Are Warlocks Moving Back To Their Evil Roots?
The latest Design and Development article hints that the warlock wasn’t initially on the first team roster when 4th Edition D&D comes out of the gates. But when tieflings become more than a hopeful first starter it seems the warlock class finds a perfect fit.
And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? That worked for us. But what we didn’t know at the time was how dramatically the warlock class would improve as we progressed through design.
I never really grew to like the warlock, I’ll have to admit. Being the wizard fan that I am they just seemed like a one trick pony that couldn’t hold a produced flame to my ‘Gandalf-esque’ spellslingers. But what I really didn’t care for was their dark nature, like they’re always meant to be the a hero living on the edge of darkness, a rebel, the bad boy. I’ve tried to see their potential but just never got into them.
But a later supplement (which one escapes me at the moment) changed some of that. Now warlocks had some options - fey patrons. Ooo. I liked that. Wizards being my favorite class, elves have always been my favorite race. I still haven’t played a warlock but they seemed to have emerged from the shadows and into the shade (of the forest). Now they weren’t only bad guys trying to do good, they had the freedom to choose the light or the dark side.
But now we’re hearing this:
Tieflings begin with a backstory of splintering betrayals and stolen power. Warlocks carry on with a fundamental choice of a pact with one of three varieties of supernatural patron. 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. And when you play a warlock, you have the tools to put your enemies away.
Are warlocks being shoved back into the pits of despair in 4E? Once again, only time will tell. Unless someone’s got more payload on these saintly devils?
Popularity: 3%
October 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Mike did you write that one? That was a good article!
I think we’ve spokne of this before but I hate hate hate hate hate hat ehate it when flavor gets in the way of class abilities.
I’ve never really been of the mind that classes are tied into who your character can be. Having alignment restrictions on characters I feel is one of the worst aspects of the D&D game period.
From Palladins and Monks to Warlocks & Assasins. Your actual class should not dictate who or what you can play. I should not have to be lawful to play a monk, nor evil to play an assasin. The skill set for those classes should be able to cross those black and white boundries.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Yeah - with quotes from Design and Development article sprinkled in there.
But you’re right. Classes should be alignment-restriction free. Like the races - they list tendancies - but not absolutes (at least on the core races). Same could apply to classes.
I can handle the tielfling with a favored class of warlock, but I hope they keep the class open to most, if not all, alignments.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Why isn’t there a Carpenter class? Or a Diplomat? Oh that’s right, because core D&D is all about running around killing anything that doesn’t speak Common.
Greed and racial intolerance as a motivation for murder? Sounds like something my Paladin totally wants in on!
Alignment is a joke. Every PC is a shade of CN. Warlocks just bring in the emo vote. “Put away your enemies” … sounds like a nice guy to me!
I think what it comes down to is that D&D was originally a game about good guys vs bad guys, but when 10 year old boys started playing they wanted to play a murderous badass. Enter the half-Orc, the assassin, the barbarian, the whole Oriental Adventures sourcebook.
Oh, and by the way, if your Paladin was ever hired by a town to kill off a nearby dragon just because it was there, guess what? He’s an assassin! Were he ever hired by the king to join his army so he could knock off the local necromancer? He’s an assassin!
So if roleplaying to you is all about what two-letter combo describes your Level 20 Phat Lewt Hauler, just don’t bother. Go ahead and play an Ass-Pal if that’s your thing.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
i think a paladin should still be alignment specific. its silly to think of a chaotic paladin. an evil paladin is a blackguard, etc. I also have no problem with rogues being non lawful, or assassins being evil.
assassins by their nature kill for profit. One could argue the party of fighters, clerics and paladins may just have to kill for the greater good. its one thing to get REWARDED for taking down the baddies, its another thing to take blood money to stalk and then savagely and without remose rip out someone’s throat. It takes a dark heart to kill like that.
Danny if the town guard hired a paladin to kill off a dragon, the paladin would only take the quest if it was an evil dragon doing evil things. if the player of the paladin is worth anything they look into things before mindlessly killing. if the paladin goes against the local necro…is the local necro raising the dead of the villagers and attacking people? c’mon danny use your head, thats evil and it must be stopped. the paladin should take him down, but again, he should make a good faith attempt to make sure the stories are always accurate.
paladins in the hands of worthy players ARE NEVER ASSASSINS.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 am
Danny, I think you’re confusing classes and skills. Also, there are many other rules out there for alignment (go read DMG2 from 3.5 for example, it still applies) so draw on them.
Also… You’re looking at this as LAWFUL classes who follow a code of conduct.
Paladin = good.
Knight = neutral.
Blackguard/etc = evil.
There are even rules out there for making paladins for other alignments.
You know what, this is getting too long. GOOD ARTICLE. You’ve highlighted one of the core problems of moving 4e into such accessible hands; balance at the cost of development.