Warlock. Uh-huh.
Let me break it down like this: I don't want to play bad guys. I don't want to play "tortured souls." If I play a less-than-good character, it's because of irresponsibility, not angst. So you tie, and continue to tie, the warlock to that flavor, and I continue to not play the class.
No big deal, right? Hey, look at the paladin. Except . . . well, there were some rumblings about non-lawful good paladins being in the base game. And the paladin's powers are pretty neutral, cosmetically. Only minor tweaks necessary. If everything about the warlock is dark and weird and demonic, fixing it will take a lot more work.
Besides, if I am going to include angst in a character, it's going to be over something the character actually did. Worrying about whether intrinsic traits are inevitably damning is so 19th century.
Warlocks are very cool rules-wise. I love how they introduce a whole new use of magic that isn't just spells.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the demonic thing either. I mean, technically sorcerers have some connection to dragon-blood or something, but you don't hear about that ALL THE F@$#^&# time. With warlocks, this background seems to be a primary focus.
Apparently, in some of the recent supplements they do talk about the dragon-blood thing all the time. Which is equally annoying.
ReplyDeleteBiological determinism is not what I want in my adventure fantasy.
I can only hope that all classes get strange flavor. Wouldn't it be neat if fighters were replaced with Jaguar Warriors? Rogues could be driven by intense kleptomania. It would bring all the fun of GURPS disadvantages into D&D.
ReplyDelete