward = Killing ie EVIL tone.




Man, if killing in D&D is evil I really wonder what your campaigns look like - which isn't to say I think it couldn't be fun (lots of subterfuge & diplocmacy, perhaps?), just that it sounds very different from classic D&D (kill the bad guys & take their stuff - but if killing=EVIL then that's right out!).



> Your patron shows their gratitude by giving you a Boon of Souls = Killing for sake of killing ie EVIL




So a cleric of Pelor destroying undead & being granted spells by her deity the next day is EVIL? After all, that's a patron showing gratitude by giving powers to one who kills.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Umm.  I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that different warlocks with different patrons have different powers.



My thoughts as well. The writer of the article just picked one cool ability to highlight in the limited space he had.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> So a cleric of Pelor destroying undead & being granted spells by her deity the next day is EVIL? After all, that's a patron showing gratitude by giving powers to one who kills.



I'd go rather with living enemies rather than undead.  Killing most undead is about as morally questionable as breaking furniture.


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Because it's impossible to say "You summon a swarm of spear-wielding pixies" while using the bat swarm stats, or "The bat wings are actually fairie wings". It's like saying _Magic Missile_ is limiting because the flavor text says rays of magical energy. Every mage player I've ever known has tailored their MM thematically to the caster. So exactly how can't you do that with the Warlock?



Tone it down a little, if you don't mind. I don't appreciate the snarky response.

You can do those things to a warlock to change its flavor. The problem is, in 3E, _you had to_. That's my point. Almost every other class has inherent flexibility to it. Not the warlock. If you wanted to play anything other than the infernal dude, you had to rewrite a number of mechanics. Sometimes you had to change a name (summon a swarn of doves instead of summon a swarm of bats), sometimes you had to do more legwork (finding an appropriate monster for the turning into a hellcat ability). 

It certainly was possible to do that. But I don't think I should have to.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> After some initial shock, everyone admitted that the warlock's eldritch blast didn't break the game.
> Not quite everyone - I still see arguments about it...



The Blast was less an issue than then spammed walls of fire and Chillling tentacles..


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

So a cleric of Pelor who righteously smites a cleric of Nerull (currently engaged in killing puppies) et cetera et cetera... Same scenario, same moral weight to me.

Sure, the Warlock can present a tricky moral conundrum, and one that poses a problem in some people's games.

But I don't think that it *has to* post that conundrum, unless you want it to.


And the war of warlock vs warlock, one of whom is devoted to the cause of good, and the other corrupted by the demonic beings she serves? Downright my_ff_ic, that is.

So is cleric vs warlock, just in a different way.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It's probably worth pointing out that 1st edition had an evil-only class in the PHB (the Assassin). So the idea of an evil-only class has been done before, and in the core rules.
> 
> That said, I do hope the warlock isn't evil-only (or, if alignment is being drastically overhauled/done away with, that the flavor will allow for non evil-ish options).




Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it should. Core classes should be general classes in my mind, fit to fill a large range of campaign settings.

This was always the problem with the paladin, its hard to put a paladin and an evil guy in the same party. Yes people have done it, but you have to work to make it work. That's probably why there are now different kinds of paladin's in 4e.

The same should be true for the warlock. Yes, perhaps I want to play the anti-hero I have bad powers but use them for good. Or maybe I just want to have a pact with a good creature and can my powers that way. Why does the warlock need to have a dark taint innately?

Other than that though, I am very excited about the new warlock, it does seem pretty cool.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 12, 2007)

The first example of a Shadowy pact for Warlocks was a Dragon magazine article on the Umbragen from the Dragonshards real-time strategy game based on Eberron.  It mentioned how these drow were linked to a shadowy plane or source of energy where they drew their powers as Warlocks and Soulknives...

It's only natural that warlocks be a class in he 4e PHB1 because after Complete Arcane, the Warlock ended up getting more support as a class than Sorcerers and a couple other core classes did.

Complete Mage actually attempts to classify the different sources of warlock powers.  Even though it's written under the 3e methodology of "any chaotic or any evil" it does give options for where there sources may be.  I think it's very likely much like how implements and traditions for wizards will be expanded on in later products, pacts will be expanded on for warlocks.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Apropos of nothing, I keep thinking that an Umbragen is a generator of Umbrans.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 12, 2007)

I was a bit worried a couple weeks back when Rich Baker mentioned seeing how far he could push the 'evil' envelope for the Warlock fluff. This article does not soothe my worries.
I like the warlock concept for a base class, a pact magic servitor of powerful otherworldly beings. I like the concept of having to sing for your supper to maintain your powers. I don't like that it is focused more on the Darker powers in the fluff presented so far. 
I am intrigued by the mention of Feral Warlocks. I thought the fey flavored 3.5 warlock was a great concept. I could see the flavor of the Send to Hell for 1 round being sent to the Wild Hunt for 1 round. 
I would love to see a Lawful Good version. A warlock compelled to serve a Planatar or Archon and fight the good fight. Maybe the Marking of souls would be to redeem that person/monster and thus deny Asmodeus another ally/thrall. Maybe the warlock is charged with fighting the spread of the Seed of Evil and send evil chaotics back to their source. 
I think the warlock has a tremendous amount of potential but I hope that the flavor doesn't pigeon hole it to angst only need apply.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> Man, if killing in D&D is evil I really wonder what your campaigns look like - which isn't to say I think it couldn't be fun (lots of subterfuge & diplocmacy, perhaps?), just that it sounds very different from classic D&D (kill the bad guys & take their stuff - but if killing=EVIL then that's right out!).




Killing evil is ok in my games, most Undead and Evil Outsiders are easy calls to just go Hack and Slash, but not all goblin camps or drow patrols for that matter are neccessarily evil.  Let's just say without getting political that sometimes it's a Good thing to go to war against Evil forces to me and my crew.  But I'm a Texan so most of us got no problems with putting a needle in the arm of mentaly challenged women on death row, ie she must be evil to be there so killing her is good.

I guess the same argument goes to the whole cleric of good god vs. warlock thing.  The cleric is serving his Good god so sure I have no issues with him killing Evil undead or a cleric of an Evil diety.  

If the fluff holds up and we get a Lawful(Infernal), Neutral(Shadow), Chaos(Feywild) version of the warlock and different powers for each then I am cool with the class as a whole.  It broadens the prospects and gets good ideas going.

I just think that the fluff will not be more then a line or two in the first paragraph.  Then the class itself will be full of infernal and evil flavor.

As far as the whole assassin thing from 1E goes, I always thought that it belonged in the DMG and if my memory serves me right it was. 

I guess I like the whole points of light thing, and have been doing it for years now just didn't ever capture the feel as well as those words do, but now alot of fluff (Tieflings and Warlocks, mostly) are making it seem like the players are the darkness not the light.


----------



## TheSeer (Oct 12, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I guess it's tied to the cosmology. It makes perfect sense to have a warlock making pacts with LG deities instead of demons--except that the LG deities apparently prefer to create clerics.
> 
> I agree, however, that it is a shame the darkness in the PH isn't being balanced with light. If we have the Warlock, it would be nice to retain the paladin's saintly flavor.  If we have tieflings, it would be nice to toss aasimar into the mix as well.
> 
> What can I say? When both sides of the coin are presented, the game feels more human to me.




I guess it's just a matter of perspective:

Warlock - Makes pacts with darker/shawdowy/feral powers
Cleric - Makes pacts with lighter/deific powers

And the difference is...?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, has anyone ever sued Marilyn Manson or video game makers for suicidal teens?




Not Marilyn Manson (but I wouldn't hold my breath after Asa Coon's performance in Ohio this week), but someone did sue Judas Priest in the 80's over a teen's suicide. Ozzy too, IIRC.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Not Marilyn Manson (but I wouldn't hold my breath after Asa Coon's performance in Ohio this week), but someone did sue Judas Priest in the 80's over a teen's suicide. Ozzy too, IIRC.



Yeah, and the courts stated that Judas Priest was not responsible.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I couldn't care less if you never play 4e.




"Your opinion doesn't count!"



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> But when you make false or misleading claims ("warlocks are an evil-aligned class"), it's reasonable to expect to be called on it.




No worse than your speculation that Warlocks _aren't _ an evil-aligned class. Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E". They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil? Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> And please don't call people names.




He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue). Then a few posts later, someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting _NOT _ to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys". Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 12, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Yeah, and the courts stated that Judas Priest was not responsible.




He didn't ask what the outcome was, he asked if it ever happened, which it has. 

That case was absurd on it's face, but in the US, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. It's up to the judge to decide if the lawsuit has merit or not.


----------



## Rolzup (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> You can do those things to a warlock to change its flavor. The problem is, in 3E, _you had to_. That's my point. Almost every other class has inherent flexibility to it. Not the warlock. If you wanted to play anything other than the infernal dude, you had to rewrite a number of mechanics. Sometimes you had to change a name (summon a swarn of doves instead of summon a swarm of bats), sometimes you had to do more legwork (finding an appropriate monster for the turning into a hellcat ability).
> 
> It certainly was possible to do that. But I don't think I should have to.




...or you could use the Hellcat stats, change the name and appearance, and there you go.  Job's done.

I mean, honestly, I don't get this attitude in the least.  Changing the flavor is part of the FUN, and it's in no way difficult.  Any of the Warlock abilities, either the 3.5 version or what we've seen thus far of the 4E Warlock, can be changed with only a little bit of imagination.

(Teleport them to hell?  Send 'em to heaven, where they are seared by the awesome light of the Presence.  Or to Faerie, where they are shredded by thorns.  Or directly into the elemental chaos of...whatever they're calling the elemental planes these days.  I forget.)

This doesn't seem like work to me, no more than coming up with a name and a history for my PC.

When I'd heard the speculation that one of the PHBs would be the new "Oriental Adventures", my firest reaction was this would be the PHB that I wouldn't bother with.  But a moment's thought, and I realized that the mechanics for the (theoretical) Samurai, Ninja, Wu-Jen, and Whatever could be easily re-named and used for a more western-flavored game, of the sort that I favor.

And again...that's part of the fun.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue). Then a few posts later, *someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting NOT  to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys"*. Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?



I cannot speak to the behavior of individuals in the forum, but I dare to ask:
Where, other than the 4e forum, would you expect to find 4e fanboys?


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> No worse than your speculation that Warlocks _aren't _ an evil-aligned class.



This speculation at least has some grounding in the current rules.

Yeah, the warlock is looking to be pretty sinister so far.  Kinda scary.  They weren't forced to be evil in the last edition and since a 4e goal is to remove most of the mechanical effects of alignment it is rather fair to assume that they won't be forced in the next edition.

The warlock would be right at home on a Heavy Metal album or magazine cover, true.  It talks big about fiends and bargains and pacts.  Okay.  Still, saying they are only good for villains or are intrinsically evil all the way is a lot more hardnosed than saying that there might well be other options for the class.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The part I'm surprised that I've seen few comment on in this thread is how CLOSELY this resembles the World of Warcraft Warlock -- down to "marking a soul", to the summoning of mouths to bite enemies, etc. Hopefully, Blizzard won't sue.  (edited because I missed the middle of Praxis' post.)
> 
> This doesn't sound like it'll be a class for me, not because of flavor (which I'm fine with), but the mechanics.




Wha...the 4e warlock has DoTs, drains mana and HP, and summons and binds demons for a variety of roles (tanking, dps, stag parties)?  AWESOME!

Brad


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> "Your opinion doesn't count!"



Not what I said. Not what I meant.

Don't do that.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> No worse than your speculation that Warlocks _aren't _ an evil-aligned class. Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E". They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil? Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.



Until I see "alignment: evil" in print, I'm going to assume that the design team was serious when they said that there would be less emphasis on alignment in 4e. Straitjacketing a class into one alignment doesn't jibe with their stated design goal.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue). Then a few posts later, someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting _NOT _ to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys". Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?



[/QUOTE]
His use of 'fanboy' was dismissive and contemptuous. Similar to how 'grognard' is (unfortunately) used sometimes. 

There are many posters on this forum who have serious problems with 4e. The ones who don't act like jerks are treated with respect (or so I should hope).


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> And again...that's part of the fun.



For you. I don't want to do it. I don't want to have to spend the time converting a class to be more flexible. That's time I could be using to do any number of other more creatively fulfilling things. 

If you find that fun, great. But I don't. I'd rather be presented with a flexible class and spend the time detailing the cool flavor I want instead of having to pry unwanted flavor out of all the mechanics to get it looking like something I want. That's just my preference.


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 12, 2007)

Two bans from this thread already today, and people continue to break the civility rule?

Anyone is welcome to post anywhere on these boards, as long as it is respectful (and hopefully constructive). Please don't tell someone who you disagree with to basically "get out of the forum," or use pejorative terms like "fanboy" just because someone disagrees with you.

More of this, and the thread will be closed and more bans handed out.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 12, 2007)

> Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E".




Patent assumption. They are _never_ said to be evil, & there is at least one (possibly two) pact mentioned that has *nothing* inherently evil (much less *E*vil) about it.



> They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil?




Um, I think the mention of feral & shadow actually qualifies as evidence at least as much as anything you're building your assumptions on. If they'd mentioned celestial in exactly the same way, would that still mean they're evil with a capital E? (& that rhymes with 'p' & that stands for pool... oops, wait, wrong crowd)



> Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.[/




LOL, as opposed to ignoring what is written in favor of your own alarmism? Yes, never let the details stand in the way of a good assumption!   

*sigh*


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Alternatively, you have three choices: one that's traditionally lawful, one essentially neutral, and one that appears fairly chaotic.



Lawful *evil*.  You forgot the evil part.  Devils are fairly insistent on that point.

And make no mistake, the flavor in the article was Evil.  Capital 'E'.  Selling your own soul to a dark being is "not good", and selling other people's souls / sending them to Hell is straight-up, do not pass Neutral or collect 200 gold pieces, Evil.

As it stands, we have three possible power sources: Infernal, Shadow and Feral.  Infernal is clearly evil.  The other two we can't say for sure yet, but we know that the Shadowfell is the realm of death, decay and undeath.  That doesn't bode well for their 'goodly nature.'  Feral is most likely CN, NN or alignment-agnostic.

I really, really hope  that "Boone of Souls" is an infernal-only power.  But I am not hopeful that the Shadow (undead/necromancer) Warlock won't be equally distasteful.  That leaves the Feral Warlock / pseudo-druid as a playable PC.  One in three.

That's not a good ratio.  The 3e Cleric has plenty of non-evil alignments and deities to choose from.  As far as I was concerned, the evil gods were there for my NPC-making needs.  Not for PC consumption.

Without having seen the rules, I am still hopeful that you can play a good warlock.  But the fact remains that it seems you will be playing "against type", and possibly at a mechanical disadvantage relative to your more ethically challenged peers.  Much like a "good" Necromancer, who won't use half the spells his evil brethren do.

As it currently stands (and again, without having seen final rules), the Warlock seems like a waste of PHB space better spent on a Druid or Monk.  He would be much better as an Iron Heroes' Villain Class.

If you haven't picked it up yet, no, I do not allow evil PC's in my campaigns.  They're disruptive and make the game less fun for other PC's.  I also don't find it fun to DM for an evil group.  And yes, there is a real difference between good and evil, both in the real world and in D&D.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm interested in seeing where they go with this.  The class, as written, sounds evil.  The proposed patrons are one obviously evil, one that prorably is, and one that may be.  "Shadow" is the probably: it seems like that's a reference to the Shadowfell, which is the land of the dead.  Making pacts with the dead (or undead) sounds pretty evil.

"Feral" could be either evil or neutral.  It's evil if it refers to the Abyss, evil elemental lords (like from the old FF) or dark fey.  It's neutral if it just refers to the Great Bison Spirit or whatever.  But the whole "marking souls" thing sounds like even a fey connection would still count as evil.

But I'm OK with a specifically evil class.  Assassins have a fine D&D pedigree and that's an evil-only class.  Makes sense.  You have a class or two that are mostly for villains, with the occasional "sad boy" anti-hero or villain-protagonist PC.

I consider it too early to tell whether I like the class or not.  It is intriguing.  But almost certainly evil.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> I am looking forward to playing a fire and brimstone LG warlock with infernal powers.  Helping the innocent, defending the weak and punishing the wicked with a taste of the damnation that waits for them.
> 
> "Repent your wicked ways or the fires of hell await you!"
> "I'll never repent!  I'll destroy you all!"  BAMFBAMF  "OW OW OW OW!!!!"
> "Told you!"



Isn't it nice the way that mechanics serve the fluff, and not the other way around?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> You're right.  Since I had been following the news about 4e and did not make the decision until this thread, then I obviously had no right to be paying attention to this forum.  I forgot it was only for fanboys who consider 4e the second coming.
> 
> I will now remove myself from here and please feel free to come to Circvs Maximvs sometime where I can be quite candid when speaking to you.



Yeah, I'm sure everyone's going to be lining up to be insulted.  lol internet.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Straitjacketing a class into one alignment doesn't jibe with their stated design goal.



Well, the 4e design team then wouldn't be the first group of fallible humans to have conflicting goals.  Maybe there's no "Alignment: Any Evil" written on the class requirements, but any class whose powers depend on killing someone and giving their soul over to your infernal master is, _ipso facto_, populated entirely by evil individuals.

Now, we don't know for sure at this time that Boone of Souls is used by the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks, but if it is, then yeah, every Warlock is evil.  You just can't go around selling people's souls to the devil and (factually) be good or neutral.  That's just not how it works.  To say otherwise is to distort the alignment description to Newspeak.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it should. Core classes should be general classes in my mind, fit to fill a large range of campaign settings.
> 
> This was always the problem with the paladin, its hard to put a paladin and an evil guy in the same party. Yes people have done it, but you have to work to make it work. That's probably why there are now different kinds of paladin's in 4e.
> 
> ...



Only they're warlocking the paladin, not paladinning the warlock.  The paladin's alignment restrictions have been lifted, allowing him to be something other than LG.  The warlock was never restricted to CE.  He could be good or evil, lawful or chaotic, just not every combination of the two.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> but any class whose powers depend on killing someone and giving their soul over to your infernal master




Where exactly do you get this idea from?

The actual article says



> the pacts provide direct benefits when you send an enemy you've marked to *their afterlife reward*




Now to me this says quite clearly that the good guys go to their good afterlife reward, the evil guys go to their evil afterlife reward.

Sending an enemy to *their *afterlife reward.

Nothing about turning souls over to your own master, whatever that might be.

I'm guessing that someone made an assumption earlier in the thread and it has been passed on through the thread without going back to the source document again


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> "Your opinion doesn't count!"
> 
> 
> 
> No worse than your speculation that Warlocks _aren't _ an evil-aligned class. Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E". They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil? Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.



It's a less reasonable assumption that warlocks are going to be an "all villain, all the time" class than it is that they will be able to be either heroes or villains.  It would waste a ton of space in the Classes section if the warlock could only be used as an evil character, and would be a bad idea for the designers to set it up this way, and we all implicitly understand this.  Therefore, the claims that the warlock can only be evil need to be justified.  The default assumption is that you will be able to make a wide variety of characters with any given class.



> He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue).



It's insulting, which is contrary to the board rules.



> Then a few posts later, someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting _NOT _ to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys". Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?



He was being obviously ironic when he used the word "fanboys."


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2007)

I think that a little of the point is being missed. You can have good characters that have dark backgrounds, and the Warlock is invoking images of Spawn and Ghost Rider to that end, I would suppose.

My point is: are these kinds of characters really so iconic that we want one them to be one of the first eight character classes that are presented to us? Aren't there some kinds of characters that might be more iconic and more timely (I mean, come on, do they even publish Spawn any more?)

My suggestion is to yoink the Warlock, and put the Mageblade character back in (assuming that class is still out of the book...)

I think you'd get a lot better response from that class than the Warlock. Warlocks are fine, just give 'em to me in a splat book. 

--Steve


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> For you. I don't want to do it. I don't want to have to spend the time converting a class to be more flexible. That's time I could be using to do any number of other more creatively fulfilling things.
> 
> If you find that fun, great. But I don't. I'd rather be presented with a flexible class and spend the time detailing the cool flavor I want instead of having to pry unwanted flavor out of all the mechanics to get it looking like something I want. That's just my preference.



I'm not sure what you mean by "pry."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no flavour at all associated with the warlock.  None.  Just a bunch of mechanics.  You add your own flavour.  You suggest that you'll enjoy "detailing the cool flavor."  You just fill in the appropriate names, effects, etc.

Now, what exactly would change if the warlock came fully loaded with flavour?  You'd still detail the cool flavour, fill in the appropriate names, effects, etc.  The only difference is that you'd be overwriting what's there instead of filling in blanks.  But overwriting existing flavour is exactly as easy as filling in blanks.  It's not like the existing flavour is going to fight with you.  You just tap the "insert" key, write "celestial" over top of "infernal", and it's done.  Cross out "sends him to hell" and write in "sends him to heaven".  Since you're going to be doing all this detailing of cool flavour anyway, I don't see where you get the idea that there's going to be a bunch of extra work.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 12, 2007)

I dunno, this thread is pretty evil. Side effect of the warlocks infernal masters?

