Class Themes

[CosmicOrderV]

Some of the logic around certain class themes, and the mechanics meant to reinforce them, have me squint a little bit. I think this naturally arises from D&D's varying explanations from edition to edition, about what exactly each class is. And fair disclaimer, this might be a conversation inspired by the prospect of HAK's.

Warlocks are those that make a pact with greater powers. They don't have to sympathize with, or even like, their patron, they just have to be willing to uphold the pact. This grants them quirky magical abilities, arcane in nature, but granted like divine magic. Meaning those eldritch powers tend to follow a theme, just like how clerics of certain domains follow a theme. Warlocks can worship whoever, and be whatever alignment. So, if this is the case, why don't we see chaotic good type celestial warlocks, or elder evil pacts?

Clerics are those that have formed a more sympathetic connection to their greater power. They identify with the ideology, and are granted power from the being that holds that ideology. The specific ideology (or domain) that a deity may hold, brings with it a certain magical flair. Clerics have to have an alignment similar to their deity's.

Paladins are... warriors... who fight for justice, in the service... of a goodly deity? Doesn't that fall under the jurisdiction of the cleric? Just multi-class into fighter. There you go, Goodly Divine Warrior. Okay, but for argument's sake let's take a more general approach to it. Maybe Paladins don't directly work for a deity, even if they might identify with one. Paladins are then those that more get their power from the nebulous mantle of 'Good' that they seek to uphold. So they have to be good. Lawful good, even.

Then there's Blackguard. It's called the anti-paladin, described as someone who has made some sort of deal with evil outsiders. So it's supposed to be like the paladin... embodying nebulous evil? The general evil alignment requirement makes sense here. But wait, how come paladin isn't just a general Good alignment requirement? Plus, isn't cavorting with evil outsiders the shtick of warlocks? So are they martial warlocks, or anti-paladins? Because neither one seems to fit super well. Warlocks are already a thing, and paladins are basically just clerics.

Admittedly, I put this in in Feedback because it seemed like a lot to put in a suggestion thread. Plus, I'm not really sure how to fix this, but I do honestly think the themes behind these classes could be spruced up with improved performance and mechanics.

Maybe a Hex Blade type of path for the warlock, to represent those who want martial eldritch power, rather than forcing those characters to piggy back off Paladin and Blackguard?

Paladin requirements changed to any Good, reflecting the blackguard any evil alignment?

Celestial and Elder Evil pacts for warlock, to holistically represent all entities that might create pacts with mortals?


Maybe some of you have better ideas!

[magistrasa]

Somewhere, from someone, I saw some discourse about potential "celestial warlocks" and how reasonably they could exist. The bit that stuck out most to me in that conversation was that one side of the discussion said (and I'm paraphrasing from a hazy memory), a celestial would never make a pact with a mortal being because that's not a good-aligned thing to do, and that binding someone's soul to an agreement was not the modus operandi of an angel. I remember that because I've thought about it a lot since I read it, and I'm not wholly convinced that would be the case! I feel like the terms of a warlock pact are nonspecific enough to lend flexibility to the circumstances, and remove some of the moral quandries a "soul-binding agreement" might come with. Not only that, but there's agency on the part of the warlock that I think disqualifies entering the pact from being evil by default. Evil if entered to further evil aims, sure, but if you're borrowing the power of a celestial to bring justice to evildoers, how is that wrong? And if a celestial had the opportunity to grant this power to a devoted being - especially one who has taken what basically amounts to an oath to uphold that celestial's ideals - would facilitating that person's quest for power not be the "good" thing to do? I certainly don't think it'd be bad. Celestial warlocks would just be weird paladins. More magical, less martial. I think that could be fun. Would maybe lead to interesting roleplay too, if paladins wanted to multiclass with celestial warlock or something.

[Fionn]

a celestial would never make a pact with a mortal being because that's not a good-aligned thing to do, and that binding someone's soul to an agreement was not the modus operandi of an angel.

Not a Supernatural fan are you

[Basementfellow]

I'm not sure a Celestial would so readily hand out magic to any mortal that happens to make contact with them, even if they seem to mean well. Power corrupts, after all. Seems like they'd want the prospective pact-maker to truly devote themselves to the doctrines of Good, and help people on their own accord. I think they'd more likely encourage said mortal to take action, study theology, pray, learn life lessons, et cetera -- perhaps someday earn power through sheer dedication and do-goodery -- than simply offer up a quick and easy path.

