Warenmo Spellfist:

[Munkenmo]

Coming Soon

[flipstre]

Coming Soon

Looking forward to this... Don't disappoint the crowd Munkenmo...

We are Legion. We are many...(or potentially just me).... We are waiting...

[MadCookieQueen]

FYI: By 3.5 genre Warlocks can only be Chaotic or Evil Alignments...unless Lawful Evil happens...you wont' be getting a Warlock/Monk combo.

[Failedlegend]

FYI: By 3.5 genre Warlocks can only be Chaotic or Evil Alignments...unless Lawful Evil happens...you wont' be getting a Warlock/Monk combo.

Sorry Queen I double checked this in both my physical copy of Complete Arcane and an Errata'd CA PDF, Warlocks aren't all Evil only "stereotypically". Especially the ones that make pacts with LG, LN, N, G, NG or CG beings.

Note the key word "often" before chaotic or evil

[ToastyFred]

Sorry Queen I double checked this in both my physical copy of Complete Arcane and an Errata'd CA PDF, Warlocks have no alignment restrictions.

WRONG.

CA, pg 7, left-hand column, near the top, it says:

Alignment: Any evil or any chaotic.

So, yes Virginia, there ARE alignment restrictions for a Warlock.

Thank you, come again.

[UurlockYgmeov]

SO does this build require +10 tomes for all non-essential skills?

I suggest halfling as core race for this build.... seriously - because the rock in general AND you can participate in the Halfling Summer Games!

Kobold approves this post!

[Failedlegend]

WRONG.

CA, pg 7, left-hand column, near the top, it says: Alignment: Any chaotic or evil



So, yes Virginia, there ARE alignment restrictions for a Warlock.

Thank you, come again.

Actually all that says to me is there's a huge contradiction between Pg.6&7 meaning the PnP book is useless so Instead it comes down to you to explain why a warlock who makes a pact with a lawful good creature such as Bahamut or a celestial/angel shouldn't be able to be himself LG.

After you answer that question look at the crimson legion who are lawful good Paladin/Warlocks that have a pact with Amodeus so their LG despite having an evil pact

So based on the lore and not because somebody added in the alignment restriction despite the lore there's no reason to limit Warlock to specific alignments and luckily since its not limited you can apply your personal bias to locks when you make one.

[Krelar]

Actually all that says to me is there's a huge contradiction between Pg.6&7 meaning the PnP book is useless so Instead it comes down to you to explain why a warlock who makes a pact with a lawful good creature such as Bahamut or a celestial/angel should to be able to be himself LG.

After you answer that question look at the crimson legion who are lawful good Paladin/Warlocks that have a pact with Amodeus so their LG despite having an evil pact

So based on the lore and not because somebody added in the alignment restriction despite the lore there's no reason to limit Warlock to specific alignments and luckily since its not limited you can apply your personal bias to locks when you make one.

Also the dev's have already said that will probably not be any alignment restrictions.

[MadCookieQueen]

Also the dev's have already said that will probably not be any alignment restrictions.

He also said "just not as we think" That could mean a multitude of things. So we may get Neutral Good as an option (awkward really).

There is no way in all of the Seven Hells they should even consider Lawful Good...heck no! The types of being they make pacts with do not stem from lawful good (the big ones being Devils and Fey)

[ToastyFred]

Actually all that says to me is there's a huge contradiction between Pg.6&7

There's no contradiction at all. You're just reading it that way because it fits your agenda. For sure, the stuff on page 6 could have been written a little more clearly, but as written, there aren't any technical contradictions with what's written on page 7.

After you answer that question look at the crimson legion who are lawful good Paladin/Warlocks that have a pact with Amodeus so their LG despite having an evil pact

So based on the lore...

This is a bunch of 4th Edition nonsense, isn't it?


[edit] I just read that Dragon Magazine article you posted in another thread. All I've got to say is I see why Dragon stopped being published. That article was ridiculous and only the most Monty Haulish of DMs would EVER allow something like that in their game. Stupid, stupid, idea. Stupid. [edit]

[MadCookieQueen]

This is a bunch of 4th Edition nonsense, isn't it?


[edit] I just read that Dragon Magazine article you posted in another thread. All I've got to say is I see why Dragon stopped being published. That article was ridiculous and only the most Monty Haulish of DMs would EVER allow something like that in their game. Stupid, stupid, idea. Stupid. [edit]

One of the biggest glaring issues with 4th edition was the alignment removal. We have to remember that 4th edition was badly done in a way to dumb down the system to encourage the WoW (notice how they have a Crimson Legion) crowd to start playing.

Ultimately 4th edition was considered a failure and as quickly as it showed up, it was canned.

personally, I don't' consider Dragon magazine to be WotC genre gospel. If WotC wants it that way they would put it in an official book.

[ToastyFred]

One of the biggest glaring issues with 4th edition was the alignment removal. We have to remember that 4th edition was badly done in a way to dumb down the system to encourage the WoW (notice how they have a Crimson Legion) crowd to start playing.