(Thinks the 3.X paladin threads will be bouts using the Marquess of Queensberry rules compared to warlock threads...)


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I dunno, this thread is pretty evil. Side effect of the warlocks infernal masters?
> 
> (Thinks the 3.X paladin threads will be bouts using the Marquess of Queensberry rules compared to warlock threads...)




I believe the anger about the Warlock is inversely proportionate to the actual information we have on the class.

Geeks abhor a vacuum.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> And yes, there is a real difference between good and evil, both in the real world and in D&D.



Where did this come from?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I'm interested in seeing where they go with this.  The class, as written, sounds evil.  The proposed patrons are one obviously evil, one that prorably is, and one that may be.  "Shadow" is the probably: it seems like that's a reference to the Shadowfell, which is the land of the dead.  Making pacts with the dead (or undead) sounds pretty evil.




Unless it's a more Hades-like land of the dead.  Lots of grey wastes, bored souls wandering for eternity, etc.  That's not evil, just grim.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Unless it's a more Hades-like land of the dead.  Lots of grey wastes, bored souls wandering for eternity, etc.  That's not evil, just grim.




Which really seems to be the case when discussing the Shadowfell.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Well, the 4e design team then wouldn't be the first group of fallible humans to have conflicting goals.  Maybe there's no "Alignment: Any Evil" written on the class requirements, but any class whose powers depend on killing someone and giving their soul over to your infernal master is, _ipso facto_, populated entirely by evil individuals.
> 
> Now, we don't know for sure at this time that Boone of Souls is used by the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks, but if it is, then yeah, every Warlock is evil.  You just can't go around selling people's souls to the devil and (factually) be good or neutral.  That's just not how it works.  To say otherwise is to distort the alignment description to Newspeak.



See Plane Sailing's post, above.  Also, I notice that you embellish this every time you mention it.  Before, it was just sending people to the afterlife.  Now it's selling souls to the devil.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

I think maybe Irda has misinterpreted the article, but nevertheless the Warlock gets "campaign contributions" from dodgy extra-planar entities _for killing people_.  An Assassin gets money for killing people, a Warlock gets 'magic juice' for killing people. Same difference - they're both evil.

Though I will say again that I think an evil-only class is fine for the PHB.  Always has been.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think maybe Irda has misinterpreted the article, but nevertheless the Warlock gets "campaign contributions" from dodgy extra-planar entities _for killing people_.  An Assassin gets money for killing people, a Warlock gets 'magic juice' for killing people. Same difference - they're both evil.
> 
> Though I will say again that I think an evil-only class is fine for the PHB.  Always has been.



A fighter gets levels from killing people.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 12, 2007)

> ...nevertheless the Warlock gets "campaign contributions" from dodgy extra-planar entities for killing people. An Assassin gets money for killing people, a Warlock gets 'magic juice' for killing people. Same difference - they're both evil.




Just like a cleric of Heironeous gets 'campaign contributions' (in the form of spells) from extra-planar entities (Heironeous & his celestial host) for killing evil people?


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 12, 2007)

Just because the mechanic of alignment has been removed doesn't mean that there can't be evil creatures and characters in the game....


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Well, the 4e design team then wouldn't be the first group of fallible humans to have conflicting goals.  Maybe there's no "Alignment: Any Evil" written on the class requirements, but any class whose powers depend on killing someone and giving their soul over to your infernal master is, _ipso facto_, populated entirely by evil individuals.




Bingo.

And I don't care if the article didn't specifically say you kill somone and hand their soul off to an infernal patron, the very fact that the class _as they have presented it _ gains power via pacts with EVIL patrons makes it an evil class to me. Yeah, you can do other things with it, and yeah, you can change the flavor text to whatever you like, but the fact is they are "selling" the idea to the target audience as a class that makes deals with the Devil(s) in exchange for power, and they specifically say it's a natural fit for the tieflings, a race tainted with the infernal. That doesn't scream "but they can be feral nature-boys too" to me.

Also note that at no time was I one of those who said that evil had no place in the PHB. I also don't agree that necromancy is inherantly evil (outside of those spells with the "Evil" descriptor). In fact, I run Scarred Lands, where there is a perfect example of a city run by non-evil necromancers and protected by advanced skeleton patrols. Simply put, a core rulebook dealing with classes and races needs to be able to handle both good guys (the PCs) and bad guys (character-classed NPC villians), if for no other reason than to have similar rules grouped in the same volume. I just don't recall the authors pushing Assassins and Necromancers as being quite so "wicked cool" in prior editions either.




			
				Dr Awkward said:
			
		

> It's insulting, which is contrary to the board rules.




So, if I am insulted by someone calling me a "Scruffy Nerfherder", even if I am, it's against board rules? Can I say "4th ed Cheerleader"? Or is "Cheerleader" a Newspeak insult too? Maybe the easily insulted can cobble together some kind of Thoughtcrime Insult List and post it somewhere so I know how not to offend those going out of their way to find offense.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 12, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Just like a cleric of Heironeous gets 'campaign contributions' (in the form of spells) from extra-planar entities (Heironeous & his celestial host) for killing evil people?




I wasn't aware that it was a requirement for a cleric of Heironeous to kill people in order to regain spells or that killing evil people gave a cleric of Heironeous special abilities.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Sending an enemy to *their *afterlife reward.
> 
> Nothing about turning souls over to your own master, whatever that might be.



Yep. Now IME, any horror movie or novel that involves "marking somone's soul" usually had that mean the victim DID get damned or devoured by some soul eating horror.

Sadly, the warlock does not automaticly change direction of the marked soul. Now since the real afterlife, which comes AFTER one's layover in the Shadowfell, is _beyond all ken_, there is wiggle room to say _"Yes, that marking does have a deleterious effect on the soul's fate"_.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, if I am insulted by someone calling me a "Scruffy Nerfherder", even if I am, it's against board rules? Can I say "4th ed Cheerleader"? Or is "Cheerleader" a Newspeak insult too? Maybe the easily insulted can cobble together some kind of Thoughtcrime Insult List and post it somewhere so I know how not to offend those going out of their way to find offense.




Such a list is unnecessary where common courtesy is in use.


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "pry."
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no flavour at all associated with the warlock.  None.  Just a bunch of mechanics.  You add your own flavour.  You suggest that you'll enjoy "detailing the cool flavor."  You just fill in the appropriate names, effects, etc.
> 
> Now, what exactly would change if the warlock came fully loaded with flavour?  You'd still detail the cool flavour, fill in the appropriate names, effects, etc.  The only difference is that you'd be overwriting what's there instead of filling in blanks.  But overwriting existing flavour is exactly as easy as filling in blanks.  It's not like the existing flavour is going to fight with you.  You just tap the "insert" key, write "celestial" over top of "infernal", and it's done.  Cross out "sends him to hell" and write in "sends him to heaven".  Since you're going to be doing all this detailing of cool flavour anyway, I don't see where you get the idea that there's going to be a bunch of extra work.



You misunderstood. I don't want to spend my time adding (or subtracting and then adding) flavor to the mechanics. I want to spend my time adding flavor to the character. 

I want the warlock to be like the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. I want to imagine a character, pick the spells/powers that fit my idea for that character, and then build a story on that. I don't want to imagine a character and then have to completely change the class by either renaming, reworking, or outright getting rid of some of its abilities.

All that matters to me is the 3E warlock was one of the least fun classes for me to create a character in because of its inherent lack of flexibility. Granted, as has been pointed out repeatedly, I was certainly capable of overcoming that lack of flexibility, but that sure didn't do anything to make creating a warlock any more fun for me. I'd just like to see a more flexible approach to the 4E warlock.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Oct 12, 2007)

Where was it stated there was no druid in the PHB?

Did I miss something big?


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The part I'm surprised that I've seen few comment on in this thread is how CLOSELY this resembles the World of Warcraft Warlock -- down to "marking a soul", to the summoning of mouths to bite enemies, etc. Hopefully, Blizzard won't sue.  (edited because I missed the middle of Praxis' post.)




I didn't even know WoW had warlocks.  I'm just glad the D&D warlock seems like he ate the lame Hexblade, spat out the bad parts and is much more interesting than the current "I use my eldritch blast...again" warlock of 3.5 Ed.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> A fighter gets levels from killing people.




A fighter gets levels from playing the game like any other class.  
He does not have a class ablility based on getting a bonus from killing people.

The facts are they could have either A) put this version of the Warlock in another book, or B) make the Warlock more flexible and use alot less Infernal/Evil/Demonic themes with it.

Personaly I think a Favored Soul/Warlock combo like thing would have been the way to best way to work it.  And I know I can strip all the fluff and rewrite the effects and tweak the warlock to be such, but my point is I should not have to.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, if I am insulted by someone calling me a "Scruffy Nerfherder", even if I am, it's against board rules? Can I say "4th ed Cheerleader"? Or is "Cheerleader" a Newspeak insult too? Maybe the easily insulted can cobble together some kind of Thoughtcrime Insult List and post it somewhere so I know how not to offend those going out of their way to find offense.



Maybe you could just not call people names.


----------



## TheSeer (Oct 12, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> After taking a look at this, I'm going to seriously suggest that WotC take a look at the Warlock and tone down some of these abilities and take a look at the flavor behind it.
> 
> Is it because I'm scared of "dark" things? Not in the least. The reason for it is because we're only going to have a relatively small number of classes available in the core, and presumably in the SRD, and a class like this is simply not going to be as useful for games as some of the others that are getting moved to supplements.
> 
> ...




Can you quote exactly where your statistics come from. Because if you look at the posts on this board, the sides are pretty much even as far as who likes the allegedly (i use allegedly because we don't have hard facts, more just inference as far as the class being restricted to being evil - again, if you can quote/link to an exact place where it definitively states them as being so, I'd love to see it) dark tone as those who dislike it.

I am a member of the RPGA and to tell you the truth, the one thing I dislike about it is someone who is not at *MY* table has decided that the game is about heroics, therefore my wanting to play someone with more shades of grey/dark isn't a viable choice. That decision should be made between players and DM. Which, is pretty much what WOTC is doing, giving you the choice. If your DM doesn't want to have that in their campaign, then don't have it. It would be no more difficult than it was for my 1E DM to ban Assassins, or from my 2E DM banning Psionics, or my 3E DM banning the entire Book of Exalted Deeds (or Exalted Cheese as he called it.)

Why is it better to take away choices than keep em in and have it be decided between the people concerned?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that it was a requirement for a cleric of Heironeous to kill people in order to regain spells or that killing evil people gave a cleric of Heironeous special abilities.



Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities.  Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells?  He killed enough goblins.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> The facts are they could have either A) put this version of the Warlock in another book, or B) make the Warlock more flexible and use alot less Infernal/Evil/Demonic themes with it.
> 
> Personaly I think a Favored Soul/Warlock combo like thing would have been the way to best way to work it.  And I know I can strip all the fluff and rewrite the effects and tweak the warlock to be such, but my point is I should not have to.




I guess I don't see why the dark themes are a big deal. It's dramatic and interesting, and certainly many D&D adventures have featured diabolical meddling as a major plot point. Many villains wreak havoc at the behest of infernal masters, so it just makes sense for there to be a class that shows why a person would appease those masters: power. 

I mean, making the Warlock a PHB class is the most blunt way to say "one of the major themes of this game is that infernal powers meddle in the affairs of men". 

Fact is, demons and devils are *the* villains of choice for high level adventurers. There's just not much out there that can go toe to toe with 30th level characters. So by making the warlock a base class, the game introduces these villains as early as possible: during character creation. 

Elegant, really.

-z

PS, from your sig: "The game master has full discretionary power over the game." If you don't like the warlock fluff, just change it.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that someone made an assumption earlier in the thread and it has been passed on through the thread without going back to the source document again



No, no.  Not at all.  My opinion was informed by a mis-reading of the source document itself.  (Note to others: based on my mis-read, it was a restatement of the facts, but not an embellishment of them).

It still feels evil to me though.  Heck, making deals with the devil is inherantly dicey.  It rarely goes well.

I reserve judgement, particularly with respect to the Shadowy and Feral Warlocks.  It would have been nice though if there were explicitly 'celestial' and 'elemental' warlocks, to round out the class.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I reserve judgement, particularly with respect to the Shadowy and Feral Warlocks.  It would have been nice though if there were explicitly 'celestial' and 'elemental' warlocks, to round out the class.




Making deals with celestial entities to kill people?  Doesn't sound like something celestials would be interested in.

And I dispute the notion that good clerics, even of Hieroneus, kill people for personal gain.  If that's the way it plays in (the general sense of) your campaign, I think we disagree on how to interpret the Good alignment.

Sure, good clerics and paladins kill sometimes: in self-defense, or to check otherwise unchecked aggression (i.e. self-defense by proxy).  They don't kill people to specifically get powerups from slaughter.  If the do that, they're not "good" by any reasonable definition I've ever heard.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I guess I don't see why the dark themes are a big deal. It's dramatic and interesting,



Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting."  It's evil.  Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> ... diabolical meddling as a major *plot point * ... *villains * wreak havoc at the behest of infernal masters ... appease those masters: power ... infernal powers *meddle in the affairs * of men ...  demons and devils are **the* villains * of choice for high level adventurers ... by making the warlock a base class, the game introduces these *villains * ...



I have selected certain of your phrases and bolded certain of your words.  It's the bolded words words people have a problem with.  It looks like this:

1. PC classes are for PC's.
2. PC's should be mostly good; some neutral OK.
2.a Villains are bad guys.
2.b Plot points, and affair-meddling, are the DM's providence.
3. Ergo, a villainous, plot meddling, evil-only class is inappproriate for the PC section of the PHB.  It should be in the MM or the DMG.

Now, we don't know that it's hard-coded evil-only, but it sure looks like it _could _ turn out that way.  It's certainly much more possible than the (for instance) the fighter or the rogue being evil-only.  And so, people expres their concerns.  It's a perfectly valid concerns, AFAIC.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Making deals with celestial entities to kill people?  Doesn't sound like something celestials would be interested in.



Obviously. Their _Boone of Souls_ would be for saving someone's soul, or for freeing trapped souls by killing the demon holding them in his menagerie, or something else celestials would be interested in.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Also, just to remind folks. I believe they're taking Alignment out of the Rules completely. No class with alignment restrictions. 

So "Evil Only Warlock" is... well, not true.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Also, just to remind folks. I believe they're taking Alignment out of the Rules completely. No class with alignment restrictions.




They're ditching alignment?  Where did they say that?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting."  It's evil.  Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.




Well again, we don't know that the warlock is evil-only. 

And Shakespeare's works are dramatic because they have villains/conflict. That's what drama *is*: "a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or intense conflict of forces."

I think a hero with shady powers is a pretty good example of conflict, and therefore drama.



> I have selected certain of your phrases and bolded certain of your words.  It's the bolded words words people have a problem with.  It looks like this:
> 
> 1. PC classes are for PC's.
> 2. PC's should be mostly good; some neutral OK.
> ...




I guess I don't know where the "evil-only" thing is coming from. The article mentions that the Warlock's powers may originate from an evil patron, but there's nothing in the article that says that the _character_ has to be evil.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Evil isn't "dramatic and interesting."  It's evil.  Shakespeare is dramatic and interesting.




He said DARK themes are dramatic and interesting. You then replied about EVIL themes.

I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I want the warlock to be like the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. I want to imagine a character, pick the spells/powers that fit my idea for that character, and then build a story on that. I don't want to imagine a character and then have to completely change the class by either renaming, reworking, or outright getting rid of some of its abilities.




I don't think that clerics in particular railroad a character's flavor any less than warlocks allegedly do. After all, a cleric's abilities, equipment, and outlook are all informed, if not determined, by their deity and church. Should you want to play a cleric, but not a member of an existing religion, you have to A) create a new religion, or B) have clerics derive their power other sources. Both of those option require time and effort, changes to flavor, and DM approval. The only difference between clerics and warlocks is that warlocks supposedly have fewer patrons, and that those patrons might inform their choice of abilities to a greater extent.


----------



## BBQ (Oct 12, 2007)

I view creatures like Gwynharwyf to be "feral" in nature. But really, a warlock can (and will, I'm sure) be able to follow other powers beyond the fiend/shadow/feral groupings. In my 3.5 campaign, the party warlock fell in love with the party paladin (played, unsurprisingly, by a husband and wife duo), and it opened a ton of storyline and "in-party" interaction. She came to serve a master who was not evil (of course, reprisals from former master were interesting flavor). I don't think warlocks are really limited by their power source, though. I mean, there have been all manner of characters who get to play the "deal-with-a-fiend" thing, then turn against their masters.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I guess I don't know where the "evil-only" thing is coming from. The article mentions that the Warlock's powers may originate from an evil patron, but there's nothing in the article that says that the _character_ has to be evil.



Well there is this... 







			
				Thessalonians 5:22 (King James Version) said:
			
		

> Abstain from all appearance of evil.



 but that's not really an enworld topic.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Obviously. Their _Boone of Souls_ would be for saving someone's soul, or for freeing trapped souls by killing the demon holding them in his menagerie, or something else celestials would be interested in.



And again, we don't know that Boon of Souls is a feature of all warlocks; it may be part of the Infernal path only.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 12, 2007)

One more thing to consider: there are only so many potential sources of *supernatural* power in the D&D game. There's gods, demons/devils, psionics, and magic. That's... pretty much it.

Clerics and paladins derive power from gods.

Wizards derive power from magic. 

Psionics are not in the PHB.

That leaves demons/devils. They're part of D&D, so it just makes sense to use them as the power source for a class. Those beings exist in the fiction, so there ya go. The dramatic possibilities that come with a hero whose powers derive from an evil source? That's just a bonus.

For examples of heroes who are only able to accomplish heroics by drawing on evil or corrupt training/powers, see:

Jason Bourne
Spawn
Bionic Woman
Ghost Rider
Wolverine
Elric
The Incredible Hulk
Witchblade
Spiderman/Venom

And so on and so on. All those heroes have incredible powers provided by entities or organizations that they despise. All are demonstrably compelling and popular.


----------



## BBQ (Oct 12, 2007)

They aren't ditching alignment. It's going to be changed a bit, but it's staying.

Warlocks in 3.5 aren't "evil only". Neither are Dread Necromancers or Archivists (Heroes of Horror), though they're pretty "dark themed" as well. 

"Dark themed" doesn't mean "evil". Don't mix the two up. Warlocks can, in all likelihood, be any alignment they want. It's a matter of the spin you give it.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> They're ditching alignment?  Where did they say that?



They aren't ditching alignment.  They ARE stating an intent to remove alignment from the mechanics of the game.  Slight difference.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> You misunderstood. I don't want to spend my time adding (or subtracting and then adding) flavor to the mechanics. I want to spend my time adding flavor to the character.



Then wait until the 4e Warlock gets to the SRD. 

The SRD is absolutely flavorless.

Because honestly? I don't see them just posting the numbers without any words that designate flavor. If you want that, look at True d20.


----------



## DandD (Oct 12, 2007)

That is, if they do add 4th edition rules to the SRD. Although I do hope.


----------



## Gargoyle (Oct 12, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *It's a darker D&D, and like it or not it's going to affect a lot of campaigns, because good DM's hate to restrict player choices, and don't have time to rework the warlock to be less "evil-ish".*




I'm quoting myself here, due to the growing length of the thread, and since Cadfan refers to that part of my post. 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I disagree, particularly with the part highlighted.  Necromancers were in the PHB in 3e.  They were one amongst several types of wizards.  Evil clerics were in the PHB, just dropped in like a normal, every day thing.




I never said that evil player characters didn't exist.  In fact I said "evilish" on purpose and should have just stuck with "dark".  Forget alignment for the moment.  

My point is that the core classes in 3E and even 2E are predominately heroic, not so dark and grim as the warlock.  I stand by my statement that 4e will be a darker D&D because of the inclusion of the warlock...it's up front and will affect campaigns, sometimes in a negative way...hopefully in positive ways.  

The reason it will have more impact than the occassional evil necromancer or cleric (or any other class) is because it is more difficult to imagine a good warlock given the type of abilities I've seen so far.  It leans toward evil more than the other classes because of its abilities.  It doesn't force evil characters down a DM's throat as much as say the 1E assassin, but it does create a complication for some groups who are trying to run a more heroic campaign.  A good aligned warlock might be hard to pull off in RP situations.  We'll see when they reveal more.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2007)

TheSeer said:
			
		

> Can you quote exactly where your statistics come from. Because if you look at the posts on this board, the sides are pretty much even as far as who likes the allegedly (i use allegedly because we don't have hard facts, more just inference as far as the class being restricted to being evil - again, if you can quote/link to an exact place where it definitively states them as being so, I'd love to see it) dark tone as those who dislike it.
> 
> I am a member of the RPGA and to tell you the truth, the one thing I dislike about it is someone who is not at *MY* table has decided that the game is about heroics, therefore my wanting to play someone with more shades of grey/dark isn't a viable choice. That decision should be made between players and DM. Which, is pretty much what WOTC is doing, giving you the choice. If your DM doesn't want to have that in their campaign, then don't have it. It would be no more difficult than it was for my 1E DM to ban Assassins, or from my 2E DM banning Psionics, or my 3E DM banning the entire Book of Exalted Deeds (or Exalted Cheese as he called it.)
> 
> Why is it better to take away choices than keep em in and have it be decided between the people concerned?



