Do warlocks fit into the Forgotten Realms?

[NESchampion]

That's the real kicker here. Many, possibly most, members of ALFA don't have faith in ALFA, the institution. You guys 'expect' people to multiclass a level of warlock just to PG that +4 dex. Worse, you think they'll get away with it. It's pretty sad really, when you can't trust your own community to enforce the guidelines of ethical roleplay.

Pretty much my thoughts. Like it or not, some players will always try to exploit a system or roll the best character or go for the best class combos; you can restrict to hell and back, and you'll be left with still holes and less options.

What next? No Barbarian Clerics Half-Orcs? What about Rogue Ranger halflings?

[Mord]

No, it's not just about not having the faith in the playerbase. Multiclassing to a warlock from another class makes no sense unless the PC somehow through IC means have made contact with an infernal or divine entity of some kind and somehow made a trade for those powers, so such an endeavor almost becomes like a PrC quest. You can't simply just become a warlock like how you roleplay training to multiclass to fighter, it doesn't work that way. Also, if a PC starts with warlock levels, the PC should be limited to the same amount of levels in the multiclass as he has warlock levels, although doing so would be frowned upon I'd think.

[White Warlock]

No, it's not just about not having the faith in the playerbase. Multiclassing to a warlock from another class makes no sense unless the PC somehow through IC means have made contact with an infernal or divine entity of some kind and somehow made a trade for those powers, so such an endeavor almost becomes like a PrC quest. You can't simply just become a warlock like how you roleplay training to multiclass to fighter, it doesn't work that way. Also, if a PC starts with warlock levels, the PC should be limited to the same amount of levels in the multiclass as he has warlock levels, although doing so would be frowned upon I'd think.

Actually Mordekai, that's a personal interpretation. Paladins can multiclass, and they very much fit a similar bill as 'some' warlocks do. And i do emphasize some, because ... as indicated in the CA, some obtain it in much the same way a sorcerer finds himself 'born' with the ability. However, in the warlock's case it's, "my daddy made a pact, and i'm stuck with the bill."

There is simply no acceptable warlocks vs fighters comparison. If you're going to compare, do so against some class that also gets their balls in a sling. In short, if a paladin can get away with it, so should a warlock... nooblet.

[Lord Kilburn]

No, it's not just about not having the faith in the playerbase. Multiclassing to a warlock from another class makes no sense unless the PC somehow through IC means have made contact with an infernal or divine entity of some kind and somehow made a trade for those powers, so such an endeavor almost becomes like a PrC quest.

Which is not a bad idea for a character. What about just killing Leaps and Bounds? I think that's where most of the problem comes from.

[Ronan]

As far as this argument goes about Larloch, we can argue all day long he is or is not a warlock.

No, we can't. Anyone with a bit of knowledge about FR's history and canon can tell you that he is not a Warlock. Larloch, like all other Netherese arcansists, is a book-mage, a wizard. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have enough understanding of FR to be arguing in this thread, and should probably go find something else to do.

Furthermore, in the entire history of the weave, there have never been spellcasters which resemble CA's warlocks. Now we could say this is because warlocks are rarer and more likely to hide their powers. This made the existing warlocks pass themselves off as wizards or sorcerers or whatever, so they've kept themselves out of history, thats fine. But to say there have been warlock-like things in published FR is a bit ignorant. There have been sorcerers who drew their power from demonic blood or pacts, but thats supposed to be a "normal" and understood source of sorcerous powers. Again we could say some of these sorcerers were infact warlocks, but recognize that for what it is, retroactive changing of history and canon.

There is even a recent series of novels where the protagonists trades a bit of himself and his soul with that of an Eladrin for power, just as a warlock might, but he doesn't gain anything resembling warlock powers. He gains the ability to cast elven high magic without a circle of other high magi, an utterly different thing. Its also revealed in this series that some of the mages who shaped the history of the Realms did the same using demons instead of eladrin, and again, they were book-mages and wizards, not warlocks.

