warlock alignment

[lytokk]

In the complete arcane it states that a warlock must be either evil or chaotic. What it doesn't list is the penalty for no longer being one of those anymore. I have to ask is there a penalty like there is for any other class with any alignment restriction? I havent made it the whole way through the book so its possible I missed it.

[Particle_Man]

In Complete Mage there is a Warlock prestige class that can be LG or NG, so I am assuming that changing one's alignment only means one can no longer advance in the original Warlock class.

[Octopus Jack]

What Particle Man said, there doesn't appear to be any written repercussions for 'falling' as a warlock. You just don't meet the required alignment for the class so cannot continue to take levels in it, you don't lose any of your powers and can quite freely multiclass to something else for the remainder of your career.

[lytokk]

you're talking about the enlightened spirit prestige class right? Anyway, so the rule is that I just can't advance in warlock if I'm no longer either evil or chaotic.

[Particle_Man]

you're talking about the enlightened spirit prestige class right?

Yes, that is correct.

[nedz]

Enlightened spirit is pretty awful BTW since you miss out on being able to choose the best invocations. A 1 level dip might be worth it for a Warlock, but then the alignment screws you over since you can't go back.

[Kesnit]

Enlightened spirit is pretty awful BTW since you miss out on being able to choose the best invocations. A 1 level dip might be worth it for a Warlock, but then the alignment screws you over since you can't go back.

No it doesn't. IIRC, Enlightened Spirit is "any good." So CG is a valid alignment, and allows Warlock progression.

[Vhaidara]

I've always just ignored the alignment req on Warlock. At best, I can understand banning out NG. If warlocks were specifically those who got power by making pacts with fiends, that would be one thing, but any good aligned warlock will probably be someone who had the power in their blood, and therefore they should not be restricted by alignment.

[hymer]

@ Keledrath: It seems the warlock powers come from either the evil nether planes or from chaotic fey. Like a cleric can only be so far from their deity's alignment and retain their powers, something similar seems to apply to warlocks.

[Vhaidara]

I have never heard of any connection between warlocks and fey.

The reasoning I could think of was this (based on the source)
LE: Devils
NE: Either
CE: Demons
CN: Demons (or "Screw you" after making a deal with a devil)
CG: "Screw you" after getting power from Demons or "Seriously, screw you" after making a deal with a devil)

Note that these only apply to warlocks who actually got their power directly from a fiendish source. However, it is stated that warlocks can simply have the power from fiendish influence on their bloodline, ergo, they are born with the power.

I would maintain the rules for a first generation warlock. They chose the path, just like how a cleric chose their god. But for a second gen on it isn't really a choice. They were born with the power, does it make them evil for using it? Does a Sorcerer with a heritage feat have any kind of alignment requirements? No. Heritage should not affect alignment.

[hymer]

Quick look got me this:

"In fact, many warlocks are created by nonevil powers - wild or fey forces that can be every bit as dangerous as demons or devils."

Complete Arcane p. 6, near the top right corner. The description prior to this also seems to indicate that pacts are not really made by the warlock themselves ("Background: Warlocks are born, not made."). But that's something I'm not so sure is followed so much.

Plenty of their invocations are also more fey than demonic.

[jedipilot24]

I just realized that this could be hilarious combined with a Helm of Opposite Alignment. A Chaotic Neutral Warlock dons the helm, becomes Lawful Good, and refuses to get an Atonement spell even though he can no longer advance as a Warlock.
This could also provide an in-character reason to take Enlightened Spirit.

[Vhaidara]

Quick look got me this:

"In fact, many warlocks are created by nonevil powers - wild or fey forces that can be every bit as dangerous as demons or devils."

Complete Arcane p. 6, near the top right corner. The description prior to this also seems to indicate that pacts are not really made by the warlock themselves ("Background: Warlocks are born, not made."). But that's something I'm not so sure is followed so much.

Plenty of their invocations are also more fey than demonic.

Well, I guess that's a thing. Never noticed that line. Probably because the main warlock I've worked on for a few years (also a character in a few short stories) is a tiefling.

Still, earlier in that section: "...a warlock is not bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic". And yet they have restricted alignment. Sounds binding to me.

[Epsilon Rose]

I have never heard of any connection between warlocks and fey.

The reasoning I could think of was this (based on the source)
LE: Devils
NE: Either
CE: Demons
CN: Demons (or "Screw you" after making a deal with a devil)
CG: "Screw you" after getting power from Demons or "Seriously, screw you" after making a deal with a devil)

Note that these only apply to warlocks who actually got their power directly from a fiendish source. However, it is stated that warlocks can simply have the power from fiendish influence on their bloodline, ergo, they are born with the power.