In a word, "no," I won't because there aren't any such statistics, other than the RPGA, which is the largest organized play group in the world. RPGA has a strict no evil characters policy, and evil actions get your character removed from play.

Now beyond that, take a look at what the core books say about alignment: characters in D&D are heroes, by and large.

Beyond that, I invite you to look at the various story hours on this very site, and also take a look at the vast number of published modules. Good and heroic characters are the default in the vast majority of them. If you look at WotC adventures, or Dungeon Magazine, you'll see this in spades.

Now to the meat of your issue: *in no way should I tell you anything about what your table is like, or how you play the game*. Not at all. Your game is your game, and if you and your friends are having fun, that's great.

What I am saying is that placing a class into the core rulebook for a game that has a strong evil component to it doesn't make sense, because most people don't play their games that way. That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't play those kinds of games.

Now I know that you can have warlocks that aren't evil, the characters that the class is built around are just that, but I would argue that there are far more iconic classes that belong there in this class' place. Druid or warlock? That's one example. Mageblade or warlock? I'd argue for the Mageblade, thankyouverymuch. Warlock in a supplement? Sure!

One real component to this that many of us forget is that D&D is a game that gets purchased a lot by parents of teens or even preteens. A class that oozes evil from it (even if that's not an accurate depiction of the totality of the class) doesn't belong in the core for that reason alone.

So no, I don't think your game needs to be good, or that it should avoid dark imagery, just that the warlock isn't the best or most useful class to put into the core PHB.

--Steve


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Then wait until the 4e Warlock gets to the SRD.
> 
> The SRD is absolutely flavorless.



That won't really change anything. The SRD just strips the class down to its mechanics, but when the mechanics are stuff like 'dark discorporation', 'dark foresight', 'utterdark blast', 'tenacious plague', 'curse of despair', etc., that doesn't really get rid of any of the flavor of the class. (And obviously I'm just using those invocations as examples.)


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Because honestly? I don't see them just posting the numbers without any words that designate flavor. If you want that, look at True d20.



Really? Look at the ranger. It gets abilities like 'endurance', 'animal companion', 'combat style', 'camouflage'. The druid gets 'nature stride', 'trackless step', 'wild shape', etc. Those names aren't exactly all that flavorful. 

Even the spells sections provide much more flexibility in character building than the warlock's powers do. There's a few obviously good spells, a few obviously evil spells, and a whole lot of middle 'gray-area' spells that can be used however the player imagines it.

That's what I want for a warlock. I don't have a problem with a dark-flavored warlock. I just don't want that to be the only option in the rules as written by virtue of the flavor written in the mechanics. Sure, have some obviously dark stuff. But have some obviously good stuff, too, and have a whole lot of gray-area stuff that warlocks of any flavor can use for what they imagine.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> That's what I want for a warlock. I don't have a problem with a dark-flavored warlock. I just don't want that to be the only option in the rules as written by virtue of the flavor written in the mechanics. Sure, have some obviously dark stuff. But have some obviously good stuff, too, and have a whole lot of gray-area stuff that warlocks of any flavor can use for what they imagine.



Hmmm... just thinking, what "obviously good" spells are there for the wizard? You can play a good wizard, but there aren't really mechanical options slanted this way. I would say, however, there are "obviously evil" (or at least, "arguably evil") spells in the wizard's repertoire of choices. Most are generally gray-area, though.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 12, 2007)

The more I think about it, the more I think the dark-flavor of the warlock is a wise choice. Consumers _like_ heroes with an edge.

Danny Ocean. Han Solo. James Bond. Jack Bauer. Wolverine. Batman. Boba Fett. Lestat. Spawn. 

These guys run the gamut from charming scoundrels to borderline psychopaths willing to go to just about any length in their fight against evil. They're popular _because_ they're a bit bad. So yeah, I think it's a good move to include the dark flavor. PCs are heroes--that's true--but their abilities come from many different sources. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the Big Bad Evil Guy is exploded by a wizard's fireball, fried by a warlock's blast, decapitated by a fighter's sword, impaled by a rogue's rapier, or crushed by a cleric's mace. Regardless of the mechanism (or the flavor), the BBEG is dead and the heroes have taken his stuff. That's the game.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> That's what I want for a warlock. I don't have a problem with a dark-flavored warlock. I just don't want that to be the only option in the rules as written by virtue of the flavor written in the mechanics. Sure, have some obviously dark stuff. But have some obviously good stuff, too, and have a whole lot of gray-area stuff that warlocks of any flavor can use for what they imagine.



And as this article suggests, there are three options: infernal, feral and shadowy. I'm fairly certain the shadowy will have shadow-like appearances. 

We also know that there are various powers like the Mire of Minauros acid bog trick. 

So I don't see the Warlock being "All Fiendish, All the Time".


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Hmmm... just thinking, what "obviously good" spells are there for the wizard? You can play a good wizard, but there aren't really mechanical options slanted this way. I would say, however, there are "obviously evil" (or at least, "arguably evil") spells in the wizard's repertoire of choices. Most are generally gray-area, though.



I was thinking about the cleric when I typed that, because they also get their powers from various otherworldly beings.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 13, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> He said DARK themes are dramatic and interesting. You then replied about EVIL themes.
> 
> I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.



Me too.  He seems to think you can *do *evil things without *being *an evil person.  I don't.  In my conception, you *are *what you *do*.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does."

Since several people seem to be quoting/reading only part of my posts, I will restate: we don't know yet whether the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks are evil-only.  They may not be.

BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis.  They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact.  That's evil; plain and simple.  You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good.  That's just not how it works.

In full disclosure, before anyone gets banned for making religious arguments, I just want to make perfectly clear that the above statements are based on the D&D-world conceits of devils, demons and evil gods actually existing, and being incurably evil, and that no one should draw any conclusions about my real-world religious beliefs based on these posts.  These posts are my "in character" thoughts about whether or not a warlock is 'always evil'.  Further, I'm also making these statements based on the concept that your alignment is demonstrated by your actions during play, and not by the words you wrote down on your character sheet.  Based on my current understanding of the class, an Infernal Warlock is "always evil" the same way a Dark Sun Defiler or some third-party "sacrifice innocents to power spells" Blood Mage would be evil.  It's simply a consequence of their actions.


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And as this article suggests, there are three options: infernal, feral and shadowy. I'm fairly certain the shadowy will have shadow-like appearances.
> 
> We also know that there are various powers like the Mire of Minauros acid bog trick.
> 
> So I don't see the Warlock being "All Fiendish, All the Time".



Maybe not 'all fiendish all the time', but I'm not sure there's a lot of hope that it won't be 'all dark all the time'. I suppose, as others have speculated, the feral could be referencing fey, but if that's true, it's not certain those powers would come from anything other than the more sinister fey. 'Feral' doesn't exactly conjure up images of butterflies and pixies, you know? 

But we'll just wait and see. I just hope they expand on the warlock's options in the rules as written. If not, and they want to go with a darker class, that's fine, I'd just rather it be in the DMG or in another suplement.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 13, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Danny Ocean. Han Solo. James Bond. Jack Bauer. Wolverine. Batman. Boba Fett. Lestat. Spawn.



Hmm.  Two thoughts:
1.  I would classify both Danny Ocean and Han Solo as either CN or CG.  Danny I think is pretty clearly CG the whole time, and Han shifts from CN to CG during Ep. IV and stays there for the next two movies.

2.  None of the other people on your list play well with others.  It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates.  I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the Big Bad Evil Guy is exploded by a wizard's fireball, fried by a warlock's blast, decapitated by a fighter's sword, impaled by a rogue's rapier, or crushed by a cleric's mace. Regardless of the mechanism (or the flavor), the BBEG is dead and the heroes have taken his stuff. That's the game.



Quite the contrary, why and how you do things are just as important as their immediate effect.  Maybe Thomas Aquinas is a bit heavy reading for the average D&D game, but his work, and others like it, should be studied before serious discussion of the alignments.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 13, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Me too.  He seems to think you can *wear black leather and act all brooding and dark* without being an evil person.



FIFY.



> Since several people seem to be quoting/reading only part of my posts, I will restate: we don't know yet whether the Shadowy or Feral Warlocks are evil-only.  They may not be.
> 
> BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis.  They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact.  That's evil; plain and simple.  You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good.  That's just not how it works.



Oh noes!  One aspect of the class is likely to be associated with devils.  Let's scrap the whole damn thing.

Seriously, you're really out on a limb here, and you're sawing it off behind yourself.  You admit in one breath that the shadow and feral warlocks likely aren't going to be required to be evil, and then in the next breath you talk like they don't exist and that the whole thing is just a ploy to get people to play devil-loving evil bad guys who kick puppies and cheat at euchre.  Just calm down and wait.  I can practically guarantee that while the warlock is likely to be incredibly _goth_, perhaps even with an "oh woe is me, I am teh hero but I have teh daaaarrrrrk powerz" aspect to it, it's not going to be required that you be a bad guy to play one.



> In full disclosure, before anyone gets banned for making religious arguments, I just want to make perfectly clear that the above statements are based on the D&D-world conceits of devils, demons and evil gods actually existing, and being incurably evil, and that no one should draw any conclusions about my real-world religious beliefs based on these posts.




Um.  Okay... no one was going to bring it up, but since you insist...



> These posts are my "in character" thoughts about whether or not a warlock is 'always evil'.  Further, I'm also making these statements based on the concept that your alignment is demonstrated by your actions during play, and not by the words you wrote down on your character sheet.  Based on my current understanding of the class, an Infernal Warlock is "always evil" the same way a Dark Sun Defiler or some third-party "sacrifice innocents to power spells" Blood Mage would be evil.  It's simply a consequence of their actions.




Yeah, maybe if the infernal warlock has to sacrifice innocents to power his abilities, you'd have an argument there.  But we don't think he does.  And even if he doesn't but is still a nasty dude, there's still two other kinds of warlocks.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Me too.  He seems to think you can *do *evil things without *being *an evil person.  I don't.  In my conception, you *are *what you *do*.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does."
> 
> BUT, we know that the Infernal Warlocks make deals with the devil on a regular basis.  They're whole character concept is based around an infernal pact.  That's evil; plain and simple.  You can't go around dealing with the devil and be good.  That's just not how it works.




Uh, I'm _right here_. No need to put words in my mouth. 

Specifically: I've never said you can do evil things without being an evil person. Don't know where you got that.

Actually, your second paragraph offers a clue: you think that making a deal with a devil = automatic evil act. 

Oh no, here comes Discussion-of-Alignment Town! Everyone run!

I don't think making a pact with a devil = evil act. If a devil sells my character a donut, and my character buys that donut, he doesn't instantly become Evil and experience a sudden desire to place a side order of baby orphans. 

In the warlock's example, say a devil offered a Warlock's powers to a widower in exchange for the widower's promise to use those powers to kill his wife's murderer. Is that evil? Is it different from, say, a Lawful Good sheriff deputizing the widower and offering a sword in exchange for the exact same promise? 

There's a lot of rich roleplaying to be explored as the character accepts new powers in exchange for more promises that begin to come closer to the line between good and evil. That's conflict. That's drama. That's fun!

Point is, the source of a character's power is not what makes him good or evil. It's how he _uses_ those powers that matter.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Maybe not 'all fiendish all the time', but I'm not sure there's a lot of hope that it won't be 'all dark all the time'. I suppose, as others have speculated, the feral could be referencing fey, but if that's true, it's not certain those powers would come from anything other than the more sinister fey. 'Feral' doesn't exactly conjure up images of butterflies and pixies, you know?



No more than the Druid using their wildshape for dire bears and crocodiles, instead of wildshaping into bunnies and squirrels. 

Feral brings to mind primal forces, primitive mental drives. The barbarian is more feral than the fighter, due to his raging ways. I would classify the Shifters from Eberron as more "feral". 

In general, I prefer the dark sounding stuff. Because I would have to roll my eyes every time I casted "Embrace of the Rainbow Farting Unicorn". But, because I hate the names of Psionic powers and their over-abundance on new agey crystals and parapsychology verbage, I understand what you're saying.



> None of the other people on your list play well with others. It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates. I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.



Wolverine isn't necessarily anti-team. He goes off on his own, sure, but he's not adverse to teamwork. Batman often has a partner, and has always been a member of the Justice League.

Anti-Heroes can play well with others. Loyalty or protectiveness to a choice few while ruthless to everyone else comes to mind.

But ultimately, it depends on your game. If all your adventure is is just "Go in there to get the treasure" or "Go kill the dragon" with no personal hook keyed to the PCs, then it doesn't matter who or what they are. And if one of your players makes characters that doesn't play well with others, then that's _the player's problem_. D&D is a group game, and he has to have a reason to stick with the group. Being dark doesn't preclude that.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Two thoughts:
> 1.  I would classify both Danny Ocean and Han Solo as either CN or CG.  Danny I think is pretty clearly CG the whole time, and Han shifts from CN to CG during Ep. IV and stays there for the next two movies.




I agree wholeheartedly. My point is that they're both criminals, and immensely popular precisely because they're criminals. Consumers *like* bad boys.



> 2.  None of the other people on your list play well with others.  It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates.  I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.




I don't allow evil PCs for the same reason. 

But, man, Boba Fett is _cool_. I imagine warlocks, with their angsty "I walk through darkness, that I may bring others into the light" schtick will have similar mass-market appeal. 



> Quite the contrary, why and how you do things are just as important as their immediate effect.  Maybe Thomas Aquinas is a bit heavy reading for the average D&D game, but his work, and others like it, should be studied before serious discussion of the alignments.




I think the *why* is important, but the *how* less so. If a character inflicts 8 damage on the BBEG, and the BBEG dies as a result, it doesn't matter if the 8 damage was from a kick, sword, spell, arrow, or eldritch blast (infernally-powered or not). It's 8 damage inflicted in a single round and the guy died. The particular weapon is irrelevant*.

-z

* Exception being a ridiculous weapon like, say, the frozen-but-still-living form of a halfling innocent which shatters on impact.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 13, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.
> 
> Please get over yourself and your religion...




I thought we were more tolerant on ENworld.  Why dismiss someone's concerns so callously?

-sorry, should read ALL the thread before replying.  It appears the issue has been resolved.


----------



## Driddle (Oct 13, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Where was it stated there was no druid in the PHB?
> 
> Did I miss something big?




The warlock blasted him to hell for an edition. You'll see him reappear again in 5th ed.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 13, 2007)

I don't want to get in the middle of you guys talking but I want to comment on this, from my point of view.



> In the warlock's example, say a devil offered a Warlock's powers to a widower in exchange for the widower's promise to use those powers to kill his wife's murderer. Is that evil? Is it different from, say, a Lawful Good sheriff deputizing the widower and offering a sword in exchange for the exact same promise?




Yes, he knowingly and willfully makes a deal with an Infernal power so he is commiting an evil act.  The L.G sheriff would probably not deputize him, because revenge killing is not inheritnly Good, but if he did it is different because the sheriff is not an extraplaner EVIL.



> Point is, the source of a character's power is not what makes him good or evil. It's how he uses those powers that matter



.

Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL.  A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.

All in the context of an RPG of course.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

I just thought of something.

Okay, perhaps the Warlock for the Devils is "I give you power in exchange for souls."

But for the others, you might just be "looting" something else of your kill. 

The Shadow-powered warlock, maybe he's not collecting souls, but instead, "In exchange for this power, I need you to steal shadows. So as you go about killing monsters and villains... steal their shadow for me. That shadow goes to _me_, and I grow stronger, as that shadow is the umbral version of their power; I gain a little power from the enemy you slay."

For the Feral (assuming it goes to the Fey), "Give me the dreams of your foes. I wish to revel in their dreams." Or if Feral is more instinctive, "Give me their drives, their desires, their hungers, their passions. Feed me the emotions of your victims."

It's not necessarily Evil, and you're not giving the SOUL of your target, but you are taking some of that target's POWER and sending it back to your pact-giver. That shadow isn't important to someone who's dead, but the latent energy that was tied to them can be useful for something else. 

Sort've like eating your enemy to gain their strength - you don't eat their soul, you eat the part of them that had the power you wanted, improving your own by absorbing their strength.

And ultimately it's little different than looting the corpse. The issue of "You took his soul" is that "The soul is now in possession of something else, as opposed to its intended destination had you not intervened".


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL.  A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.



You assume he's sold his soul however. He may get the power in exchange for service. 

Sort've how a cop is given certain powers within the law, in exchange for upholding the law.

The binder is a great example of this. He's making deals with entities that are not gods, or demons, or anything - they are Outside of everything else. He's not selling his soul - he's granting the entities the chance to walk the earth in his body, and see through his eyes. That isn't inherently evil at all.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Yes, he knowingly and willfully makes a deal with an Infernal power so he is commiting an evil act.  The L.G sheriff would probably not deputize him, because revenge killing is not inheritnly Good, but if he did it is different because the sheriff is not an extraplaner EVIL.
> 
> .
> 
> ...




Really? I must have missed that memo.  So, does the Evil sort of waft off the devil and settle upon the character? 

Seriously, I don't see why making a deal--_any_ deal--with a devil is Evil. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that if a character makes the deal, "I'll give you a copper piece if you rescue those babies from the orphanage fire", then that is an Evil act.

Huh. Why?

_edit: capitalized the "E" in "Evil act"_


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 13, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Again, if you make the pact with the evil then you are EVIL.  A man who sells his soul for any reason is EVIL.
> 
> All in the context of an RPG of course.



Gotta disagree... _especially _in the context of an RPG. Will the motives of such a deal most likely be selfish (and therefore evil)? More often than not. But fiction (which is what an RPG is) is full of examples of such deals done for noble reasons by heroic, even good, people. Plenty of examples already given in this thread. Sometimes they have no choice. Sometimes the ending of such a deal is tragic, but sometimes the story has the hero pull a fast one on the devil (usually by finding a loophole to nail the Lawful Evil SOB.)

And in the wish-fulfillment world of action stories, "good guys" are often revenge-driven vigilantes who act as judge, jury, etc.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Maybe you could just not call people names.




I was unaware that I, personally, had called any specific person a name. Please indicate where I have.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities. Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells? He killed enough goblins.




Wrong. 100% wrong. Characters gain xp, and thereby levels, by overcoming challenges. Traps are challenges. Puzzles are challenges. Role-playing awards are too. It's entirely possible to use non-lethal damage to overcome those goblins and get to the next level. 



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> The more I think about it, the more I think the dark-flavor of the warlock is a wise choice. Consumers like heroes with an edge.
> 
> Danny Ocean. Han Solo. James Bond. Jack Bauer. Wolverine. Batman. Boba Fett. Lestat. Spawn.




Han Solo didn't get to be an ace pilot and crack shot by making a deal with a supernaturally evil power.

James Bond and Jack Bauer don't have any powers at all, and both work for their respective governments. They each believe what they do is for the greater good of their country (and their countries are not inherantly evil, despite what some say).

Wolverine was born with his powers long before the Weapon X project. He didn't volunteer for what was done to him. Or, maybe he did, I can't keep up with the retcons. But in any case, the hero he is now is not the sort that would do that. Same with Batman. He became a vigilante, but not a killer, and he didn't traffic with Lucifer to get his utility belt.

Boba Fett is not even a hero! Why is he on this list? Is is 100% villian. Bad Guy. Same with Lestat. I haven't read the books, but did see the first movie, and he's... well, a villian! He kills people and drinks their blood (well, not in that order).

Spawn is the ONLY one you listed that fits the description of Hero that gets his powers from dealing with the devil. But even he was tricked by the devil into accepting the deal, and he spends his time on earth trying to undo that deal and thwart the devil's plans. He certainly isn't phoning up Old Scratch every time he levels up for some more power/training.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 13, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Such a list is unnecessary where common courtesy is in use.




You mean the courtesy you displayed when you told a poster above "I don't care if you play 4th ed"? Or the one where you called the people posting on this thread "Geeks"? Why is it "fanboy" is an insult but "geek" is not? Again, who determines these things? The offended party? In that case, I'm Officially offended because you implied by your post that I am a discourteous geek.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> _list of characters, and a well-written overview of their history/motivations_




I listed those specific guys because they're popular "anti-heroes", not because I think they're evil. Solo, Bauer, Bond are lawbreakers. Or at least, benders. Fett is not, strictly speaking, a hero. Not in the movies, anyway. But he is crazy, wildly popular. And Lestat is definitely in the "protagonist" category.

The Spawn example is exactly how I think 99% of Warlock players will portray their relationship with their character's patron. Antagonistic. Glad for their powers, but with remorse and mistrust when it comes to the source. I imagine many campaigns will feature a plot arc where the warlock confronts and destroys his patron, and in so doing deprives himself of his powers forever. Perhaps the patron's other warlocks (whether good, evil, or neutral) will try to prevent him from doing so.