Ultimately 4th edition was considered a failure and as quickly as it showed up, it was canned.

personally, I don't' consider Dragon magazine to be WotC genre gospel. If WotC wants it that way they would put it in an official book.

Yep.

[G_Lich]

To be fair, shadar-kai first made an appearance in dragon magazine. IMO D&D's cooler more inventive content can come from it. They didn't exactly cross check everything for balance though.

[Failedlegend]

He also said "just not as we think" That could mean a multitude of things. So we may get Neutral Good as an option (awkward really).

There is no way in all of the Seven Hells they should even consider Lawful Good...heck no! The types of being they make pacts with do not stem from lawful good (the big ones being Devils and Fey)

Warlocks can make pacts with anyone powerful enough, where does it say they can only make pacts with evil/chaotic powers?

This is a bunch of 4th Edition nonsense, isn't it?

Dragon Magazine article you posted in another thread. It's Stupid

The article I posted is from 4e yes but the Crimson Legions did exist in 3rd edition I just can't link illegal sites here.

One of the biggest glaring issues with 4th edition was the alignment removal. We have to remember that 4th edition was badly done in a way to dumb down the system to encourage the WoW (notice how they have a Crimson Legion) crowd to start playing.

1. Alignment was not removed, just the alignment restrictions were which I was 100% in favor of (note: I don't play 4e anymore as I agree it was flawed but it did have alot of GREAT ideas)...restricting alignment has NEVER made sense...why is My Paladin of a Neutral God still Lawful Good. Actually they added a 10th alignment "Unaligned" which was really useful since Neutral in 3rd edition always had two different views of what neutral is.

Sidenote: WotC also relaxed alignment restrictions in various books during 3rd edition.

2. No it had nothing to do with the "WoW" crowd and frankly I have no idea where this argument came from. (BTW I know thje arguments you will throw at this and I've already been through this song and dance so don't bother...can fit almost anything from 3e into a power card and use the 4e terminology that angers people so much with 3e just fine)

3. No it wasn't to "dumb it down" the main goal of 4e was to fix the issue where Casters sucked at low levels and ruled at high levels with non-casters being the opposite, and frankly they did a pretty good job of succeeding at that they just did a bunch of weird unrealted changes that made no sense.

4. The Crimson Legion in Wow and DnD have NOTHING thematically in common and CMIIW but WoW was created in 2004 which was after 3rd edition was dropped support wise thus the crimson legion in DnD existed before WoW. (I have no idea if the Crimson legion was in anything sooner than 3e though)

Ultimately 4th edition was considered a failure and as quickly as it showed up, it was canned.

Actually 3/3.5e was supported by WotC from 2000 - 2003, 4e was supported from 2008 - 2011 so both managed 3 years, although to be fair Pathfinder (aka 3.75) was officially released in in 2009 and is still actively supported today so if you include PF 3rd edition has a good 9 years of active support :P (2000-2003, 2009 - 2015)

personally, I don't' consider Dragon magazine to be WotC genre gospel. If WotC wants it that way they would put it in an official book.

Actually Dragon Magazine was only availibe legally if you were signed up for their dragon club thing so it was more special than the books...in WotCs eyes

[Drakos]

Actually all that says to me is there's a huge contradiction between Pg.6&7 meaning the PnP book is useless so Instead it comes down to you to explain why a warlock who makes a pact with a lawful good creature such as Bahamut or a celestial/angel shouldn't be able to be himself LG.

After you answer that question look at the crimson legion who are lawful good Paladin/Warlocks that have a pact with Amodeus so their LG despite having an evil pact

So based on the lore and not because somebody added in the alignment restriction despite the lore there's no reason to limit Warlock to specific alignments and luckily since its not limited you can apply your personal bias to locks when you make one.

There is no contradiction, and if there were pg. 7 would take precidence because it is under the "Game Rule Information" section. The pg 6 stuff is in the fluff section.

[Drakos]

Also the dev's have already said that will probably not be any alignment restrictions.

Key word "Probably".

[Munkenmo]

You guys can argue about alignment all you want, I don't give a ****. One way or another I'm making Warenmo Spellfist, an unarmed warlock.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You guys can argue about alignment all you want, I don't give a ****. One way or another I'm making Warenmo Spellfist, an unarmed warlock.

good for you! Halfling of course!

[Failedlegend]

There is no contradiction, and if there were pg. 7 would take precidence because it is under the "Game Rule Information" section. The pg 6 stuff is in the fluff section.

That's your opinion, I've always been a flavour/lore/story first DM and gravitate to like minded DMs as a player so MY opinion is that "flufF" is the important part. There's no logical reason that a Warlock that makes a pact with Bahamut (LG Dragon God) can't himself be Lawful Good or a Paladin who makes a pact with an Lawful Evil God like Asmodeus but turns around and uses that power against him (This is DnD canon their called the Crimson Legion)

[Zachski]

Dungeons and Dragons without fluff is just a math quiz.