Would absolutely love to see a Great Old One pact, though.

[DM Avalon Soul]

Actually, there is support in the core of 3.5 for Warlocks to have pacts with Celestials. Admittedly, there's a whole different ball of wax involved but such does exist. I BELIEVE Complete Mage or (the secondary Complete book for Arcane casters) would have more details and feats tying to it.

Arelith specifically it is less likely, I am simply pointing out that in the overall system off which this is all based, Warlocks of a Celestial pact DO exist, so likely in such pacts things like what Basement fellow noted , earning power rather than having itsimply granted would be there.

I'm not speaking officially so much as just providing what I know from the books!

[Hazard]

It's certainly not something that seems appropriate to the setting. Almost anything is possible but a celestial warlock sounds like a very rare thing that should be a 5% request.

IIRC one way for a celestial warlock to get their powers is a dying angel transferring their soul (powers and memories included) into a mortal of their choosing (probably someone who has already proven themselves). That doesn't really seem like the typical ez-pact, especially since normal warlocks sacrifice a lot for their powers, not just in being pacted to evil and slowly corrupting themselves each time they use evil magic (and become more evil) such as summoning demons/devils/yugoloths, but by stigma. A celestial warlock would have none of that, instead creating good and being praised and welcomed by normal society.

It would very much take away the majority of the challenge of playing something like a warlock. I wouldn't want to see this become a normal thing, just like I don't want to see goody-goody drow/monsters become a normal thing, or good necromancers.

Possible? Yes. But I think things like that are best kept behind rewards or DM permission to prevent things from just getting silly.

[Ebonstar]

Some of the logic around certain class themes, and the mechanics meant to reinforce them, have me squint a little bit. I think this naturally arises from D&D's varying explanations from edition to edition, about what exactly each class is. And fair disclaimer, this might be a conversation inspired by the prospect of HAK's.

Warlocks are those that make a pact with greater powers. They don't have to sympathize with, or even like, their patron, they just have to be willing to uphold the pact. This grants them quirky magical abilities, arcane in nature, but granted like divine magic. Meaning those eldritch powers tend to follow a theme, just like how clerics of certain domains follow a theme. Warlocks can worship whoever, and be whatever alignment. So, if this is the case, why don't we see chaotic good type celestial warlocks, or elder evil pacts?

Clerics are those that have formed a more sympathetic connection to their greater power. They identify with the ideology, and are granted power from the being that holds that ideology. The specific ideology (or domain) that a deity may hold, brings with it a certain magical flair. Clerics have to have an alignment similar to their deity's.

Paladins are... warriors... who fight for justice, in the service... of a goodly deity? Doesn't that fall under the jurisdiction of the cleric? Just multi-class into fighter. There you go, Goodly Divine Warrior. Okay, but for argument's sake let's take a more general approach to it. Maybe Paladins don't directly work for a deity, even if they might identify with one. Paladins are then those that more get their power from the nebulous mantle of 'Good' that they seek to uphold. So they have to be good. Lawful good, even.

Then there's Blackguard. It's called the anti-paladin, described as someone who has made some sort of deal with evil outsiders. So it's supposed to be like the paladin... embodying nebulous evil? The general evil alignment requirement makes sense here. But wait, how come paladin isn't just a general Good alignment requirement? Plus, isn't cavorting with evil outsiders the shtick of warlocks? So are they martial warlocks, or anti-paladins? Because neither one seems to fit super well. Warlocks are already a thing, and paladins are basically just clerics.

Admittedly, I put this in in Feedback because it seemed like a lot to put in a suggestion thread. Plus, I'm not really sure how to fix this, but I do honestly think the themes behind these classes could be spruced up with improved performance and mechanics.

Maybe a Hex Blade type of path for the warlock, to represent those who want martial eldritch power, rather than forcing those characters to piggy back off Paladin and Blackguard?

Paladin requirements changed to any Good, reflecting the blackguard any evil alignment?

Celestial and Elder Evil pacts for warlock, to holistically represent all entities that might create pacts with mortals?