My point is that many consumers *like* heroes with a dark side. The Warlock class seems designed to specifically cater to that kind of consumer.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Wolverine isn't necessarily anti-team. He goes off on his own, sure, but he's not adverse to teamwork. Batman often has a partner, and has always been a member of the Justice League.
> 
> Anti-Heroes can play well with others. Loyalty or protectiveness to a choice few while ruthless to everyone else comes to mind.
> 
> But ultimately, it depends on your game. If all your adventure is is just "Go in there to get the treasure" or "Go kill the dragon" with no personal hook keyed to the PCs, then it doesn't matter who or what they are. And if one of your players makes characters that doesn't play well with others, then that's _the player's problem_. D&D is a group game, and he has to have a reason to stick with the group. Being dark doesn't preclude that.



IIRC, there is a section in PHBII on just this issue, pertaining to the hexblade, another Dark-Dark-Darky-DARK-Dark character.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I just thought of something.
> 
> Okay, perhaps the Warlock for the Devils is "I give you power in exchange for souls."
> 
> ...




Uhm assuming the "points of light" setting...I would have to say yes you are evil.  You're empowering beings that wish ill-will upon humanity in general.  If each time you devote these things to those beings they grow stronger, you are ultimately a part of the darkness trying to engulf the points of light.

Once again Elric (the most classic example of this type of character) forsakes the power Arioch gives him and rebels against the Chaos Lord, this is what makes him a hero.  So unless a character forsakes his pact (then what's the point of being a warlock) yes he is evil.

I really don't see the need for a specific character like this.  You want to play the angst ridden, emo, eye shadow wearin, walker in darkness...play a tiefling sorcerer whose power arose through his infernal blood, but why base a character class on this type of thing.  Leave it to background and a general class (like the sorcerer) whose powers are generic enough to be explained in numerous ways.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 13, 2007)

> Seriously, I don't see why making a deal--any deal--with a devil is Evil. If a character makes the deal, "I'll give you a copper piece if you rescue those babies from the orphanage fire", then that is an Evil act.
> 
> Huh. Why?




Getting back to the warlock, he makes a pact with a Evil outer planer being.  (Ok I will concead that maybe only 1/3 of them do). 

The act of making a pact where you trade something of importance to a Demonic being (they don't want just a copper) to get something else is evil.  The children need to be saved some other way, because well the Demonic being is only going to make a pact that he gains the most from.  Whatever you gave him or do for him is going to be Evil.

So yes knowingly dealing with outerplaner Evil creatures is an Evil act.  One in most cases would probably envolve the transaction of a soul (currency of most of these creatures in fiction), yes Evil.

We are not talking about normal mortal evil, it's not refusing the mass murderers help in helping a bunch of orphans in a fire.  It's refusing the aid of a Demonic power.

I love messing with Paladin's by putting them is just such situations, either try your hardest in saving as many kids as you can without help, not many.
Sell your soul or atleast take the first leap down the path of darkness, by accepting help from the Demonic power and fall from grace, but save all the kids.

Saving the kids is good, but selling your soul is still evil.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I really don't see the need for a specific character like this.  You want to play the angst ridden, emo, eye shadow wearin, walker in darkness...play a tiefling sorcerer whose power arose through his infernal blood, but why base a character class on this type of thing.  Leave it to background and a general class (like the sorcerer) whose powers are generic enough to be explained in numerous ways.




What I love about this post is the sig graphic below it.



			
				Imaro's sig said:
			
		

> MY COLOR IS BLACK
> I value power, ambition, and darkness. I love power at any cost, and am a corrupting influence on those around me. At my best, I am resourceful and unashamed. At my worst, I am parasitic and amoral. My symbol is a skull.




Ell oh ell.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I love messing with Paladin's by putting them is just such situations, either try your hardest in saving as many kids as you can without help, not many.
> Sell your soul or atleast take the first leap down the path of darkness, by accepting help from the Demonic power and fall from grace, but save all the kids.
> 
> Saving the kids is good, but selling your soul is still evil.




Refusing a demon's help and letting a bunch of kids burn because you're too proud to fall from grace?

Heck, now _THAT_ is Evil.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 13, 2007)

Paraxis: What about my Roy-the-Warlock example, in which we postulate that someone's in this bind not of their own choice?

edit: Zaruthustran You can have no conception of the can of worms you just opened. Might want to edit.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> What I love about this post is the sig graphic below it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ell oh ell.




Hey, I'm black...couldn't find any cool black fantasy art for an avatar, so I went with a black skull.  The test is pretty easy to manipulate.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You're empowering beings that wish ill-will upon humanity in general.  If each time you devote these things to those beings they grow stronger, you are ultimately a part of the darkness trying to engulf the points of light.



Um, who says that shadow is evil? Shadow is just that: Darkness. There is no morality with regards to the absence or presence of light.

And how is it that darkness or fey are, by nature, ill-will upon humanity? Adventurers kill things. They often kill them for money. That's ill-will upon humanity, AND it furthers the goals of gods of slaughter, murder, and greed. OMG PCS = EVIL.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 13, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Wrong. 100% wrong. Characters gain xp, and thereby levels, by overcoming challenges. Traps are challenges. Puzzles are challenges. Role-playing awards are too. It's entirely possible to use non-lethal damage to overcome those goblins and get to the next level.




Right. Killing things is only the PRIMARY way in which characters get stronger.



> Han Solo didn't get to be an ace pilot and crack shot by making a deal with a supernaturally evil power.




Of course Han Solo didn't get his abilities from a supernaturally evil power. He only got the financing to pay for the tools through which he applies his abilities from vanilla evil powers. Unless you think gun-running and drug-smuggling are noble purposes.



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> Yes, he knowingly and willfully makes a deal with an Infernal power so he is commiting an evil act. The L.G sheriff would probably not deputize him, because revenge killing is not inheritnly Good, but if he did it is different because the sheriff is not an extraplaner EVIL.




I'll inform Webster that, "misguided but well-meaning," is now a definition of evil. Also, just because someone commits an evil act, it does not follow that they are evil.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Refusing a demon's help and letting a bunch of kids burn because you're too proud to fall from grace?
> 
> Heck, now _THAT_ is Evil.




How do you know the kids don't grow up to be the greatest mortal evil the world has seen?  I just can't see evil planar beings like devils doing anything that doesn't (even if it's in a longer run than you can percieve) promote their agenda.  You know they're evil, so ignorance isn't a viable excuse, even if you can't wrap your head around the totality( is this a word?  Well it is now) of their plans.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Wrong. 100% wrong. Characters gain xp, and thereby levels, by overcoming challenges. Traps are challenges. Puzzles are challenges. Role-playing awards are too. It's entirely possible to use non-lethal damage to overcome those goblins and get to the next level.



And you are certain that Mr. Warlock cannot get more powers from their class if they solve puzzles, beat traps, overcome RP encounters and don't kill their opponents? 

Because if you are, I'd like to see your advanced copy of the PHB.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Um, who says that shadow is evil? Shadow is just that: Darkness. There is no morality with regards to the absence or presence of light.
> 
> And how is it that darkness or fey are, by nature, ill-will upon humanity? Adventurers kill things. They often kill them for money. That's ill-will upon humanity, AND it furthers the goals of gods of slaughter, murder, and greed. OMG PCS = EVIL.




And if the world was totally engulfed in this non moral darkness would that be good or bad for human beings as a whole...I'm thinking famine, freezing to death, sheesh just the number of people who fall into ravines or off cliffs and are never found, etc.  Some might survive but it wouldn't be considered a "good" or even "neutral" thing if you somehow helped this happen.

Again with the caveat of the points of light setting...what did the designers say happens when a gate opens?  Powerful, dangerous things come out...dangerous being the key word, thus it is not a good thing for humanity as a whole.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 13, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> edit: Zaruthustran You can have no conception of the can of worms you just opened. Might want to edit.




_Tooo laaaaaaate!!!_

For what it's worth, I withdraw any suggestion of what does and does not constitute a fall from grace.

And Imaro, choosing the Black color from Magic: the Gathering as your sig because you are, in fact, black? Totally awesome.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> And if the world was totally engulfed in this non moral darkness would that be good or bad for human beings as a whole...I'm thinking famine, freezing to death, sheesh just the number of people who fall into ravines or off cliffs and are never found, etc.  Some might survive but it wouldn't be considered a "good" or even "neutral" thing if you somehow helped this happen.



Meanwhile, if the world was plunged into eternal light, it would be unable to cope with the heat, crops would burn, disease would be rampant. No one would be able to sleep because they can't get the light out of their eyes, and they would become delirious and die. 

But I guess that part of Alaska that spends half a year in total darkness is TOTALLY evil. Avoid that place y'all; it's bad for humans.

You're applying morality to non-moral forces. 

"WATER IS EVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE DROWN IN IT." "BUT PEOPLE NEED IT TO LIVE." "This is angsty because it is morally ambiguous! Where is my clear-cut heroic force of nature?"



> Again with the caveat of the points of light setting...what did the designers say happens when a gate opens?  Powerful, dangerous things come out...dangerous being the key word, thus it is not a good thing for humanity as a whole.



Blacksmiths are dangerous because they create weapons, which are dangerous. Having weapons isn't good for humanity. We all could just grow veggies and live in harmony if it wasn't for weapons.

KILL THE BLACKSMITH HE'S EVIL. He's got BLACK in his name, after all. Damn emo commoner.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 13, 2007)

> Paraxis: What about my Roy-the-Warlock example, in which we postulate that someone's in this bind not of their own choice?




A concept like that is workable, but hard to roleplay.  A character who's parents sell his soul before birth (let's assume they can), and grows to develope power from that is not Evil himself everything was out of his control.  But to further develope those powers knowing the source might be a different matter.  Back to the Elric example, if you forsake the power and take levels in other classes thats one thing, to keep taping into the power to try and do good is balancing act I think.  One that could be cool to roleplay out. 

Take Spawn for example, in the heat of the moment of death he reaches out and says he will do anything to go back so he can be with his wife.  Selling soul = evil act...now he is not an evil person from that one action (let's ignore the whole he was a government assassin), but he is stuck.  He can't change class for example in the comic, but he can try and control and limit the use of his power and for a good long time he does exactly that.

But all that said, I still think the overall tone of this class so far is very evil, no matter the alignment requirments.  

So yes you can make a repetant or forsaken type good guy, or maybe the shadow and feral powers are going to be Good and have related powers.  But from all the fluff we have so far the class is very Dark and mostly Evil.  

Again, a favored soul/warlock class or just sorcerer would have been a better build then this warlock class it looks like we have been given.

The whole Evil thing about pride and letting some of the orphans die, well thats how life works.  It's exactly the kind of tests that dieties in real world religions due all the time, the paladin doesn't have much faith in his god if he thinks he needs to have a demon bail him out of the situation.

EDIT**added this next part.



> And you are certain that Mr. Warlock cannot get more powers from their class if they solve puzzles, beat traps, overcome RP encounters and don't kill their opponents?
> 
> Because if you are, I'd like to see your advanced copy of the PHB.




The problem isn't killing for XP, it's that they have a class ability that only works if they kill someone they have marked.  So they get a power from taking life, a power not XP, someone else started comparing a fighter gaining XP from killing so he must be Evil.  Well no the fighter isn't evil for getting XP, but a Warlock that targets a creature for death then gets some ability for slaying it is.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, if the world was plunged into eternal light, it would be unable to cope with the heat, crops would burn, disease would be rampant. No one would be able to sleep because they can't get the light out of their eyes, and they would become delirious and die.
> 
> But I guess that part of Alaska that spends half a year in total darkness is TOTALLY evil. Avoid that place y'all; it's bad for humans.
> 
> ...





Nice...totally avoid the point with hyperbole. No water isn't evil, but the guy who keeps pouring more and more water into a damn until it bursts and floods a village killing hundreds is. 


I'm curious where you're getting amoral fey from...do you have a 4e MM?  

These beings are dangerous to humanity as a whole and thus can be considered evil.  One could argue sociopaths aren't evil...just dangerous or men who do unlicensed medical experiments aren't evil...just dangerous.  So tell me exactly when does something cross the line from dangerous to evil?  Here's some help... a few definitions I found on the web...

morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
morally objectionable behavior
having the nature of vice
that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
tending to cause great harm
the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
malefic: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force


----------



## TheSeer (Oct 13, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> In a word, "no," I won't because there aren't any such statistics, other than the RPGA, which is the largest organized play group in the world. RPGA has a strict no evil characters policy, and evil actions get your character removed from play.
> 
> Now beyond that, take a look at what the core books say about alignment: characters in D&D are heroes, by and large.




Also in the core books: The option to have your character be Chaotic Evil. If the game were, as you say, pretty much designed to be only heroic, WHY have the choice to be evil in the core book? IMHO it's because the designers forsaw that not everyone plays the same, and wanted to have people have choices IF THEY WANTED. If you don't want, don't use. Just having a choice in the book hurts the people who don't use that choice in no way, shape, manner or form.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Nice...totally avoid the point with hyperbole. No water isn't evil, but the guy who keeps pouring more and more water into a damn until it bursts and floods a village killing hundreds is.



And that isn't the case here. The ocean is full of water and yet people can live on it, around it, and if the world was an ocean, I'm sure humanity would thrive.

If your quota for "Bad for humanity" is "people will die", then nothing is good for humanity, including time.  



> I'm curious where you're getting amoral fey from...do you have a 4e MM?



Uh, folklore? Or do you think everything from pixies to Queen Mab drips evil and steps on puppies?

I just don't see WotC slapping 'Usually Evil' on most fey. 



> So tell me exactly when does something cross the line from dangerous to evil?  Here's some help... a few definitions I found on the web...




I find it really funny that you keep using the word "evil" in the description OF evil. That doesn't help at _all_. And I disagree with a _lot_ of those descriptions. 

Lots of things are dangerous and could cross the gate. But a tiger roaming the land is dangerous to humans too, and tigers aren't inherently evil. I don't say the darkness amid the ponits of light is 'Points of Good amid EVIL' but 'Civilization and known versus unknown wild'. Africa in the 1800s-1920s was known as the Dark Continent, and it had a huge question mark on many maps. THIS is what I believe the points of Darkness is. "The unknown, where dangerous things dwell." 

Asking me what goes from dangerous to evil depends on what context are we talking. The Real World? That would require me to accept that there are forces in the real world which are True Evil or that Evil even exists. In D&D? Evil is anything that you take the big rubber stamp that says EVIL and stamp it on something. In my campaign, Undead aren't EVIL. In yours, they are.


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2007)

*Wormwood, Twowolves -- let's please curb the arguing and take it to e-mail if you need to go any further.

I'm tempted to close the thread right now, because a LOT of people are getting pretty hot under the collar, and it's fast becoming an alignment debate, which no one ever seems to win -- but First I'm going to tell everyone to please calm down a be a bit more civil to one another. I'll have no choice but to close it completely if it doesn't change.*


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 13, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I was unaware that I, personally, had called any specific person a name. Please indicate where I have.



Assume it's the rhetorical "you" and stop defending people who are, in fact, calling people names.



> Wrong. 100% wrong. Characters gain xp, and thereby levels, by overcoming challenges. Traps are challenges. Puzzles are challenges. Role-playing awards are too. It's entirely possible to use non-lethal damage to overcome those goblins and get to the next level.



Sure, one could play that way.  It's not the way that 90% of games are played, but it's entirely possible.  Given that the vast majority of games are "go somewhere, kill something, get loot and XP," I hardly think you're justified in calling my characterization 100% wrong.



> Han Solo didn't get to be an ace pilot and crack shot by making a deal with a supernaturally evil power.




No, that would be genre mixing.



> James Bond and Jack Bauer don't have any powers at all, and both work for their respective governments. They each believe what they do is for the greater good of their country (and their countries are not inherantly evil, despite what some say).



I can't speak to Jack Bauer, since I've never watched whatever he's in, but James Bond is a stone-cold killer.  He never gave a rat's butt whether what he did was for the greater good.  He just enjoyed being a super-spy.  It got him action, girls, and martinis, and he really had no other goals in life.  He's the good guy because he's instructed to be by his handlers, to which he is loyal.  He's actually a pretty fantastic example of how to set up a character of questionable morals to operate in a game-friendly way.  



> Wolverine was born with his powers long before the Weapon X project. He didn't volunteer for what was done to him.



Go back and read the flavour text of the 3.5 warlock.  Some of them are suggested to be what you might call "pact scions."  In other words, they inherited the family business through no fault of their own.



> Spawn is the ONLY one you listed that fits the description of Hero that gets his powers from dealing with the devil. But even he was tricked by the devil into accepting the deal, and he spends his time on earth trying to undo that deal and thwart the devil's plans.



And this makes a bad concept for an infernal warlock because...


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

From Rich Baker's blog


> Tomorrow I'll be working on the warlock class description. The development's done, so I'm really going to be looking to fine-tune the presentation and the flavor. We're going to have a "warlock flavor meeting" to talk about "developing" the class flavor. Just how close can we skate on the dark-and-sinister angle? What sort of naming themes do we want to use for powers? Would it be cool to give the warlock a strong planar theme and use names like Mire of Minauros and Armor of Agathys? (I sorta like 'em, they've got a nice Doctor Strange ring to them). Or would it be better to stay off of obscure previous-edition references like that? I'm looking forward to the conversation.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Something else to consider.

Dragon Magic presented pacts with Dragons in it. 

Maybe the "Feral" pact = Pact with Dragons?


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can't speak to Jack Bauer, since I've never watched whatever he's in, but James Bond is a stone-cold killer.




Jack Bauer is impossible to judge because he doesn't exist in reality.  He exists in a moral universe that looks like reality, but in which a magical narrative force conspires to make it morally necessary for him to torture people.

Imagine a fantasy show in which the author walks on screen at the beginning of the series and explains, "Orcs in this show are inherently evil.  They are unredeemable in any possible way.  Any orc will, if it can, commit murder and mayhem.  The only possible way to defend yourself from an orc is to kill it.  Nothing else will deter its villainy.  I know this because I wrote the show and I say so."

And then the show is half an hour of an allegedly heroic character stabbing little green babies.  He goes through literally hundreds.  Its just one long orc baby genocide.

Is that character evil?

That's Jack Bauer.  The magic of narrative power puts him in repeated situations where disregarding the US Constitution, the rights and freedoms of American citizens, US law, Geneva, etc, etc, etc, is the only way to save millions from doom.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Oh. _Jack Bauer_. I kept seeing that name and reading Jason Bourne.

What is it with government agents having the initials JB?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Something else to consider.
> 
> Dragon Magic presented pacts with Dragons in it.
> 
> Maybe the "Feral" pact = Pact with Dragons?




  Doubtful; of the adjectives that apply to dragons, 'feral' isn't one that comes immediately to mind.

  However, assuming the sorcerer doesn't take on the 'draconic magic' role in 4E, perhaps the arcane book that's rumored will include variant talents and powers for warlocks who derive their power from dragons, _a la_ the dragonfire adept and dragonpact magic.  I'm hoping for this and the celestial-powered variant in that supplement.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 13, 2007)

It seems to me:

Infernal -> Nine *Hells* 
Shadowy -> *Shadow*fell
Feral -> Fey*wild*


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Oct 13, 2007)

If alignment is said to play a lesser role in 4E, why the heated discussion over alignment + the Warlock?

Look at the 4E promo fig thread.  That thing's a devil and it doesn't have an alignment.  

I have a couple guys I game with regularly who play great warlock PCs.  I think that the added Binder-ish flavor they seem to be getting will make them a lot more fun.  Heck, I might even play one.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 13, 2007)

Quick request: people have mentioned that paladins for 4E will have alignment restrictions removed. Can someone point me to where that information came from?


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> It seems to me:
> 
> Infernal -> Nine *Hells*
> Shadowy -> *Shadow*fell
> Feral -> Fey*wild*



I wonder why they chose to ignore the Elemental Tempest as a source, then?

After all, a Warlock who makes a pact with a powerful Efreet makes as much sense.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Quick request: people have mentioned that paladins for 4E will have alignment restrictions removed. Can someone point me to where that information came from?



From Chris Perkin's Blog:


> I had a lot of people approach me with 4E questions. One of the most memorable ones was, "Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E.


----------



## jaldaen (Oct 13, 2007)

It seems to me that if WotC went through all the trouble of making the Paladin easily playable by other alignments ("Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E.")... then why not do the same for Warlocks? I mean the PHB should have the "standard" classes and races in the game and it seems to me that WotC has decided that in the interest of driving home the point that all PHBs, MMs, and DMGs are core that they are holding some of the classes, monters, etc... back to encourage the purchase of these other "core" books. To me the problem isn't with the Warlock being evil, but that its flavor and powers seem to lean evil in a book that should include standard classes that can be played in D&D. I'd be okay with the warlock if they "paladined" it and made a version for the good aligned, but none of the mentioned options seems to lean toward good... and to be honest the special ability "Boon of Souls" would be very difficult to make fit a good alignment. Last, but not least there seems to be only 8 classes in the PHB and with the Warlock taking up one of the slots if a DM wants a good themed game his players will only have 7 classes to really choose from, whereas an evil campaign will have all 8 easily available b/c paladins of evil are in... It just seems counter intuitive to include a class with such heavy alignment flavor in the first PHB. Now if there were a few more classes in the PHB I'd feel differently, but 8 with one leaning evil makes it a bit too slim for my taste. I certainly hope that playtesting proves to result in a more alignment nuetral Warlock, but I'm not certain that will happen.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 13, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> If alignment is said to play a lesser role in 4E, why the heated discussion over alignment + the Warlock?.