[Mord]

Yes, it is a personal interpretation which I think should be implemented in ALFA to prevent people from simply picking a warlock level because it is the convenient thing to do.

[NESchampion]

No, it's not just about not having the faith in the playerbase. Multiclassing to a warlock from another class makes no sense unless the PC somehow through IC means have made contact with an infernal or divine entity of some kind and somehow made a trade for those powers, so such an endeavor almost becomes like a PrC quest.

So then whats the problem? Simple solution - when a character does such a quest, put a posting in the DM forums that they completed a quest to become a Warlock after lvl 1, and tada, all DMs know that person did it legitimately. If a DM spots one of their players took a level of Warlock without having proper reasoning behind it, strip the level and tell them to pick again or punish them. Simple, effective, and done.

Seems more like a mistrust of players and DMs: You can't hardcode every game aspect to be unexploitable, so trust DMs and players to be responsible. You might be surprised that the sky won't be falling full of Warlock's everywhere.

[Mord]

No, it's not just about not having the faith in the playerbase. Multiclassing to a warlock from another class makes no sense unless the PC somehow through IC means have made contact with an infernal or divine entity of some kind and somehow made a trade for those powers, so such an endeavor almost becomes like a PrC quest.

Which is not a bad idea for a character. What about just killing Leaps and Bounds? I think that's where most of the problem comes from.

Doing so would be like killing the shield spell from a mage's repertoire, why compromise when you can adapt.

[Wild Wombat]

That's the real kicker here. Many, possibly most, members of ALFA don't have faith in ALFA, the institution. You guys 'expect' people to multiclass a level of warlock just to PG that +4 dex. Worse, you think they'll get away with it. It's pretty sad really, when you can't trust your own community to enforce the guidelines of ethical roleplay.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Well, maybe you are right. I don't trust myself not to do it.

I just don't get this place sometimes. If you don't want something done, make it explicitly against the rules. Or better yet, just make it impossible to do. Remove the temptation and/or the ability to do the wrong thing. What the hell is wrong with that?

The only reason that I can think of that we wouldn't do this is because we want to be able to point the PGer finger at people that do something that is perfectly legal.

[Mikayla]

As PA I am not going to remove the Warlock from the list of available classes when we move to NWN2, assuming I am still PA at that time. If people abuse the Warlock's powers then we will deal with that on an individual basis, just like we deal with people who abuse other classes, such as taking a level of Sorceror or Wizard just to read scrolls, or a level of Ranger just to use two weapons, or whatever. The prevailing thought in ALFA is and hopefully shall remain that we give our fellow community the benefit of the doubt and we take each case individually. There are exceptions of course, our rule-book and charter are filled with rules that apply across the board, but on an issue like this, I prefer to trust my fellow ALFAns and punish only those who are shown to be abusers.

Naturally, this position can be overruled if a majority of Admin decide otherwise, or if there is a new PA who thinks differently than I. But for now, the above represents the position of the PA. Thank you.

[Veilan]

I don't really care,

but frankly I don't see the necessity. If you want powers from an evil or chaotic being, become a cleric.

Weave's weave, don't really need any more fanboi'd schtuff... and if Ronan is making an argument that it should be left out, he'll likely have a good reason - and not knowing how to treat them ICly and having no good history seems a real possible meta thing and immersion breaker.

I hope it won't happen, and I'm not gonna cry either way.

[White Warlock]

Which is not a bad idea for a character. What about just killing Leaps and Bounds? I think that's where most of the problem comes from.

lol, you're kidding, right?

poke poke

Anyone with a bit of knowledge about FR's history and canon can tell you that he is not a Warlock. Larloch, like all other Netherese arcansists, is a book-mage, a wizard. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have enough understanding of FR to be arguing in this thread, and should probably go find something else to do.

lol, resorting to cutdowns now, eh?