I would maintain the rules for a first generation warlock. They chose the path, just like how a cleric chose their god. But for a second gen on it isn't really a choice. They were born with the power, does it make them evil for using it? Does a Sorcerer with a heritage feat have any kind of alignment requirements? No. Heritage should not affect alignment.

Given that Dictionary.com has the following as the orrigin of the word worlock:

before 900; Middle English warloghe, -lach, Old English wǣrloga oathbreaker, devil, equivalent to wǣr covenant + -loga betrayer (derivative of lēogan to lie)

Not only does you explanation make sense, it would actually be more inkeeping with their character...

[Particle_Man]

I just realized that this could be hilarious combined with a Helm of Opposite Alignment. A Chaotic Neutral Warlock dons the helm, becomes Lawful Good, and refuses to get an Atonement spell even though he can no longer advance as a Warlock.

Wouldn't that be CN to LN or else CE to LG?

Also, there are Fey Heritage Feats that work nicely for the Warlock, if you want to build up that DR/cold iron a bit.

[jedipilot24]

Wouldn't that be CN to LN or else CE to LG?
According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment), if you're Chaotic, you become Lawful and if you're Neutral, you become one of the extremes--either Good or Evil. And the change has to be as radical as possible. So I don't see the problem with Chaotic Neutral becoming Lawful Good or Lawful Evil.


Also, there are Fey Heritage Feats that work nicely for the Warlock, if you want to build up that DR/cold iron a bit.

Yup.

[Postmodernist]

I've always just ignored the alignment req on Warlock.

This. I find it absurd that such a murky, poorly defined and implemented game concept becomes a cornerstone for so many classes. Bards can't be lawful but rogues can? Monks have to be lawful when true neutral fits thematically? A barbarian can't be a lawful, honor-bound leader of his tribe? When D&D kept alignment as a hard and fast game concept, they lost a ton of opportunity to allow players to do what they wanted, which is the WHOLE IDEA BEHIND D&D. This is why you see the loosening of alignment restrictions in Eberron, the creation of the assorted Paladin variant classes, and the near wholesale removal of it in 4.0. Many (most?) DMs waive alignment restrictions entirely, and I can't think of many gamers who adhere to the hidebound absurdity of this ruleset.

[Phelix-Mu]

This. I find it absurd that such a murky, poorly defined and implemented game concept becomes a cornerstone for so many classes. Bards can't be lawful but rogues can? Monks have to be lawful when true neutral fits thematically? A barbarian can't be a lawful, honor-bound leader of his tribe? When D&D kept alignment as a hard and fast game concept, they lost a ton of opportunity to allow players to do what they wanted, which is the WHOLE IDEA BEHIND D&D. This is why you see the loosening of alignment restrictions in Eberron, the creation of the assorted Paladin variant classes, and the near wholesale removal of it in 4.0. Many (most?) DMs waive alignment restrictions entirely, and I can't think of many gamers who adhere to the hidebound absurdity of this ruleset.

I don't screw players for changing, but I do try to have alignment be relevant thematically.

For instance, if the warlock is feeling the call of LG for some reason, let's say an inspiring encounter with a hound archon called by the party cleric. Well, if the warlock wants to have this change effect role play (and it really must affect role play in some manner...not much a change of heart if nothing changes), then the warlock will have to study Celestia a bit, inquire about laws and strictures that before got the big "meh," and so forth. The warlock shouldn't flip coins to determine the best course, but attempt to cleave to certain rules or codes, and generally uphold the principles that s/he's adopted.

Same goes for a player that wants their warlock to start play LG. I don't mind, but I want there to be a believable explanation, a thematic component to the role play, and so forth.

In short, I don't see alignment as a big hulking restriction, but more of a guideline that can be used by players that want it to accentuate role play, to help them with characterization, or as something to strive for or rail against. It should make the game better, and, in my experience, can do so if not treated as quite the albatross that the rules often make it out to be.

[Epsilon Rose]

This. I find it absurd that such a murky, poorly defined and implemented game concept becomes a cornerstone for so many classes. Bards can't be lawful but rogues can? Monks have to be lawful when true neutral fits thematically? A barbarian can't be a lawful, honor-bound leader of his tribe? When D&D kept alignment as a hard and fast game concept, they lost a ton of opportunity to allow players to do what they wanted, which is the WHOLE IDEA BEHIND D&D. This is why you see the loosening of alignment restrictions in Eberron, the creation of the assorted Paladin variant classes, and the near wholesale removal of it in 4.0. Many (most?) DMs waive alignment restrictions entirely, and I can't think of many gamers who adhere to the hidebound absurdity of this ruleset.