Pick one:
1) D&D is about heroic characters and I don't want a class devoted to Evil in the PHB. 
2) I don't want the Warlock class's fluff/power descriptions to be solely tied to evil. It's restrictive.
3) Having Warlocks who, in the PHB, have their emphasis in EVIL is bad PR for D&D. 

That's what I've heard thusfar.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I wonder why they chose to ignore the Elemental Tempest as a source, then?
> 
> After all, a Warlock who makes a pact with a powerful Efreet makes as much sense.




  My first instinct is to say "With limited space, they though the fey, shadowy, and infernal patrons were more interesting/more useful to most groups, so they're saving the other options (elemental, celestial, perhaps even draconic) for the arcane supplement."

  But this could be wishful thinking.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Oh. _Jack Bauer_. I kept seeing that name and reading Jason Bourne.
> 
> What is it with government agents having the initials JB?



It's Just Because.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 13, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm black...couldn't find any cool black fantasy art for an avatar



Well MTG's Southern Paladin was the first example that springs to mind.

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/WL/en-us/Card4589.jpg

The Mirage M:tg set had more black people than typical for fantasy art IIRC

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/MI/en-us/Card3427.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/MI/en-us/Card3425.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/MI/en-us/Card3444.jpg

http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=3463

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/MI/en-us/Card3482.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/MI/en-us/Card3509.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/VI/en-us/Card3708.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/VI/en-us/Card3623.jpg

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/VI/en-us/Card3732.jpg


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> "WATER IS EVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE DROWN IN IT." "BUT PEOPLE NEED IT TO LIVE." "This is angsty because it is morally ambiguous! Where is my clear-cut heroic force of nature?"
> 
> ...




ROTFLMAO.  You sir are a master!


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 13, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> ...I was hoping to create pacts with anything in the elemental tempest as well as the abyss, and getting a different set of abilities depending on which you choose. Mostly because I think an elemental savant type arcane striker would be awesome.




That's how I set them up, in my undersea game; warlocks deriving powers from elemental energies.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 13, 2007)

I dig it.  I dig it alot.  Aww yeah!  It's like $240 worth of pudding!


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities.  Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells?  He killed enough goblins.




This is not true, but I think you know that already.

Ignoring for the time being the fact that characters can advance in levels without killing, a cleric who does kill monsters and such does not receive special powers as a direct consequence of such killing.  That is, he doesn't kill a goblin and suddenly receive a second-level spell slot for that day or some kind of special divine favor from his deity.

For a recent campaign I played a paladin of Murlynd who didn't kill unless it was absolutely unavoidable.  He instead used traps and subdual weapons and attacks.  He was something of a bounty hunter for his church.  He advanced just fine in levels.

The supposed similarities between an evil warlock and a good cleric or paladin are not "precise" at all.


----------



## HeinorNY (Oct 13, 2007)

Boon of Souls = Shoulshard?


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Hmm...*



			
				Bishmon said:
			
		

> You misunderstood. I don't want to spend my time adding (or subtracting and then adding) flavor to the mechanics. I want to spend my time adding flavor to the character.
> 
> I want the warlock to be like the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. I want to imagine a character, pick the spells/powers that fit my idea for that character, and then build a story on that. I don't want to imagine a character and then have to completely change the class by either renaming, reworking, or outright getting rid of some of its abilities.
> 
> All that matters to me is the 3E warlock was one of the least fun classes for me to create a character in because of its inherent lack of flexibility. Granted, as has been pointed out repeatedly, I was certainly capable of overcoming that lack of flexibility, but that sure didn't do anything to make creating a warlock any more fun for me. I'd just like to see a more flexible approach to the 4E warlock.




In short this would work fine IF it had been a prestige class however it evidently isn't so you're having obvious trouble devising a way for it to fit.
Perfectly understandable the warlock should have been a prestige class in 3.5, there were far better choices than it for that class role like the wild mage for example that was an optional class in 2e became a prestige class in 3.0+ and yet deserves better but it was never a case of should it have been it was more of a case "Hey this cool lets make it a core class" instead of "with these mechanics its better served as a prestige class, say lets correct the mistake made on the sorceror and fuse the favoured sould bck together with it so it can cast a limited no of spells but can choose from arcane and divine..." as it should hav in the first place!

Sorry wandering off the thread however aptly perhaps you can reply with what character type you fancy and see if we can't help you resolve the problems inherent.
At least we might get to see a proper background instead of a core class that involves the character having bound themselves to some extraplanar deity or force of malevolent nature given how its described.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Paladins any alignment...*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Only they're warlocking the paladin, not paladinning the warlock.  The paladin's alignment restrictions have been lifted, allowing him to be something other than LG.  The warlock was never restricted to CE.  He could be good or evil, lawful or chaotic, just not every combination of the two.




Not warlockin' merely treating the paladin PROPERLY.
When I ran a Kalamar game I made sure to have the Paladin of the Knight of the Gods ran into a Paladin of the Rot Lord, thats right not a black guard but an actual Paldin of another deity, why?
Because they're followers of opposing religions, one good, one evil, no paladin fell into evil rubbish but an actual evil paladin fighting a good aligned paladin something that has ALWAYS struck me as the proper way to deal with this class.
Warlocks as they've described them sounds like the leaders of sects of cultists and the main enemy your pcs must face until the Monster Manual and then the DMG is released unless that shadowfell adventure can cope in the mean time or the insider net magazines which don't strike me as that good.
But on that issue I'm hoping they'll surprise me, on your issue I don't care for warlocks never have but I despise favoured souls FAR more and have to admit I do agree with some of the issue raised here that unless they correct what they've described so far the warlock is 100% evil whether Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic... but still evil, shame really I actually would like to see that druidic version and it sounds like shifters might be appropriate to me.
Now I wonder what that mystery class is?
It better not be FAVOURED SOULS or there will be trouble...


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Fighters & Warlocks*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> A fighter gets levels from killing people.




But they don't HAVE to kill people to get xp, they get xp for adventures and some times they can get past creatures wihout killing them.
This states the warlock MUST kill someone to retain their abilities and even hope to increase them whilst fighters would have to multi-class to get anything like those abilities and even then only the evil aligned ones would consider this pact worth their time.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 13, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> Now I wonder what that mystery class is?
> It better not be FAVOURED SOULS or there will be trouble...




  My guess?  Druid.

  It's the one of only two classes to feature in all editions of the AD&D lineage of the game that we haven't had confirmed or near-confirmed, and if some of the hints about character creation and multiclassing are correct, you might be able to build a good default Bard by taking a rogue, selecting the right talents, and adding some wizard spellcasting--or druid spellcasting for those who want a more 1E/Celtic style bard.  The Druid, though, is very much its own creature, and folding into the Cleric would require a much broader concept of the Cleric than seems likely for 4E (a disappointment to me, but what can you do?).

  Yes, I know we were told that there are only 8 classes in the PH--but IIRC, that was _before_ the book gained 32 pages.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Clerics & Warlocks*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities.  Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells?  He killed enough goblins.




Again with the faulty outlook, read the article again then look at wht the existing classes can do currently.
Only the warlock HAS to kill people to retain their abilities unless the designers turn around and say the cleric of the god of murder MUST perform a ritual sacrifice every full moon to retain the blessing of the god then you are absolutely and utterly WRONG.
I do take it you can understand my thinking because you aren't.
Please reply to this message and for once try and make yourself clear instead of this rubbish you seem to be repeating.
Sorry to everyone else but first fighters and now this!
Enough is enough.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Okay... I think*



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> He said DARK themes are dramatic and interesting. You then replied about EVIL themes.
> 
> I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.




I see your point however this is the difference between roleplaying and powergaming, the powergamer seeks to increase their power so uses the excuse of increasing their level as a warlock to say they're trying to fight their sponsor and seek redemption, the roleplayer however would say they're powers are increasing because their sponsor is trying to corrupt them so they would have to give up on their mission to redeem themselves.
The problem ultimately is with the player and the dm, either you're playing an evil pc campaign or you're not and if you're not unless you're capable of running this properly DON'T BOTHER.

Thats MY point.

Now as for the celestial side, well I've read a players background for the warlock of the Silver Flame and had I dmed the game I would have said absolutely not even if it was well written because I don't see warlocks as a legitimate core class thats MY problem.

Its not everyone elses, thats the reall point of this short paragraph however, whether we care about it or not its ultimately the player who wants to run it has to get the permission of the dm whose running the game to let him/her play the character and thats that.

I can't see them putting a monster selection at the back of the phb, not with this latest info and that overpriced shadowfell module they're releasing the previous month so I suspect cultists and whatever monster stats those who buy 4e can get from the insider releases will have to do.

And that is plain wrong but this isn't the place to discuss THAT.

Otherwise well we'll just have to see won't we?


----------



## Kesh (Oct 13, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> I see your point however this is the difference between roleplaying and powergaming, the powergamer seeks to increase their power so uses the excuse of increasing their level as a warlock to say they're trying to fight their sponsor and seek redemption, the roleplayer however would say they're powers are increasing because their sponsor is trying to corrupt them so they would have to give up on their mission to redeem themselves.
> The problem ultimately is with the player and the dm, either you're playing an evil pc campaign or you're not and if you're not unless you're capable of running this properly DON'T BOTHER.
> 
> Thats MY point.




Your point is patently false. Both examples you gave are roleplaying, you just apparently don't like the _motivation_ behind one of the character's actions.



> Now as for the celestial side, well I've read a players background for the warlock of the Silver Flame and had I dmed the game I would have said absolutely not even if it was well written because I don't see warlocks as a legitimate core class thats MY problem.




Right. That's fine. It's just that you seem to keep saying that no one _else_ can play the warlock that way, so it shouldn't be in the core rules at all.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Er... hello?*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Assume it's the rhetorical "you" and stop defending people who are, in fact, calling people names.
> Sure, one could play that way.  It's not the way that 90% of games are played, but it's entirely possible.  Given that the vast majority of games are "go somewhere, kill something, get loot and XP," I hardly think you're justified in calling my characterization 100% wrong.
> No, that would be genre mixing.
> 
> ...




First off try watching some James Bond movies, I'm assuming from your message you have missed some important points about the series but I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you're wrong on that subject.

Nice idea about warlocks being a family business though BUT the reason Spawn makes a good example of a warlock seeking redemption is the story behind it something you're apparently ignorant of.

Not your fault I'm don't collect Spawn comics and only watched a limited no of episodes so I can understand that fault, however what they've been discussing here is that there are three types of warlocks and the description for them seems to indicate that they're all evil and the general gist of what I've read is why?
Should they have openly stated this is an evil only class and what changes have they introduced to 4e that will resolve this because it will have to be major because if they've thrown out alignments and not put a suitable replacement into its place I can tell you if I buy 4e I will be enforcing the old rules because I'm not going to run a remake of the World of Darkness no matter what they say otherwise.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Interesting*



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Something else to consider.
> 
> Dragon Magic presented pacts with Dragons in it.
> 
> Maybe the "Feral" pact = Pact with Dragons?




Nice point however its sounds more like Feral = Nature or Fey


----------



## grimslade (Oct 13, 2007)

The warlock deserves to be a core class. It is a well established trope for fantasy and is well established in literature. The first thing I thought of was Sheelba and Ningauble in the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Patrons who helped the duo but required a price.

The flavor elements that have been released for the warlock have been th darkest end of the spectrum. I would have preferred a more general tone for the article, if only to stem the endless alignment debate. The warlock is a class that can emulate your Spawns, Ghostriders and other Faustian anti-heroes railing against the pact that binds them. The class can also be a model for a totemic shaman who calls on the spirit of the Great Bear for strength to vanquish his enemies or the mage who calls on the sprit of a long dead wizard to help him survive his wizard trials leaving him forever changed.

Hopefully, as more information appears the warlock will be a much more flexible iconic character.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 13, 2007)

*Nice to hear from you*



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> Your point is patently false. Both examples you gave are roleplaying, you just apparently don't like the _motivation_ behind one of the character's actions.




No what I stated was two variations that you misconstrued to be the same.
A common fallacy is associating powergaming with roleplaying, they aren't the same thing.
What I mentioned was one person selecting a warlock purely for the abilities it possessed and trying very poorly to explain why they want to continue in that class, the second was an attempt to explain why they were continuing and in such a way to make it a legitimate reason, and by that I mean one was being very obvious the other was actually trying to explain "why" they were continuing as a warlock something this thread hasn't bothered to look at except for that example of Spawn.



> Right. That's fine. It's just that you seem to keep saying that no one _else_ can play the warlock that way, so it shouldn't be in the core rules at all.




I simply pointed out my view, its not ingrained in stone, I just CANNOT see this class as core and would require at the very least it to be the result of multiclassing and not a starting class since I would rather there be an option for them to say this level I go up as this because I'm trying to resist the curse of the warlock not I'm increasing my level without roleplaying the consequences which is my point with this class THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES so I really would like to see examples of what people think of as good reasons for warlock characters you know for example Full Metal Alchemist gave a pretty good background for one and thats what I'm not seeing here.

Warlock is thought apparently as "cool", its not its a 4e character class and I would like an explanation for WHY it and not some other class that deserves that slot.

I agree a sorceror can fulfil that role better, but I'm still thinking its an npc class for villains so when the phb comes out there's a suitable nemesis for the party to fight against.

And for me thats fine, but I'd like them to be perfectly clear on this class and from what I've seen and heard so far its not.

Until they explain what they've replaced the alignments with I can only assume they're doing this because if there were alignments they would be right royally stuffed and that just stinks since I've read ideas in this thread which look reasonable to me and I don't like Warlocks!

That doesn't mean I won't allow a player to try and change my mind, I just prefer them to surprise me and not disappoint which is what this release about the warlock has been doing.


----------



## Counterspin (Oct 13, 2007)

I don't see any problem with non-evil infernal warlocks, and warlocks would easily fit into any of my games as PCs.  As long as the mechanics are solid, I see nothing to complain about.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> No what I stated was two variations that you misconstrued to be the same.
> A common fallacy is associating powergaming with roleplaying, they aren't the same thing.
> What I mentioned was one person selecting a warlock purely for the abilities it possessed and trying very poorly to explain why they want to continue in that class, the second was an attempt to explain why they were continuing and in such a way to make it a legitimate reason, and by that I mean one was being very obvious the other was actually trying to explain "why" they were continuing as a warlock something this thread hasn't bothered to look at except for that example of Spawn.
> 
> ...



Hmm. I doubt that's how the Warlock would work, but it might be cool that, as he grows in levels, his powers become less and less dependent on his patrons, as he manages to shake off their influence on him (but keeping the good parts  )


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 14, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This is not true, but I think you know that already.
> 
> Ignoring for the time being the fact that characters can advance in levels without killing,



Sorry, as someone pointed out, killing is only the _primary_ way that characters advance, not the only way.  I don't know how I could have overlooked such a critical point.



> a cleric who does kill monsters and such does not receive special powers as a direct consequence of such killing.  That is, he doesn't kill a goblin and suddenly receive a second-level spell slot



Depends on exactly how many XP he had when he killed the goblin.



> For a recent campaign I played a paladin of Murlynd who didn't kill unless it was absolutely unavoidable.  He instead used traps and subdual weapons and attacks.  He was something of a bounty hunter for his church.  He advanced just fine in levels.



I have to wonder if this wasn't because he was part of an adventuring party that was, in fact, killing things, and he was sharing XP with them, as is the standard.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 14, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> But they don't HAVE to kill people to get xp,



But they kill people to get XP.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 14, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> Please reply to this message and for once try and make yourself clear instead of this rubbish you seem to be repeating.



Nope, no way am I ever going to reply to that message.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 14, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> First off try watching some James Bond movies, I'm assuming from your message you have missed some important points about the series but I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you're wrong on that subject.



I wonder if I should add a line to my sig where I enumerate the times I see someone post "I have a really great argument, but I'm not going to bother to post it, nor am I going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject.  You'll just have to wallow in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong."

I think I'd have four over the last week alone.



> Nice idea about warlocks being a family business though BUT the reason Spawn makes a good example of a warlock seeking redemption is the story behind it something you're apparently ignorant of.




Dude, can you get any more insulting?  You have done nothing but run me down in the last few posts you've made, while making sure you interrupt yourself to point out how much _you_ know about all these subjects I'm _soo_ ignorant about.

Now quit it.  I don't agree with you, you haven't given me any reason to even read your posts, and I'm putting you on ignore.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 14, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Sure, one could play that way.  It's not the way that 90% of games are played, but it's entirely possible.  Given that the vast majority of games are "go somewhere, kill something, get loot and XP," I hardly think you're justified in calling my characterization 100% wrong.





I'm going to ignore the fact that your "90% of games" stat is pure fabrication on your part and say that I believe you full well know the difference between advancing in a class, _any _ class, through the accumulation of xp is different from using those earned xp to advance in a class that, as presented, gains class abilities through pacts with infernal entities. 





> And this makes a bad concept for an infernal warlock because...





Read my post again. I stated that Spawn was the one and only character from a list of almost a dozen that actually did  make a good example. But I think you knew that.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 14, 2007)

*raises eybrow*

OK then....

*backs away slowly, and then flees*


----------



## Kesh (Oct 14, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> No what I stated was two variations that you misconstrued to be the same.
> A common fallacy is associating powergaming with roleplaying, they aren't the same thing.




... wow. Okay, this right here says it all. I'll be adding you to my ignore list now, as your stance strikes me as nothing but "people playing this way are having WRONGBADFUN."


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 14, 2007)

Xorvil, the infernal warlock, pointed his twisted onyx scepter at the the minotaur. His eyes radiating a furious rouge, he cackled, "consider this a preview of your ultimate fate."

On the ground the minotaur stood upon appeared a pulsating swirl of diabloic scribings - a thousand curses undoubtedly too vile to be uttered by mortal tongues. From the writings suddenly erupted an ethereal mass of squealing imps and hideous claws, which quickly engulfed beast. Despite his immense strength, the minotaur was powerless against the swarm, which pulled him ever downward, through time and space, and into the demiplane of Vgar'Znik, domain of Xorvil's infernal patron, and realm of eternal torment. There, he would experience, for but a moment, the unspeakable tortures inflected infinitely upon it's denizens.

It's thrall temporarily out of the picture, Xorvil turned to the hobgoblin slaver. "The brutal effectiveness with which you broke the will of your slaves is remarkable. My master will be pleased to have your soul bent to his will."

From the terrified hobgoblin's chest twisted a thin wisp of smoke. The slaver began screeching and tearing furiously at his own clothing. Finally, he managed to rip off his shirt, revealing to all the unholy title of Xorvil's patron branded over his heart. The smell of brimstone filled the air.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vardas, the righteous templar, pointed his jeweled gold scepter at the the minotaur. His eyes radiating a calming blue, he boomed, "You are not worthy of even this punishment."

In the air the minotaur stood beneath appeared a pulsating swirl of enlightened scribings - a thousand psalms undoubtedly too pure to be uttered by mortal tongues. From the writings suddenly erupted an ethereal mass of serene cherubs and angelic figures, which quickly engulfed beast. Despite his immense strength, the minotaur was powerless against the flock, which pulled him ever upward, through time and space, and into the demiplane of Avarganus, domain of Vardas' righteous patron, and realm of eternal judgment. There, he would experience, for but a moment, the holy light of justice, anathema to his dark soul.

It's thrall temporarily out of the picture, Vardas turned to the hobgoblin slaver. "The brutal effectiveness with which you broke the will of your slaves places you beyond redemption. Your vile soul shall remain for all eternity in the burning gaze of my master."

From the terrified hobgoblin's chest twisted a thin wisp of smoke. The slaver began screeching and tearing furiously at his own clothing. Finally, he managed to rip off his shirt, revealing to all the holy title of Vardas' patron branded over his heart. The smell of frankincense filled the air.


----------



## Deverash (Oct 14, 2007)

Well done, Zamkaizer.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 14, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Xorvil, the infernal warlock,
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Vardas, the righteous templar,




Dave killed his wife......after finding out she was sleeping with another man.

Dave killed his wife.....in self defense after she tried to kill him.

The devil is in the details, and in many cases so does good and evil. Even if Xorvil and Vardas are doing the exact same act in a similar way, it is NOT the same.

In one case, an evil doer is slain, good has triumphed. In another, a dark power has gained another soul and has grown even stronger. There's a difference there.