I think you're missing my point. I am aware that Warlock's Crypt is a misinterpretaton of Larloch's Crypt, although i must admit i was only recently educated on this. Regardless, my point is that they came up with the statement he was a 'warlock.' This means it's in the language, and thus such beings must somehow invariably exist somewhere in Faerun, and likely within the general area of the Sword Coast.

Ah well, look... i've been playing D&D since 1978 and watched FR develop from the Dalelands on. I know the development of D&D, and also know that changes occurred in the interpretation of FR as time went by and changes in the game were presented. The hardships encountered here in these discussions, are due to dogmatism.

When the FRCS came out, it was just the latest, most complete version of FR, and it entailed character concepts that... guess what... no longer exist in D&D 3.5. In fact, the earlier presentation of FR information was in A&D 2nd Edition, and suddenly... when the later FRCS was released, Specialty Priests went *poof*.

The Forgotten Realms was fleshed out based on the rules that existed at the time. But, times change. New character concepts have come out since the last FRCS release, and you won't find those character concepts anywhere in canon. Does that mean they don't exist, or never existed, or does it simply mean the game changed, evolved?

Forgotten Realms became a larger campaign concept when AD&D 2nd edition was created, and then the campain setting (FRCS) was released at the time D&D 3.0 ruleset was introduced. But the fun thing was, all the campaign modules previously, were still in either AD&D 1st edition, or AD&D 2nd edition. So character concepts were different, numbers were different, Thac0 was still in, etc.

Faerun, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign, has evolved over time. 3.5 presents things that are 'not' in FRCS, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in Faerun... it just means the FRCS is out of date.

As am i

[White Warlock]

but frankly I don't see the necessity. If you want powers from an evil or chaotic being, become a cleric.

A cleric doesn't capture the character concept that a warlock presents. I mean, were i to create a character concept based on my login, wouldn't I want to aim for something fitting the description? People have character concepts in their mind, and sometimes the choices presented don't fit their character concepts. So they either improvise, or wait until WoTC provides a concept that works for them. Me, knowing there is a character concept called warlock, and for me to choose something other than that to represent my login... just doesn't click.

It's an option that doesn't require a mass of scripts to support it (like those friggin' monstrous races). It just requires people to 'earnestly' roleplay them. In truth, warlocks provide potentially interesting character concepts.

Okay, i'm done. Let me sleep.

[Mikayla]

WW:

In truth, warlocks provide potentially interesting character concepts.

Just like drow.

It's fun when the worm turns.

All joking aside, I am all in-favor of keeping the Warlock class in until and unless its shown to be broken. And considering Clerics and such..well..they would have to be REALLY broken.

[AlmightyTDawg]

On the name and title thing, I'm sorry Whitey but I'm gonna go with the others here. The way I look at the title thing, is something like a reverse implementation of the old "Alaskan word for snow" problem. Now realistically, as I had it explained to me one day by a surprisingly lucid chap bombed off his keister, it's actually having to do with suffixes and prefixes and derivative constructions, but ignore reality for a second. Imagine that there are say 50 words for snow all with distinct subtle meanings.

The way I look at it WotC style, that was never really the case in FR - they were all just synonyms so bards and cheeky english-major types didn't have to say "magic-user" over and over again (omg pre-3.0 represent!). So you've got all these terms, and then some jackfool invents the PrC concept, and another fool tells Dragon Magazine about it, and then to compete with this ever-rising clamor for more obscure powers WotC implements this bizarre "there must be a minimum of 9 PrCs per supplement" rule among writers, and some writers decide to take an Office Space-like "do you really want an employee only wearing the minimum amount of flair" policy.

And then bam, we start adding these subtle meanings to the WotC word-space for "magic-user" where previously it was just a tool for literary sexiness. As I've understood it from past implementations, the closest you'd get is that warlock has in traditional source materials been a "male counterpart" of witch, which has often been one of those oft-rumored or example "make your own" quasi-class - think back to the old 2E "Complete Mage's Handbook" type stuff, and so on. As it presents to FR canon, I believe all mentions, except for the one name drop in a recent sourcebook, have been "bard" issues.