I've actually had two dms refuse to allow non-evil assassins, because it would "break rp." of course, one of them won't allow any prestige classes before level 9.:smallsigh:

[Postmodernist]

I don't screw players for changing, but I do try to have alignment be relevant thematically.

For instance, if the warlock is feeling the call of LG for some reason, let's say an inspiring encounter with a hound archon called by the party cleric. Well, if the warlock wants to have this change effect role play (and it really must affect role play in some manner...not much a change of heart if nothing changes), then the warlock will have to study Celestia a bit, inquire about laws and strictures that before got the big "meh," and so forth. The warlock shouldn't flip coins to determine the best course, but attempt to cleave to certain rules or codes, and generally uphold the principles that s/he's adopted.

Same goes for a player that wants their warlock to start play LG. I don't mind, but I want there to be a believable explanation, a thematic component to the role play, and so forth.

In short, I don't see alignment as a big hulking restriction, but more of a guideline that can be used by players that want it to accentuate role play, to help them with characterization, or as something to strive for or rail against. It should make the game better, and, in my experience, can do so if not treated as quite the albatross that the rules often make it out to be.

I would classify you in the "highly reasonable DM" camp. Your last paragraph is an excellent illustration of what most should and many do with alignment.

[ShurikVch]

And yet they have restricted alignment. Sounds binding to me.
Alignment: Warlocks are often chaotic or evil (and more than a few are both). "Often" - not "always"

[Vhaidara]

If you look in the game rule information (with skills and HD), it says :Alignment: Any evil or any chaotic

[nedz]

No it doesn't. IIRC, Enlightened Spirit is "any good." So CG is a valid alignment, and allows Warlock progression.

Oops you're right, I was misled by Particle_Man's post. No excuses, I should have checked this for myself. It's still an awful PrC though due to the lack of choices.

[lytokk]

If you look in the game rule information (with skills and HD), it says :Alignment: Any evil or any chaotic

Unfortunately the fluff vs the raw is what's in conflict which got me to have to ask this question.

[Harrow]

AFAIK you only have to be evil or chaotic when you take levels. So you can be Neutral good most of the time, but every time you level up you just so happen to have a massive shift in philosophy that lasts until you finish spending the xp. It's not very graceful, but I can't see any reason why a 'fallen' warlock couldn't take more levels if they once again met the requirements to do so.

[Particle_Man]

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment), if you're Chaotic, you become Lawful and if you're Neutral, you become one of the extremes--either Good or Evil. And the change has to be as radical as possible. So I don't see the problem with Chaotic Neutral becoming Lawful Good or Lawful Evil.

"Neutral" means "neutral on both the good-evil axis and on the law-chaos axis at the same time". It is one of the 9 alignments a player can be.

"neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG)" would thus mean that if you are (true) neutral, you become one of the 4 extreme alignments.

However, if you are NE, for example, the opposite of that is NG. If you are LN, the opposite is CN. And so forth. So if you are CE, the opposite is LG and if you are CN, the opposite is LN.

[Falcon X]

Just going to throw this out there.

You could try Dragonfire Adept from Dragon Magic. Very similar, and arguably better, but they get their power from dragons of any alignment.

Flavor seems to be a big part of the Warlock type classes. It all depends on where you are getting your power. The books talk about 3 sources for at-will casters: Warlock (Chaotic fey), Warlock (Evil fiends), Dragonfire Adept (Any alignment Dragons).

They never talk about getting this type of power by Celestial (Any Good) means, though it seems entirely reasonable for a DM to allow it to be homebrewed up with flavor similar to Favored Soul.
Alternatively, Eladrin count as Chaotic-Good Celestial Fey, and it wouldn't be beyond them to give power to a NG or LG person. Still fits the given requirements.

[Kane0]

Flavor seems to be a big part of the Warlock type classes. It all depends on where you are getting your power. The books talk about 3 sources for at-will casters: Warlock (Chaotic fey), Warlock (Evil fiends), Dragonfire Adept (Any alignment Dragons).


If you use the 4e Warlock flavor they are based around accumulating and using occult knowledge, the sources being:
Fiends
Fey
'Far Realm' (not actually the same as the 3.5 version, but similar I guess)
The Underdark
Vestiges (ala Binder)

It wouldn't be too hard to expand those flavors to other alignment based outsiders, dragons, elementals, ancient magical civilizations, etc.

Opens up a lot of options, and makes it a lot easier to fit in other alignments (which 4e downplays anyway).

[nedz]

It's all fluff: what you can "power" your warlock with is limited only by your imagination. You could draw your power from dead flowers, pixie mushrooms or Cthulu; there is no mechanical reason for any of this. It's just that Dark powers and Fey are the most obvious, and have feat support.