I am completely cool with the cliche of the guy with dark powers using them for good. Nothing wrong with that. But the majority of dnd parties are good, or at least supposed to be good leaning. Further, that includes characters like clerics that worship good dieties. These parties want good characters that just do good things. If the warlock is not a good fit in such a party then its not a good core class, it should be a prc or a supplemental class.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 14, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I am completely cool with the cliche of the guy with dark powers using them for good. Nothing wrong with that. But the majority of dnd parties are good, or at least supposed to be good leaning. Further, that includes characters like clerics that worship good dieties. These parties want good characters that just do good things. If the warlock is not a good fit in such a party then its not a good core class, it should be a prc or a supplemental class.



It's a good thing that 4e is going to have warlocks who draw their power from sources other than pacts with infernal powers, isn't it?


----------



## hopeless (Oct 14, 2007)

*Oh dear...*



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hmm. I doubt that's how the Warlock would work, but it might be cool that, as he grows in levels, his powers become less and less dependent on his patrons, as he manages to shake off their influence on him (but keeping the good parts  )




Sorry but please reread the description again, every level the warlock gains puts them FURTHER into hock with their patron NOT LESS.

Hmm let me try and put this into as clear an example as I can; remember Star Wars?

Anakin Skywalker starts off as a prodigy of the force, he can understand and command powers those of his own age have trouble even comprehending but he suffers from an overdeveloped ego, his pride and ambition far outstrips the safety his teachers re trying to instil in him and the Emperor uses that to secure him to his side, this is the past you're describing he continues in his service becoming more and more powerful for his union with the dark side and in return he has suffered terribly, he caused the death of the woman he loved, the woman he originally used as his excuse for turning to the dark side, later on he finds himself crippled and permanently wears a suit of life supporting armour enhanced to keep him alive and restore some of his lost abilities most notably he is in pain for the rest of his life.
In the end he turns back to the light to save his son and in return is abandoned by the dark side he once served without which he begins to die the price he has to pay for his breaking the pact.

This is my point, this is why I said I would only consider a warlock if the character concerned would have to multiclass to get it and why I have always considered it a prestige class and NOT a core class.

To you it seems its just a means of gaining power and that power has no consequences, think again.

Ultimately its the dm's province but unless you are the dm or your dm doesn't understand this will NEVER be the case.

Okay just read that bit about two opposing examples of warlocks, curious albeit valid but wouldn't it be better served by using it to see if the recipient is worthy of redemption after all exposure to something that pure should elicit a response whether good, bad or merely indifferent but how would you handle that?
Would the holy version be able to tell if they've succeeded in turning their adversary from their dark path or is this a repeat of all those lawful stupid paladin problems?
Any chance of an example of nature's verison of this or fey?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> Sorry but please reread the description again, every level the warlock gains puts them FURTHER into hock with their patron NOT LESS.



I am aware of that, but I just liked to point out some (in my view) interesting ideas.
I'd call it a "orthogonal" answer - not following the current main direction of the thread (which is more about how the Warlock is dark and how it fits or does not fit in a campaign)



> These parties want good characters that just do good things. If the warlock is not a good fit in such a party then its not a good core class, it should be a prc or a supplemental class.



But what is with the other parties, that don't have these limitations? Why shouldn't there be a core class that they can use well in their game? Or do you think the split between parties with a use for the class and parties without the use is less than 1/8th (since the Warlock is only 1/8 of the core classes?)

Personally, I like the class because it adds another "spellcaster" archetype into the game.
We already have the caster that relies on learning spells (Wizard), and we have a caster that relies on his belief (Cleric). 
But until now, there was no spellcaster that relied on pacts with otherworldly beings for his powers. It might seem that Clerics fit this idea, but they are not pacting with their gods - they really believe in the ideals of their gods. A Warlock is different, for him it is a way to gain power to support his own goals. He might have to do something to get the powers in exchange.
(From a Warlocks perspective: Having to fulfill some small tasks for his patron is a lot better than studying in a boring arcane library, or having to listen to sermons and following some bizarre rituals devised by his gods...)


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 14, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The devil is in the details, and in many cases so does good and evil. Even if Xorvil and Vardas are doing the exact same act in a similar way, it is NOT the same.
> 
> In one case, an evil doer is slain, good has triumphed. In another, a dark power has gained another soul and has grown even stronger. There's a difference there.




Oh, I wasn't trying to say an infernal warlocks actions aren't...morally out of alignment of with todays societal standards (one needn't play to the archetype though). I was simply saying that, should one like the abilities, but not the flavor, of 1/3 of the warlock class, changing a few keywords turns it into something completely different, if no less mean.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 14, 2007)

I think it comes down to the fact that core PC classes should be generic as possible.

Fighter: no preconceptions of morality, he can be a knight templar or a cold hearted killer.

Rogue: only preconception is that he should be good at getting past traps for most parties, a secret agent for the court or a cut throat assassin.

Cleric: has a holy patron who gives him powers, can be Pelor or Vecna

Wizard: studies arcane magic and casts spells through that understanding, can be an illusionist who uses his magic in defense of his town and entertainment or could be a necromancer who stalks the graveyards looking for his next vile undead slave.

Warlock: Sure we got a one line snipit that the patron could be feral or shadow based in addition to infernal, but to be honest both of those sound not very good to me either, and in the 3.5 write up for warlock there was a one line snipit that they could get powers from fey or other outsides....then the whole class was demon themed all the powers the DR/silver ect....   So I don't have faith in WoTC to make feral or shadow that much different then the infernal warlock.

So Warlock is not generic it is a going the exact opposite road that they are taking Paladin in.

If they wanted Warlock's to be all dark and evil all the time but left me Paladins as a force of only light and good then that would be ok, but they did not.  All this talk about how you can change a few words and make a good warlock is the same thing that people said about making evil paladins, but when WoTC said paladins would be any alignment most thought that was a great idea long past its time if those same people think warlocks are good as written then they are hypocrites.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 14, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> If they wanted Warlock's to be all dark and evil all the time but left me Paladins as a force of only light and good then that would be ok, but they did not.  All this talk about how you can change a few words and make a good warlock is the same thing that people said about making evil paladins, but when WoTC said paladins would be any alignment most thought that was a great idea long past its time if those same people think warlocks are good as written then they are hypocrites.




But paladins and warlocks aren't diametrically opposed to one another. They receive their abilities from very different sources. Paladins, from what we've heard (almost nothing), are empowered by championing their worldview (shades of the Ardent?). Warlocks, from what we've heard (hardly anything), are empowered by making pacts with powerful entities. We aren't discussing clerics of Heronius and Hextor here, we're comparing apples and oranges.

The warlock does feel somewhat constrictive, but not in terms of alignment. Initially, warlocks will have only a triad of potential patrons - hardly comprehensive. Contrastingly, clerics have a literal pantheon of viable masters. If warlocks have one advantage over their ecclesiastical peers though, it's that they have much greater growth potential. It's much easier to add a new tyranical devil, manipulative shade, or fey huntmaster to your setting than an honest-to-god god.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Pick one:
> 1) D&D is about heroic characters and I don't want a class devoted to Evil in the PHB.
> 2) I don't want the Warlock class's fluff/power descriptions to be solely tied to evil. It's restrictive.
> 3) Having Warlocks who, in the PHB, have their emphasis in EVIL is bad PR for D&D.
> ...




Hero doesn't necessarily equal good.

Achilles, the quintessential hero, was one mean SOB.  Probably CN or CE in D&D terms.
From more modern stories we get Conan, who isn't a good guy either but is heroic.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 14, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I think it comes down to the fact that core PC classes should be generic as possible.
> 
> Fighter: no preconceptions of morality, he can be a knight templar or a cold hearted killer.
> 
> ...



Um, I honestly don't see how warlock is less generic than your examples.

And you must be _really_ happy that druids aren't in the PHB1.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 14, 2007)

> Um, I honestly don't see how warlock is less generic than your examples.




Because he is very dark themed Infernal is EVIL no way around it make pacts with Infernal creatures is very bad, Shadow sounds not that much better seems tied to Shadowfell the place that is associated with undead, Feral springs to mind dark and savage fey like beings.

So all dark, all bad, no happy no shinny.

All other classes now that they have made Paladins of all alignments possible are full spectrum any can be dark and evil any can be happy and good.  Except it seems for the warlock.



> And you must be really happy that druids aren't in the PHB1




No they fixed Druids in 3E by having them be only one facet of alignment as neutral, true neutral druids did suffer from the same issues as paladins and the new warlock.  But in 3E I had plenty of good and evil druids in my games, in fact evil druids were a common thing, (Hippie Bunny Hugging Eco Terrorists = Perfect Evil Bad Guy).


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 15, 2007)

hopeless said:
			
		

> Please reply to this message and for once try and make yourself clear instead of this rubbish you seem to be repeating.



Quit bickering, folks, and that goes for everyone involved. Henry already made it clear that personal jabs on anyone's behalf won't be tolerated.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2007)

> No they fixed Druids in 3E by having them be only one facet of alignment as neutral, true neutral druids did suffer from the same issues as paladins and the new warlock. But in 3E I had plenty of good and evil druids in my games, in fact evil druids were a common thing, (Hippie Bunny Hugging Eco Terrorists = Perfect Evil Bad Guy).




But, the point is, despite the alignment restrictions, Druids were incredibly narrow in focus - nature/wilderness.  Take a druid dungeon crawling and he's lost most of his spells and focus.  Rangers suffer from the same issue - very narrow focus.

Yes, the warlock description as it stands is pretty dark.  True.  But, we haven't seen two thirds of the rest of the description, so, I'm going to wait out on this for a bit.


----------



## Andor (Oct 15, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> Yeah, that ends it for me.  There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".




Really? We always call those people "adventurers".


----------



## Andor (Oct 15, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> I just don't like the boon of souls bit...
> 
> If it’s a mechanic it limits what I can do with the class flavor (because they need to kill people to power abilities… that’s kind of evil, no?) also it seems they send the souls to their patron.  I have a feeling that warlocks may be limited to “evil villain status” in the Arcanis setting.  And hell, if I was playing a paladin (good alignment) I would be horrified by the “marking of souls” bit.




 And marking souls doesn't strike you as at all similars to the Paladin's famous "I detect evil! Die Evil baker!"


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 15, 2007)

Let me just quote the PHB:



> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.  Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.  Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.  Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil diety or master.
> 
> ...




Ok so lets break this down a bit.

Good = respect for life and concern for sentient life, if you and your groups have been playing them as cold blooded goblin slayers who kill women and children for being green and short well thats you but it's not Good.

Evil = killing for sport or out of duty to some evil diety or master, this is exactly the flavor of the warlock that we have been presented with.

The other quotes are there to remind everyone that this is supposed to be a game about fighting against the Darkness and Evil....I thought 4E was going further along that path with the whole "Points of Light" thing...players are light against the darkness....but what I'm worried about is it seems that Tiefling and Warlock both scream they are the darkness.  While taking away the only becon of light left the paladin and making him just another tool for any one and giving the darkness a class all to itself.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 15, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> <snip precis of Jack Bauer's bizarro-world moral universe>



Cadfan, I really enjoyed that post. Thanks!


----------



## grimslade (Oct 15, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Let me just quote the PHB:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok. I see the Infernal pact Warlock as being evil by your quote serving an evil master and all, but the Shadow and Feral may not be. If the patron of the warlock is not evil then the warlock killing non-innocents for them is ok by those definitions, right? 
The warlock is not a class that is going to substitute for a 1E paladin. I have never seen a rogue that fits that stricture well either. I could puzzle one out for both but it is a stretch. A chaotic good 'lock who serves Herne the Hunter to cull corruption from the Feywild's herd? I could see that. A Lawful Good 'lock who works for a Grim Reaper type entity to usher the souls of the dead through the Shadowfell to their ultimate destination works too.
  There should be mechanics to support this flavor though and all we have seen are the infernal pacts powers. I hope that the Shadow and Feral are linked to the pact source rather than a good-evil axis. A summon the maw of the Great Bear to bite your foe or the chillng maw of the grave opens and pulls you foe into it for a round when the foe returns he is wounded by the reality of his mortality. Cheesy but differentiated enough to seperate the different pacts.
We shall see what is to come.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 15, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Let me just quote the PHB:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Paraxis,
Thanks for posting the notes from the PHB. When I am posting I usually only have access to the SRD, which does not include the "most characters are good or neutral" part.

I may differ a bit from the posters on both sides of this issue (but that's hardly surprising) as I think there's nothing wrong whatsoever with the Warlock and the class' flavor. I get the whole "fighting darkness both within and without" thing, really I do. My chief concern is the fact that the Warlock is going to be one of the "big 8" of the new series, where I think the class has a lot less appeal than, say, the Mageblade (or whatever they officially are calling it). 

I think this is going to be a class that is underused in a lot of campaigns, and it's also going to possibly attract some negative connotations to the game that have been absent for a long time.

On a lighter note, after watching Metalapocalypse this weekend, I think we really need a revamped bard in the core rules. Fourth Edition needs to make bards METAL!...as Nathan Explosion would say. That would really be far more interesting than a class that makes dark pacts in my mind!

If you have no idea what I'm talking about...take a look here .

--Steve


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 15, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> A fighter gets levels from playing the game like any other class.
> He does not have a class ablility based on getting a bonus from killing people.



What about the fighter? His class abilities are a variety of feats, some of which DO give him bonuses when he kills people. (Cleave for example)

Nevermind the point that all his bonus feats are mostly to the point of helping him kill things faster or in more creative ways.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 15, 2007)

> What about the fighter? His class abilities are a variety of feats, some of which DO give him bonuses when he kills people. (Cleave for example)
> 
> Nevermind the point that all his bonus feats are mostly to the point of helping him kill things faster or in more creative ways




Let me try to explain my thoughts better, killing can be done for a good cause.  IMHO.
Execution of convictied murderers, war fought against forces of evil, self defense, ect....

A fighter is a professional killer it's what the class is all about, but who he kills, why he kills, and even how he kills makes a huge difference.  A soldier who is a sniper compared to a professional  hitman are completly different people or characters. 

The flavor of the Warlock suggests heavly to me that, his/her motivation for killing is to gain more power from the being the warlock made a pact with, in the case of atleast 1/3rd of them maybe more of these beings are all infernal powers of pure evil.  Shadow and Feral again to me don't sound much better.

So a fighter who is a swashbuckler fighting for queen and country is vastly different then a warlock marking peoples souls and sending them to hell for a round and bringing them back.

A sword swing is only as dark as the heart of the man swinging it.

A blast of infernal hellfire is dark and evil no matter the motivations behind it because of where the power comes from.

I think I have expressed everything I can on the matter, those of you who like warlock my feelings won't change that, just like your feelings won't change mine. I just wanted to express my disapointment with WoTC who up untile this fluff piece had me 100% for 4E, and it's still hard for me to understand why the logic of making a paladin be a warrior for any diety didn't get applied to the new version of the warlock it just makes no sense to me.

I am still a 4E fanboy, and hope to have many enjoyable games with the system but I am unhappy about this class, and it's a major issue with me because a good section of the PHB will go to warlock powers just like to cleric and wizard spells, and it seems that the inclussion of the warlock pushed a more well rounded class out of the PHB.  IMHO the warlock belongs in the DMG or a splat book, maybe even PHB2 where planar power sources could be touched on.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 15, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Ok. I see the Infernal pact Warlock as being evil by your quote serving an evil master and all, but the Shadow and Feral may not be. If the patron of the warlock is not evil then the warlock killing non-innocents for them is ok by those definitions, right?
> The warlock is not a class that is going to substitute for a 1E paladin. I have never seen a rogue that fits that stricture well either. I could puzzle one out for both but it is a stretch. A chaotic good 'lock who serves Herne the Hunter to cull corruption from the Feywild's herd? I could see that. A Lawful Good 'lock who works for a Grim Reaper type entity to usher the souls of the dead through the Shadowfell to their ultimate destination works too.



I like that one.  He could be a hunter of those who have lived beyond their allotted years.  All those wizards with their potions of longevity or their lich transformations, look out.  You're going to bear the mark of the inevitable.


----------



## The Human Target (Oct 15, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Two thoughts:
> 1.  I would classify both Danny Ocean and Han Solo as either CN or CG.  Danny I think is pretty clearly CG the whole time, and Han shifts from CN to CG during Ep. IV and stays there for the next two movies.
> 
> 2.  None of the other people on your list play well with others.  It may be fun to read about them, but they make bad team-mates.  I don't allow evil PC's because they're bad for group cohesion.
> ...




Danny Ocean, Han Solo, James Bond, Jack Bauer, Wolverine, Batman, and even Spawn to a lesser extent all do play well with others. The might cause some friction, but they are still integral to their teams.

The only two on the list that don't, Lestat and Boba Fett, are oddly enough the only two that are evil.

Proving once again you can be dark and still be a good, viable character.


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm concerned that the sorcerer will get screwed again.
I want to hear something about them because I want the sorcerer to be equal to the wizard, who has been outshining it for years, and the newly minted Warlock that R&D is having a ball with.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 15, 2007)

> I'm concerned that the sorcerer will get screwed again.
> I want to hear something about them because I want the sorcerer to be equal to the wizard, who has been outshining it for years, and the newly minted Warlock that R&D is having a ball with.




I agree, honestly if they would have called the Warlock class Sorcerer I would have been much happier.  Change some fluff around and the inate magic comes from either having demonic,draconic,fey,ect...heritage or making deals with those forces willingly and kept the flavor of the powers more middle of the road and we got a cool sorcerer class.

Favored Soul would have been a good idea to for a warlock alternate if the power source turns out to be divine, I see a favored soul of Asmodeus to be just like the warlock write up we have seen.

Mechanics were the big difference in wizard,sorcerer,and warlock in 3.5. Now the mechanics are all going to be almost identical (atleast it looks like it will be) its the fluff that matters.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 15, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> I'm concerned that the sorcerer will get screwed again.
> I want to hear something about them because I want the sorcerer to be equal to the wizard, who has been outshining it for years, and the newly minted Warlock that R&D is having a ball with.



The Sorcerer's pretty much not going in the PHB. So, this lets them take the time to refine it rather than the 3.0 sorcerer basically being a last-minute idea slapped together.


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 16, 2007)

Okay, the Sorcerer ain't core, or the Gnome.
This ain't the D&D I know.
What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 16, 2007)

> If the Bard gets axed then what?




If?  I thought we already knew it got the axe.

I was under the assumption that the 8 classes in the PHB1 will be:
Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard
Warlock
Warlord

No sorerer, bard, monk, or barbarian.

I think that leaves one caster per non-physical stat if they keep the 3.5 relations.
Cleric=Wis
Wizard=Int
Warlock=Cha

If it makes a difference I would assume again that Paladin is a caster as well sort of that will be tied to Cha.

But all those are assumptions and you know what they say happens when you ass-u-me things.


----------



## Andor (Oct 16, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> Okay, the Sorcerer ain't core, or the Gnome.
> This ain't the D&D I know.
> What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?




The sorcerer was new to 3.x and his loss will cause no weeping here. Similarly gnomes = meh. Besides we have been told they will be issued later. 

Yes it's not the D&D you know. That's why it will have a different cover and number.

If it lacks something you want invent it or play 3.5. Or 2 or 1. Or GURPs for that matter. I predict that no matter how well or how poorly D&D 4e suits the play style of your table no one will die.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 16, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z?




Same thing that happened to a player that wanted a Wisdom-based arcane caster... they're SoL. You can't put every single possible combination in the book, so things have to give way. With the minor differences between the 3e sorcerer and wizard, I can see why they included the warlock instead.


----------



## Elphilm (Oct 16, 2007)

I still think they should simply call warlocks sorcerers. Warlock and warlord are so gosh darned similar as class names.


----------



## BBQ (Oct 16, 2007)

Sorcerers, Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Monks, as far as I've heard, will not be included in the first PHB, but will show up in later installments. Don't lose hope. You'll still be able to get your bards and such. Hell, I remember a time when you had to be a bunch of other classes before you could be a bard...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?



Why do you want to play a Charisma based arcane caster? What's so important about it to base your spellcasting on Charisma?
Or should I ask: What happens to core groups that want to play a intelligence based melee fighter that doesn't cast polymorph self?



> Let me try to explain my thoughts better, killing can be done for a good cause. IMHO.
> Execution of convictied murderers, war fought against forces of evil, self defense, ect....



Nothing of this is a good act in my view. It's at best neutral. If you're kiling someone, it can't be good, even if the end results are mostly good. There is still the thing that you killed someone. 
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to kill someone in a war, but I wouldn't want to feel that as "good", just as a neccessity. Life is unfair. That's why it is harder to be good than evil.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 16, 2007)

> Nothing of this is a good act in my view. It's at best neutral. If you're kiling someone, it can't be good, even if the end results are mostly good. There is still the thing that you killed someone.
> That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to kill someone in a war, but I wouldn't want to feel that as "good", just as a neccessity. Life is unfair. That's why it is harder to be good than evil.




I think we will derail the thread if we start making it another alignment debate, but for right now lets put this in context of a fantasy world where "good" and "evil" are tangible forces that exist.

Killing well rather destroying/vanquishing undead, demons, devils, constructs ect is full on not an issue of alignment, they are either forces of pure "evil" or are objects that get broken not killed.

To get it back on the topic of Warlocks, I put PC's or NPC's who knowingly make pacts with infernal powers to be just as "evil" as said powers, so to me at least killing a warlock is akin to slaying a demon.

Example, using 3.5 say I have an ongoing campaign with a Paladin in the group, some NPC's (because I would warn a PC) want to joint the group.  The Paladin detects evil he does not register as such, NPC A is a rogue who is C.N and lets his criminal past be known this might creat tennsion in the group and they might choose to refuse to travel with him or accept his aid but that would be a fun roleplaying situation.  NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered.  The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil.  The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.


The rest of what I want to say I just realized is not really appropriat for these forums, but just understand that to me not all life is sacred, actions by individuals make them in my mind forces of evil in this or a fantasy world and so destroying them is a good act.


----------



## Andor (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Example, using 3.5 say I have an ongoing campaign with a Paladin in the group, some NPC's (because I would warn a PC) want to joint the group.  The Paladin detects evil he does not register as such, NPC A is a rogue who is C.N and lets his criminal past be known this might creat tennsion in the group and they might choose to refuse to travel with him or accept his aid but that would be a fun roleplaying situation.  NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered.  The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil.  The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.
> 
> 
> The rest of what I want to say I just realized is not really appropriat for these forums, but just understand that to me not all life is sacred, actions by individuals make them in my mind forces of evil in this or a fantasy world and so destroying them is a good act.




Why? If the warlock isn't evil or doing evil why is he as bad as a mass murderer? Who said he sold his soul anyway? What if the pact was "I'll give you all this power if you tithe 10% of your loot to the temple of Asmodeus." No souls involved. I suppose you could argue that the Warlock is sponsoring evil acts, but frankly unless you abstain from use of the internal combustion engine I could probably make the argument about you. 

A person who makes a pact with evil, sacrificing himself to achieve good ends, is a common trope in fantasy. For that matter so is someone who makes a deal and then strives against his fate (and fails.) What's wrong with D&D supporting these stories out the gate? If you don't want it at your table then veto Infernal Pact warlocks, that still leaves Shadow and Fey Warlocks.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 16, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> Okay, the Sorcerer ain't core, or the Gnome.
> This ain't the D&D I know.
> What will happen with core groups that want a Charisma based arcane caster that doesn't sell his soul to X/y/z? If the Bard gets axed then what?




Just re-theme it.

Just say, "I'm using the warlock character class, but my character doesn't get his powers from a compact with any greater power.  He just has them.  They're exactly the same otherwise though."

Bam, you're done.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> NPC B is a warlock who is also C.N he gains his powers from a pact with demons, this knowledge is discovered.  The Paladin in my game would be within all rights to cut him down right then and there, never mind his alignment or the fact he is not using his powers currently to commit some act of evil.  The NPC warlock has sold his soul basicly to forces of pure evil something in the paladin's mind on the level with mass murder or worse.



That's basically on par with killing someone because they bought their sword from an _evil_ blacksmith.  You're making some huge assumptions about what Warlocks are, and some very strange judgements about how Paladins should behave.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> On a lighter note, after watching Metalapocalypse this weekend, I think we really need a revamped bard in the core rules. Fourth Edition needs to make bards METAL!...as Nathan Explosion would say.



Actually, I have heard that done already.  With hilarious results.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 16, 2007)

Let's focus on the fantasy world of D&D or other fiction because if this goes to real world issues two key topics that are no no's on this forum will be brought up.  I know I've used real world example in this thread already but it's a slippery slope.

Buying a sword or weapon from someone who is evil is not an act of evil.  Using a weapon is not evil, swords don't kill people people do.  Same with machines of war.  Deathstar itself is not evil, the slaves  who made it are not evil (if you buy into the private contractor theory then yes they are evil), the Empire is "Evil" and putting on that uniform for the stormtrooper means you support the evil, get benifits from serving the evil, ect...Killing storm troopers is good because all of them are evil every last one of them even the young man who is sending his pay check to support his family back home and works as a supply clerk.

Worshiping a being of power is more then saying a few words one day a week and giving them 10% of the loot you get from raiding dungeons.  A pact with an outer planer being implies more then lip service.  

Evil and Good in a fantasy setting is black and white not shades of grey...if people are shades of grey then they are neutral.

I am trying my best to get my point across, in a world with dieties who grant power you can see, who walk the world, who's existance is a fact not a thing that requires blind faith then getting any amount of power from a evil diety or power and using it for any reason is in itself an evil act.  I used an example of a C.N warlock, honestly I can't picture a warlock who gets powers from an infernal source as anything but evil a neutral character would become evil the moment he made said pact.

Like I said above a sword being swung is only as evil as the heart of the man swinging it.

A blast of infernal fire is evil by virtue of where the power comes from no matter the motivations behind it.


----------



## Kesh (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Let's focus on the fantasy world of D&D or other fiction because if this goes to real world issues two key topics that are no no's on this forum will be brought up.  I know I've used real world example in this thread already but it's a slippery slope.
> 
> Buying a sword or weapon from someone who is evil is not an act of evil.  Using a weapon is not evil, swords don't kill people people do.  Same with machines of war.  Deathstar itself is not evil, the slaves  who made it are not evil (if you buy into the private contractor theory then yes they are evil), the Empire is "Evil" and putting on that uniform for the stormtrooper means you support the evil, get benifits from serving the evil, ect...Killing storm troopers is good because all of them are evil every last one of them even the young man who is sending his pay check to support his family back home and works as a supply clerk.
> 
> ...




In *your* campaign. Not everyone plays black/white fantasy. And even then, it sounds like you're saying _humanoids_ who worship evil beings are capital-e Evil and cannot be redeemed.



> I am trying my best to get my point across, in a world with dieties who grant power you can see, who walk the world, who's existance is a fact not a thing that requires blind faith then getting any amount of power from a evil diety or power and using it for any reason is in itself an evil act.  I used an example of a C.N warlock, honestly I can't picture a warlock who gets powers from an infernal source as anything but evil a neutral character would become evil the moment he made said pact.
> 
> Like I said above a sword being swung is only as evil as the heart of the man swinging it.
> 
> A blast of infernal fire is evil by virtue of where the power comes from no matter the motivations behind it.




While I respect your opinion, and could have fun in a campaign set that way, it is by no means universal nor even the most common I've seen.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2007)

I still hope the warlock has clearly delineated power sources that are good, evil and neutral.  People keep talkng about the "option" to play an evil character but I don't see how having a character who is mostly evil with a little neutral on the side is more options than one that can be the whole gamut of alignments.  In fact I would have thought it more creative to give the warlock abilities based on law, neutrality and chaos with the player deciding if he uses it for the advancement of good, evil or neutrality.

I think that what makes the warlock less flexible is the fact that he has to make a pact, this is a conscious choice to serve a certain power that you know is evil(at least in the infernal source example.).  It's not like the warlock of 3.5 where it's out of your control(bloodlines) and ambiguous enough that it facilitates a wider range of playstyles with the class.

One of the major problems I see with this class is that while it can be compared to such characters as Spawn, Elric, etc.  Their main schtick is that they come to realize they are in essence slaves to a power that is ultimately evil and fight against it.  Without this realization and struggle these characters would ultimately be villains.  Now how many players are going to voluntarily weaken themselves by forsaking their patron if they choose warlock in the first place?  Is the game, from a balance perspective even set up to handle such a character concept?  Anyone who says it is...wel they're making a wider assumption than those assuming  feral & shadow=/=good.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 16, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I think that what makes the warlock less flexible is the fact that he has to make a pact, this is a conscious choice to serve a certain power that you know is evil(at least in the infernal source example.).  It's not like the warlock of 3.5 where it's out of your control(bloodlines) and ambiguous enough that it facilitates a wider range of playstyles with the class.
> 
> One of the major problems I see with this class is that while it can be compared to such characters as Spawn, Elric, etc.  Their main schtick is that they come to realize they are in essence slaves to a power that is ultimately evil and fight against it.  Without this realization and struggle these characters would ultimately be villains.  Now how many players are going to voluntarily weaken themselves by forsaking their patron if they choose warlock in the first place?  Is the game, from a balance perspective even set up to handle such a character concept?  Anyone who says it is...wel they're making a wider assumption than those assuming  feral & shadow=/=good.




All those PCs swearing allegiance to a king are in essence slaves to a power. The pact might not be 'sell me your soul'. I hope the infernals are more creative than that. I hope it is more of a favor for a favor. I give this power to you and you in turn do this job. The character can be encouraged to fill the letter of the request, but not necessarily the will. 

Of course, this only reflects on the Infernal pact warlock. The Feral and Shadow 'lock are so lightly mentioned we have no idea how they arranged. I think we will have more options than 'oops I sold my soul and all I got was this lousy T-shirt'.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Worshiping a being of power is more then saying a few words one day a week and giving them 10% of the loot you get from raiding dungeons.  A pact with an outer planer being implies more then lip service.



It does not, however, imply _worship_.  Those are two different things.  A "pact" sounds more like buying a sword than joining a religion, in my book.  Just because the guy selling you the sword lives on a different plane doesn't mean that the act of buying or using the sword leads you to worship, serve, or emulate the seller.  Nothing in the fluff I read mentioned prospective Warlocks "selling their souls" to infernal powers.



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> I used an example of a C.N warlock, honestly I can't picture a warlock who gets powers from an infernal source as anything but evil a neutral character would become evil the moment he made said pact.



Even it that is the case--and, obviously, that's an entirely reasonable campaign decision--that's why "infernal" is only one of three possible sources for a Warlock's powers.  I don't see why one would object to the infernal pact option any more than one would object to rules for Clerics of evil gods.  They didn't include Hextor in the 3e PHB because they intended PCs to worship him; they included him because that was the logical place to include _all_ the Cleric options.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> All those PCs swearing allegiance to a king are in essence slaves to a power. The pact might not be 'sell me your soul'. I hope the infernals are more creative than that. I hope it is more of a favor for a favor. I give this power to you and you in turn do this job. The character can be encouraged to fill the letter of the request, but not necessarily the will.




Are they're "class powers" dependant upon swearing allegiance to a king?  You're really stretching here with this example.



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> Of course, this only reflects on the Infernal pact warlock. The Feral and Shadow 'lock are so lightly mentioned we have no idea how they arranged. I think we will have more options than 'oops I sold my soul and all I got was this lousy T-shirt'.




That's a nice assumption, and just as valid as the they're are no "good" options assumption, especially sine the connotations surrounding shadow and feral do not equate to good.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 16, 2007)

> Killing storm troopers is good because all of them are evil every last one of them....




Haven't heard of conscription? By this absolutist logic, Anne Frank's love interest Peter (I forget his last name) would have turned EVIL the minute he was forced to the Russian Front in WWII - a bizarre conclusion which I in no way expect that you would support, but mention as a friendly admonition to beware absolute statements. They *always* lead to problems of logic.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 16, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Even it that is the case--and, obviously, that's an entirely reasonable campaign decision--that's why "infernal" is only one of three possible sources for a Warlock's powers.



It really amazes me how desperately people are trying to get us all to forget that there are three pact sources, only one of which is obviously associated with evil.  It's really remarkable.  Perhaps we need a PSA or something.

Attention, citizens: warlocks don't have to make pacts with devils.  Please adjust your posts accordingly.  Thank you for your cooperation.  This message has been brought to you by people who are getting tired of explaining this point over and over again.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 16, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> That's a nice assumption, and just as valid as the they're are no "good" options assumption, especially sine the connotations surrounding shadow and feral do not equate to good.



I wouldn't say they _have_ to be good.  Non-evil is good enough for me.  I know it kind of contradicts one's sense of symmetry to have one evil pact option and two neutral pact options, but I don't think forcing symmetry into your game mechanics is necessarily a good idea.  Hell, look at the absurdities White Wolf commits in its name.

Back on topic, though, it might be worth pointing out that the classic D&D "fey" alignment has long been Chaotic Good, which _might_ mean the feral pact option is indeed the moral opposite of the presumably Lawful Evil infernal option.  ...But, at the same time, 4e is supposed to have less emphasis on alignment, anyway, so that's probably not a particularly meaningful comparison.  I suspect that character alignment might not have anything to do with which type of Warlock pacts are available.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 16, 2007)

I am throwing in the towel.

I know black/white good/evil is not the only form of fantasy and don't want to try and tell people they are having badwrongfun, if you play this game you are having goodrightfun because you are enjoying yourself.

I started to get into bad logic. 

I was going to start a humor thread titled "4E is becoming Dark Dungeons a J.Chick production" and comment on the warlock and tiefling, then I reread Dark Dungeons pdf and just laughed at the idea of it there is no way D&D could ever be like that.

It's what I get for posting about this stuff and listening to talk radio at the same time.  

I just do hope that Shadow and Feral are good viable options for the warlock that are well represented and have unique powers and themes, and are not tied to evil.

Again the PHB is using room for this class and probably alot of space for their powers, I want to be able to use those things for PC's in a game set in a strong light(good) vs. darkness(evil) campaign without having to change a bunch of stuff to do it.

By the way I think I have a new NPC for my first 4E game an Eladrin Warlock (Infernal) named Darkleaf Elfstar.  She will rail the PC's and become a thorn in the side of the party for many game sessions.


----------



## Henry (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> By the way I think I have a new NPC for my first 4E game an Eladrin Warlock (Infernal) named Darkleaf Elfstar.  She will rail the PC's and become a thorn in the side of the party for many game sessions.




*Ahem* That would be _Wizard Cleric Debbie Elfstar_, and she should have a power to use on the PCs called "Mind Bondage"... and her subordinate over her minions should be Blackleaf.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.




If I'm willing to sell my own soul to save the people and places I love by fighting "fire" with "fire," aren't I making a personal sacrifice to help others? I am by no means a pure person, but it doesn't mean I have lost my respect for life.


----------



## Andor (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> Buying a sword or weapon from someone who is evil is not an act of evil.  Using a weapon is not evil, swords don't kill people people do.  Same with machines of war.  Deathstar itself is not evil, the slaves  who made it are not evil (if you buy into the private contractor theory then yes they are evil),




Buying a sword or weapon from evil ≠ evil. Check

Using a weapon ≠ evil. Check

Same rule for machines of war. Check

Building machine of war involuntarily ≠ evil. Check

Building machine of war for pay = evil. Huh?

Do you mean to say that every blacksmith who forged a sword for pay is evil?

I'm genuinely not following your logic here.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 16, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Building machine of war for pay = evil. Huh?
> 
> Do you mean to say that every blacksmith who forged a sword for pay is evil?



I think it's not simply making weapons that's evil, but weapons that can destroy planets and are comissioned by Space Nazis who consider genocide a valid interrogation technique.

...Of course, when the Space Nazis effectively rule all of known civilization, I think the line between "slaves" and "private contractors" isn't very sharply defined.  Even if Space Hitler's paying you for your labor, the dude still knows where you live, has armies at his command, and doesn't like being told "no".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 16, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say they _have_ to be good.  Non-evil is good enough for me.  I know it kind of contradicts one's sense of symmetry to have one evil pact option and two neutral pact options, but I don't think forcing symmetry into your game mechanics is necessarily a good idea.  Hell, look at the absurdities White Wolf commits in its name.




Hell, just look at ravages and afflictions.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 16, 2007)

> Building machine of war for pay = evil. Huh?
> 
> Do you mean to say that every blacksmith who forged a sword for pay is evil?
> 
> I'm genuinely not following your logic here.




You can't follow it because it was bad logic....I got on a high horse of a soap box and started ranting and raving and made some illogical statements.

I am doing something few people online do from what I've seen, admiting that I was wrong.

I still prefer my game as black/white fantasy good vs evil with clear cut lines that should never be crossed, but that doesn't mean everyone should or that even if they do that the line should be in the same place that I put.

I am sorry to anybody who had loved one's on that second Deathstar I did not mean to cause you pain, those contractors were not evil.  Oh and Billy that Stormtrooper sending checks home so Grandma could get her operation, I know you are not evil either, but if you get a chance do some damage to the Empire from the inside man go for it...you know those dark force using guys are a bad lot.

Anyway again, I have convinced myself to have hope in Feral and Shadow Warlocks to be usable by my players in the type of games I like to run.



> If I'm willing to sell my own soul to save the people and places I love by fighting "fire" with "fire," aren't I making a personal sacrifice to help others? I am by no means a pure person, but it doesn't mean I have lost my respect for life.




In some games I can see that being done, in my black/white worlds I like to run...characters like Ghostrider or Spawn would be the bad guys...they might fight other bad guys but they would be on the evil side of the line for me......don't get me wrong I love to read those comics and I think in the comics themselves they can be very heroic....

I will try and be less ranting and more logical in the future.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I am sorry to anybody who had loved one's on that second Deathstar I did not mean to cause you pain, those contractors were not evil.  Oh and Billy that Stormtrooper sending checks home so Grandma could get her operation, I know you are not evil either..




Just a reminder that Luke was planning on joining the Empire before the Stormtroopers nuked his aunt and uncle chasing down C3PO and R2D2.  

Sometimes good people join bad causes because evil is good at hiding the evil.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> You can't follow it because it was bad logic....I got on a high horse of a soap box and started ranting and raving and made some illogical statements.
> 
> I am doing something few people online do from what I've seen, admiting that I was wrong.



QFT 



Spoiler



(Quoted for Greatness9



For this, I award you 1.000 points of positive internet reputation (yeah, don't know what this means either), and make you my personal Internet Hero of the Day (You can't buy anything from it, but maybe you get all warm and fuzzy inside.)  Thumbs up!


----------



## Imp (Oct 17, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I am sorry to anybody who had loved one's on that second Deathstar I did not mean to cause you pain, those contractors were not evil.  Oh and Billy that Stormtrooper sending checks home so Grandma could get her operation, I know you are not evil either, but if you get a chance do some damage to the Empire from the inside man go for it...you know those dark force using guys are a bad lot.



I gotta say, I am fairly unconvinced that roofer was less evil than his "friend" was for taking that job with Babyface Bambino.  I mean, seriously, you get a sketchy feeling about a job, so you turn it over to a "friend"?  What is that?  Listens to "this", my @%$.

Of course, Randal wasn't all right, because you can't assume that all of the private contractors on that thing were working with innocent intentions, and in particular, you can't assume the kinds of "benefits" provided by the Galactic Empire would be entirely benign in nature.

Ah screw it I just wanted to say all that aloud to myself in Clerks-cadence.  It makes reading forums fun again!


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 17, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> By the way I think I have a new NPC for my first 4E game an Eladrin Warlock (Infernal) named Darkleaf Elfstar.  She will rail the PC's and become a thorn in the side of the party for many game sessions.



At least she's not a PC.  I mean, if I were playing in your game, I wouldn't want to be Elfstar.  I'd want to be Debbie.


----------



## Andor (Oct 17, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> At least she's not a PC.  I mean, if I were playing in your game, I wouldn't want to be Elfstar.  I'd want to be Debbie.




Debbie does D&D?


----------



## grimslade (Oct 17, 2007)

I think I will join Paraxis in leaving the debate. ;P

I like the concept of the Warlock. Pact magic interests me and is a persistent trope in Fantasy. I like that there will be different varieties of Warlock (Infernal, Feral, Shadow) I even like the send your foe to hell for a round. Seems Dickensian to me.

I do not like the Rich Baker quote of (paraphrased) "How dark can we make the warlock in fluff". I think the example article leans to heavily on dark powers and ominous language. This limits the possibilities of the class with the information we have now.

In response to ideas in various posts,
    A pact with a powerful outsider does not make you evil. Not everyone follows the paladin's code and falls from grace for stumbling once. The devils job is to make the warlock fall, but the fall is not binary, there is a descent. Using some of the powers may cause the descent to hasten, Boon of Souls comes to mind. 
    The whole alignment axis argument is most likely moot. Alignment will be altered for 4E. There may be an objective way to rank a slide to evil or redemption to good.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 17, 2007)

*Okay*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Nope, no way am I ever going to reply to that message.



 Good to hear from you anyway.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 17, 2007)

*Okay...*



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Sorry, as someone pointed out, killing is only the _primary_ way that characters advance, not the only way.  I don't know how I could have overlooked such a critical point.




That was the case but depending on the dm it needn't be



> Depends on exactly how many XP he had when he killed the goblin.
> I have to wonder if this wasn't because he was part of an adventuring party that was, in fact, killing things, and he was sharing XP with them, as is the standard.




So you consider all classes exactly in the same boat with the warlock even though that class apparently HAS TO KILL OR SACRIFICE SOMEONE TO RETAIN OR ADVANCE THEIR ABILITIES?

I'd like that clarified if you don't mind.

Has there been any update as to whether the three warlock options are evil or not?

That is the gist of this thread isn't it?

The fact they've gone for an option that should have been stuck right next to the assassin in the dmg...

By the way, most of those times they're killing something its usually because they're being attacked however I agree there are times when they could have avoided killing something and still earned that xp but the warlock doesn't have that option according to the way they seem to work, be my guest and correct me on that point won't you?

I'm not the warlock expert and never will be, but it would be nice to have all the facts however maybe thats what the preview books will provide.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 17, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I wonder if I should add a line to my sig where I enumerate the times I see someone post "I have a really great argument, but I'm not going to bother to post it, nor am I going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject.  You'll just have to wallow in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong."
> I think I'd have four over the last week alone.
> Dude, can you get any more insulting?  You have done nothing but run me down in the last few posts you've made, while making sure you interrupt yourself to point out how much _you_ know about all these subjects I'm _soo_ ignorant about.
> Now quit it.  I don't agree with you, you haven't given me any reason to even read your posts, and I'm putting you on ignore.




Okay if you're ignoring me then you will surely not mind me asking which four since the James Bond I've watched tend to show he does actually care even if the missions he's on tend to short circuit the relationships and I assumed you meant Casino Royale.
However you're right that doesn't matter and as for the insulting bit I was actually thanking you for that bit as it wasn't something I'd even considered but as you've said it really doesn't matter but thanks for that last bit and I'll return the favour from this point on.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 17, 2007)

*A question*



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> Let me try to explain my thoughts better, killing can be done for a good cause.  IMHO.
> Execution of convictied murderers, war fought against forces of evil, self defense, ect....
> 
> A fighter is a professional killer it's what the class is all about, but who he kills, why he kills, and even how he kills makes a huge difference.  A soldier who is a sniper compared to a professional  hitman are completly different people or characters.
> ...




Sorry but would you say the film "The Covenant" highlights warlocks in a manner that best describes their abilities and restrictions?
Its just that I can't help wondering if perhaps a better description of them is in order and more importantly their reasoning for this choice.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 17, 2007)

*Just a question*



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Why? If the warlock isn't evil or doing evil why is he as bad as a mass murderer? Who said he sold his soul anyway? What if the pact was "I'll give you all this power if you tithe 10% of your loot to the temple of Asmodeus." No souls involved. I suppose you could argue that the Warlock is sponsoring evil acts, but frankly unless you abstain from use of the internal combustion engine I could probably make the argument about you.
> 
> A person who makes a pact with evil, sacrificing himself to achieve good ends, is a common trope in fantasy. For that matter so is someone who makes a deal and then strives against his fate (and fails.) What's wrong with D&D supporting these stories out the gate? If you don't want it at your table then veto Infernal Pact warlocks, that still leaves Shadow and Fey Warlocks.




There have been plenty examples of shall we say Lawful stupidness, what the previous message was talking about is that by all rights this character should be showing up on the paladin's detect evil sense regardless of whether they're evil or not, personally I hope they alter that particulr ability so they can sense the presence of enemies of their faith and thereby short circuit this problem however it will still NOT explain the problem of having someone who has sworn an oath to say Orcus even if forced unless they have already stated they are accompanying said paladin in a quest for redemption and need their help to stay on the side of light.
A bit much perhaps but until we learn what changes they're making to the alignment rules if they're any this is a bit of a stickler.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 17, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I am still a 4E fanboy, and hope to have many enjoyable games with the system but I am unhappy about this class, and it's a major issue with me because a good section of the PHB will go to warlock powers just like to cleric and wizard spells, and it seems that the inclussion of the warlock pushed *a more well rounded class out of the PHB.*




The sorcerer was just a poor wizard clone to make up for the fact that wizard spells consumed 1/3 of the PHB alone. That's not a well rounded class.


----------



## see (Oct 18, 2007)

> Yeah, that ends it for me. There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".




Well, I was going to leave that as my last statement on the EN World 4e board, but I've changed my mind.  This explanation will be it instead:

In warfare, your goal is to defeat the enemy.  Yes, you're willing to kill the foe to achieve that end; but incapacitating the foe, inducing him to surrender, or routing him into headlong retreat are all victories, too.  In a D&D encounter, all of those get rewarded with XP for defeating the challenge.

In the Boon of Souls, if the opponent doesn't die, he presumably doesn't qualify as having gone to his afterlife reward.  So we have a mechanic here that involves a direct reward to a PC for cutting the throat of a foe who has surrendered.  

I would term as "evil" any supernatural entity that sets up a standing temptation for people to commit murder.  Which means a warlock who uses the Boon of Souls is a character who kills to gain the gratitude (Rob Heinsoo's word, not mine) of a supernatural evil.  (I recognize that others may differ with my definition.  That's fine.  You're not going to convince me.)

Now, if it were going in the DMG, I'd be fine with it; it would make an excellent villain.  But it's being presented as one of the eight PC classes, meaning in place of something (in my opinion) more appropriate for a player character.  So my conclusion from this is that they're taking D&D in a direction I'm not interested in, and certainly not interested in spending my money on.

Maybe it'll be a wild success; my tastes haven't noticeably been a predictor of commercial success.  But it'll be a success without me.  See you when Fifth Edition is announced.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 18, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The sorcerer was just a poor wizard clone to make up for the fact that wizard spells consumed 1/3 of the PHB alone. That's not a well rounded class.




They have confirmed that the sorcerer will make an appearance in 4th Ed, but will be markedly different than the wizard (thank god).

 …Perhaps Nature Controller?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 18, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> Now, if it were going in the DMG, I'd be fine with it; it would make an excellent villain.  But it's being presented as one of the eight PC classes, meaning in place of something (in my opinion) more appropriate for a player character.  So my conclusion from this is that they're taking D&D in a direction I'm not interested in, and certainly not interested in spending my money on.




Evil characters have been presented as playable since 1e. Assassin and drow in UA.

I think that "they're taking D&D in that direction" boat sailed a long time ago.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 18, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Evil characters have been presented as playable since 1e. Assassin and drow in UA.
> 
> I think that "they're taking D&D in that direction" boat sailed a long time ago.



Correction: Assassin's in the PHB. First class in the book.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 18, 2007)

see said:
			
		

> In warfare, your goal is to defeat the enemy.  Yes, you're willing to kill the foe to achieve that end; but incapacitating the foe, inducing him to surrender, or routing him into headlong retreat are all victories, too.  In a D&D encounter, all of those get rewarded with XP for defeating the challenge.
> 
> In the Boon of Souls, if the opponent doesn't die, he presumably doesn't qualify as having gone to his afterlife reward.  So we have a mechanic here that involves a direct reward to a PC for cutting the throat of a foe who has surrendered.



Many D&D games and modules have suggested that the goal of combat with Evil humanoids is not just to produce surrender or rout, but to kill them. Hence the many debates about whether or not paladins can, consistent with their alignment and code of conduct, kill baby Orcs.

I don't want to impute a particular view to you. But if one thinks that the killing of baby Orcs is not obviously forbidden to paladins, then presumably one can't think that it's a foregone conclusion that getting boons from sending one's villains to the afterlife is Evil.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 19, 2007)

I'm still disappointed there's no Elemental Warlock.  A Warlock that makes pacts with Djinn or Efreet would be cool.  It would also make an Al'Qadim port very easy.

Having read the debate, I think there's quite a wide chasm between me and many other posters on the meaning of the words "good" and "evil."  I guess that's to be expected.  It's a debate man has been having for a long time.

But IMC, any Warlock who makes a pact with a Devil is Evil.  Capital 'E'.  Either that or a previously good or neutral PC who's quickly headed there.  In my mind you can't have a quid pro quo with the devil and not acquire a taint / aura of evil, any more than a Cleric of Asmodeus can.  Sure, the Warlock doesn't worship the devil, but "just doing business" with the devil of your own free will and on a regular basis is little better.  That's just how I see it.  Same for the contractor who worked on the first Death Star, saw it used to destroy Alderaan, and then freely chose to build the second Death Star too in exchange for Imperial 'favors'.  To use a real-world example, someone who freely (not coerced) continued to do business with Nazis after seeing the death camps for himself would be labeled in my mind as evil.  It just rubs off on you.

We'll just have to wait and see on 'Shadowy' and 'Feral', but neither of them sound good to me.  All of the examples given of how they could possibly, maybe be good just seemed like a stretch to me.  They both sound amoral to me (what D&D calls "X-neutral"), with Shadowy possibly being evil.

I'm fine with the Paladin not having to be LG any more, but I think it's shame there doesn't seem to be any good way to play a good Warlock.  I don't like playing with evil PCs (as a DM or a PC), so I guess this class may not see a lot of play at my table.  Do angels not make pacts?  Or do you just call good warlocks "clerics"?

I guess we'll see.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> We'll just have to wait and see on 'Shadowy' and 'Feral', but neither of them sound good to me.  All of the examples given of how they could possibly, maybe be good just seemed like a stretch to me.  They both sound amoral to me (what D&D calls "X-neutral"), with Shadowy possibly being evil.



Well, what's wrong with the pact-beings being neutral?  You don't need to use an inherently good tool to be doing good.  Following your analogies about doing business with Nazis, does doing business with neutral people mean you have to be neutral?  I don't think so.  You can argue that any pact with demons is a bad thing, since demons are pure evil and giving them anything is an evil act no matter what you get in return.  But I don't think you can stretch that argument to cover pacts with anything that merely isn't pure good.



> Do angels not make pacts?  Or do you just call good warlocks "clerics"?



Personally I would be very disappointed to ever see warlocks making pacts with angels.  If you can get same powers by dealing with angels as you can from dealing with devils, then anyone who deals with devils is just a chump.  The whole point of dark sorcery is that you're supposed to gain power from it that you couldn't otherwise have.  That's why it's a temptation, despite its obvious drawbacks.  Unless you like comic-opera villains who twirl their moustaches and murder kittens for fun, you're not going to get much dramatic use out of a devil-dealing villain if he could've gotten the same power _and_ the moral high ground just as easily.


----------



## coyote6 (Oct 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm still disappointed there's no Elemental Warlock.  A Warlock that makes pacts with Djinn or Efreet would be cool.  It would also make an Al'Qadim port very easy.




I would guess that that's where supplements (and Dragon articles, and maybe licensed 3rd party books) will come in handy.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 19, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Personally I would be very disappointed to ever see warlocks making pacts with angels.  If you can get same powers by dealing with angels as you can from dealing with devils, then anyone who deals with devils is just a chump.  The whole point of dark sorcery is that you're supposed to gain power from it that you couldn't otherwise have.  That's why it's a temptation, despite its obvious drawbacks.  Unless you like comic-opera villains who twirl their moustaches and murder kittens for fun, you're not going to get much dramatic use out of a devil-dealing villain if he could've gotten the same power _and_ the moral high ground just as easily.



This is an excellent point.  And it makes for interesting characterization too.  Perhaps you took the quick route to power, and too late figured out that you're doomed.  Can you redeem yourself by using evil power for good, or does it just drag you down more quickly as you use it?

Neutral pact contacts aside, being able to make deals with evil beings for power seems pretty darn old-school sword & sorcery to me.  I am very glad it's in D&D.  It makes me think of old fantasy pulp, especially when there can be a contrast between those who revel in their evil power and those who are chained to it against their will.  Good stuff.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 19, 2007)

> It makes me think of old fantasy pulp, especially when there can be a contrast between those who revel in their evil power and those who are chained to it against their will. Good stuff.




I have seen that mentioned a few times as an idea for a character or concept in this thread, the whole "chained to it against their wil" thing.  People talk about Spawn, or some poor shlub who didn't know what he was getting into at the time ect.

The problem is this is a game with levels, and player choice.  The player chooses for his character to use said powers, and to keep taking more levels in the Warlock class, there is no chain.  

The player is having his character make a choice to keep being a pawn to dark powers, if he wanted to redeem himself it's simple never take a level of warlock again and don't use any of your class abilities you gained from it.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> The problem is this is a game with levels, and player choice.



That's metagame thinking. Making character decisions based solely on player knowledge - like switching to a slashing weapon the first time your character encounters a zombie, despite your character never having encountered or heard about zombies - is metagaming, and is a no no.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> I have seen that mentioned a few times as an idea for a character or concept in this thread, the whole "chained to it against their wil" thing.  People talk about Spawn, or some poor shlub who didn't know what he was getting into at the time ect.
> 
> The problem is this is a game with levels, and player choice.  The player chooses for his character to use said powers, and to keep taking more levels in the Warlock class, there is no chain.
> 
> The player is having his character make a choice to keep being a pawn to dark powers, if he wanted to redeem himself it's simple never take a level of warlock again and don't use any of your class abilities you gained from it.



You are running the player and the PC together here. Yes, the _player_ is choosing to keep his/her PC a warlock. S/he is not chained - s/he is choosing to play D&D in a certain way.

But it doesn't follow that the PC has any choice. The player (presumably with the GM's concurrence) can simply stipulate that his/her PC has no choice, and is chained to a dismal fate. This explains the levels. As for the use of abilities, if the PC finds him- or herself confronted by monsters, and the dark abilities are all s/he has, then again s/he has no choice but to defend herself. And if those are the only abilities s/he is able to use to do good deeds, then so much greater is the tragedy of it all!


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 19, 2007)

It's not metagame thinking at all.

People use training rules, people talk about how you get feats from practicing in down time, or if you don't use training then when you level in a new class how you have been dabbling in that field for awhile now.

You have to want to be a better fighter in the game in order for taking more levels in the class to make sense, you must pray and be faithful to gain higher understanding as a cleric, if you want as a warlock to not go futher down the dark path you just don't.

As a DM you could say that a warlock has no choice but to take further levels of warlock because of the pact he made, but then that takes away player choice wich is something 3E and apparently 4E try to never ever do.  The game has become about choices, not railroading PC's down a career path.

So this whole tragic character concept is just an excuse to play an "evil" character but at the same time going he is just misunderstood and dark.  When it is a choice he makes every time he levels to go futher into the darkside, he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> As a DM you could say that a warlock has no choice but to take further levels of warlock because of the pact he made, but then that takes away player choice wich is something 3E and apparently 4E try to never ever do.



Right. But the _player_ can say that the PC has no choice, and then the player is not de-protagonised at all.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 19, 2007)

Um, what are you people talking about? A warlock that takes levels in something else isn't breaking a pact or anything or leaving it behind or anything, they just aren't getting better at their warlockery. 

As far as debate over the effect of evil pacts, as long as the character is non-good I don't see much of a problem. Sure a warlock with a fiendish pact might be an angel slaying, baby eating, willing tool of sinister forces, or he might simply be charged with taking out the fiendish competition.

I also don't see a problem with celestial pacts, especially in the manner of self-righteous overzealous archons of butt-whoopery. Paladin's in 3e are played like that fairly often anyways, being fond of slaying evil but not so much being lawful or honorable. A class that can claim that shtick by default seems like a great idea to me.

But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> It's not metagame thinking at all.
> 
> People use training rules, people talk about how you get feats from practicing in down time, or if you don't use training then when you level in a new class how you have been dabbling in that field for awhile now.



Some people do use training rules. I never did. And we usually also try to minimize using gamist terms in-character. (Spells and monster names are fine, but feats?)



> You have to want to be a better fighter in the game in order for taking more levels in the class to make sense, you must pray and be faithful to gain higher understanding as a cleric, if you want as a warlock to not go futher down the dark path you just don't.
> 
> As a DM you could say that a warlock has no choice but to take further levels of warlock because of the pact he made, but then that takes away player choice wich is something 3E and apparently 4E try to never ever do.  The game has become about choices, not railroading PC's down a career path.
> 
> So this whole tragic character concept is just an excuse to play an "evil" character but at the same time going he is just misunderstood and dark.  When it is a choice he makes every time he levels to go futher into the darkside, he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.



It might be an excuse to play an "evil" character, but with the benefit of him being a part of the party and doing his own thing and hoping to slit their throats in the night or something like that. You're not playing Belkar (OotS), you're playing Angel (Buffyverse). Now, this still might not be for everyone (I am tempted to try this, but on the other hand, the whole "Oh woe is me" thing can get old, sometimes from the beginning   ), but I think it's a concept that is viable enough to be a core option.



> But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent



That's a good question. I think dealing with devils and demons fits "Arcane" better than "Divine". There is a difference between having power granted by your faith in a god, and having your power granted by a pact. Most of the time, Divine characters don't interact directly with their source of power (their god), but dealing with Devils is more "personal".
But that is just one possible view.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 19, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's a good question. I think dealing with devils and demons fits "Arcane" better than "Divine". There is a difference between having power granted by your faith in a god, and having your power granted by a pact. Most of the time, Divine characters don't interact directly with their source of power (their god), but dealing with Devils is more "personal".
> But that is just one possible view.



A difference yes, but it can be just the difference between a cleric and warlock. Arcane casters seem to have a theme of wielding the forces of the world directly, and divine caster are granted their power from elsewhere. If they need to appeal elsewhere instead of doing it themselves, that strikes me as being a divine source.

On the other hand, if pacts don't so much let the warlock channel their patrons power, but instead are granted a power that stays with them and is used when and how they see fit it might make more sense. But that's not what it sounds like at this point.


----------



## hopeless (Oct 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm still disappointed there's no Elemental Warlock.  A Warlock that makes pacts with Djinn or Efreet would be cool.  It would also make an Al'Qadim port very easy.
> 
> Having read the debate, I think there's quite a wide chasm between me and many other posters on the meaning of the words "good" and "evil."  I guess that's to be expected.  It's a debate man has been having for a long time.




Wasn't there something in the Zakhara setting about a class that had a bound geneie or efreet or one of those beings?

There was a book about elementalism from Mongoose, but that is an important point, it should be feasible to have a warlock who made a pact with a genie or efreet it would make perfect sense.

Don't know what the shadow warlock is going to be about, the feral one could be something based on fey or nature but infernal speaks for itself.

Perhaps their abilities will be essentially elemental based as that Zakharan specific book was, what was the name of that class again?

Sha- something I think.

Much obliged, its a good sign that warlocks could be any alignment if that could be sorted out.


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 19, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> A difference yes, but it can be just the difference between a cleric and warlock. Arcane casters seem to have a theme of wielding the forces of the world directly, and divine caster are granted their power from elsewhere. If they need to appeal elsewhere instead of doing it themselves, that strikes me as being a divine source.
> 
> On the other hand, if pacts don't so much let the warlock channel their patrons power, but instead are granted a power that stays with them and is used when and how they see fit it might make more sense. But that's not what it sounds like at this point.




The flavor is indeed ambiguous. I pretty much agree with you, though. In my mind, the arcane model of pact magic is "you pay a price, and gain powers".  For a _Crucible_-style witch, the price is paid only at the end of your life. In the meantime, the powers are yours to do with as you please and cannot be taken away--this makes them Arcane. 

In my mind, Divine magic should derived from your ongoing relationship with a Patron--you are a conduit for their power, not a scholar using special "prayers" that always work. In game terms the player should be able to choose the effect, of course, but I think that's the key distinction.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 19, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Correction: Assassin's in the PHB. First class in the book.



In the 1E PHB, assassin was not the first class in the book, since it was a subclass of thief, and therefore listed after thief. Cleric was the first class in the book.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.



This is a very silly campaign world you're imagining.



			
				Exen Trik said:
			
		

> But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent.



Yeah, I know what you mean.  Magical power provided by an intelligent external force sounds "divine" by default.  But maybe there's a more fundamental difference between arcane and divine magic in 4e, something in the _nature_ of the power rather than just its origins.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 19, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> So this whole tragic character concept is just an excuse to play an "evil" character but at the same time going he is just misunderstood and dark.



What's wrong with that?



			
				Paraxis said:
			
		

> When it is a choice he makes every time he levels to go futher into the darkside, he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.



This also seems to confuse the player's choice, which does exist, with the PC's choice, which (if the player has so stipulated) may not.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 23, 2007)

*A post about actual mechanics!*

In a brief playtest report blog, Michele Carter mentions 



> During yesterday's lunchtime playtest, our group was assaulted by a bunch of kruthiks. Man, those little buggers are tough! Things were looking grim for Greg Bilsland's paladin, who was surrounded and about to go down, *when one of my warlock effects went off and pushed them away from him*...just enough so that Jeremy Crawford's wizard could catch them in an area spell that took them all down. It was a marvel of tactics in action and I'm so *stoked* to see those kinds of interactions occurring on a regular basis.



Hmmm.... striker, or controller?


----------



## Andor (Oct 23, 2007)

I think the warlock should have a power called 'Vorpal Wedgie'.


----------



## Deverash (Oct 24, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> In a brief playtest report blog, Michele Carter mentions
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... striker, or controller?




Interestingly, that strongly says controller, but a different type of controller than wizards are.  The warlock is more about moving people around, and single target damage, while the wizard seems more about damaging multiple people, and moving 1 or 2 people around.  If I'm not reading too much into this, of course.  But who does that around here?


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 25, 2007)

Deverash said:
			
		

> Interestingly, that strongly says controller, but a different type of controller than wizards are.  The warlock is more about moving people around, and single target damage, while the wizard seems more about damaging multiple people, and moving 1 or 2 people around.  If I'm not reading too much into this, of course.  But who does that around here?



I definitely think you're reading too much into it.  We see one example of a warlock pushing people around, and you want to conclude that pushing people around en masse is a core function of the warlock power set?


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

Perhaps the warlock will be a firewire controller. Fire = fires of hell. Wire = dancing to the tune of said fires. HAW HAW.


----------