Maybe some of you have better ideas!

clerics are the voices of their diety, paladins or blackguards are the blades of their dieties.
if you piss off the voice he can smite you by channeling his dieties wrath.
if you piss off the blade he may hunt you across the continent and beat you into oblivion and then bring you back to face the voice

the blackguard on the other hand should not be looked at as a base style class. it is a prestige class for a reason afterall. To reward the truly despicable vile corrupted followers of evil no matter which diety.

if we get all alignment paladins from the other thread, then you can have the showdown of dark CE paladin blackguard vs light LG paladin CoT go head to head in the battles for the ages with the bragging rights of their chosen diety being the best as the outcome.

and as clerics go diety weapon preference being used would give added flair to the class as well. in the novel pool of radiance, the young cleric asked his mentor why he had to train with all weapons, and the scars were shown from each weapon not the chosen one fo Tyr outlined in the pale shimmering blue or something similar, as he explains why they use warhammers in combat.

any celestial agreements would have to be a 5% imo as it wouldnt be a pact since angels dont do such things ( supernatural made their own rules)

[TimeAdept]

everyone who thinks celestials don't make bonds and agreements with mortals should remember that the Book of Exalted Deeds exists and is literally an entire book about the idea of celestials of all alignments making pactsand agreements and bonds with mortals

is this right for arelith? up to the devs, but no one should be acting like this is some heretofore unseen idea or unsupported in the lore.

[magistrasa]

The fact that paladins and clerics are seen as different aspects of a deity's will manifest in the world honestly just makes it more baffling that paladins are restricted to Lawful Good. Evil clerics exist, y'all. Hell, chaotic neutral clerics exist. They got the "voice," but do those gods just not get "blades?"

The fact that the powers used by Blackguards are like. Explicitly fiendish. Makes for some weird flavor imo if you're a blackguard worshipping Shar or Vhaeraun or some other evil deity who's got little to do fiends. So more thematic cohesion would be nice for those guys. If paladin got opened up, hopefully it comes with some kinda negative energy smite option for evil paladins - and maybe neutral paladins could use a magic damage smite or something? I don't know if/how that would balance out between them, admittedly. Negative energy smite is probably lackluster since it's so easy to be immune to. And I don't even know what alignment neutral paladins should be able to smite. It's 9am and I'm just spitballing here.

[CosmicOrderV]

A "blade" of a deity, isn't really a thing. Neither is a "voice". Anyone can be a blade for a cause. You hand them a sword, indoctrinate them with a set of beliefs, and now they're the "blade" of a god. Doesn't really mean anything. I'm hoping to provoke a more thoughtful, thorough examination of what these classes represent.

Additionally, there are celestials other than LG angels. The hyperfocus on that bit in respects to limiting celestial pacts strikes me as short sighted, when we have sourcebooks already stating that celestial warlocks can be a thing, in addition to chaotic good celestials, who would definitely be the type to dole out pacts. It might be rare, sure. I'm not going to argue that. I would personally say something like a normal reward, and 20RPR. But still, all these class themes are a little jumbled at the moment, and my proposed edits would at least straighten them out.

[Hazard]

There's only been one post so far against the idea that celestials would grant a pact.

[Baron Saturday]

What would you consider the "theme" (i.e. conjuration for fiendlocks and enchantment for feylocks) of a Celestial-pact warlock to be? What would its spell list look like? Keeping in mind that using spells outside the bard list tends to be sorta janky, at least until haks are introduced.

[The Incredulous Bulk]

I'm not in favor of adding celestial warlocks, though I'd love to see the Star Pact become an option. With haks, there is a lot that one can add.

[Jagel]

Celestial pacted warlocks too easily end up as one dimensional noblebright characters.

[Baron Saturday]

I'm not in favor of adding celestial warlocks, though I'd love to see the Star Pact become an option. With haks, there is a lot that one can add.

So, same questions, but for Star Pacts: What's their theme? What role would they fill? What would their spell list look like?

Seeing as this is all speculative anyhow, there's no harm in brainstorming.

[MissEvelyn]

I would actually like the Fey Pact to be expanded upon, so that a Warlock (Feylock?) character gets to choose between Seelie and the Unseelie court, with different benefits to both.
Like with the Fiend Warlock, the benefits would be similar albeit slightly different. But it would further expand upon Warlocks and add some flavor to them.

[Basementfellow]

So, same questions, but for Star Pacts: What's their theme? What role would they fill? What would their spell list look like?

Seeing as this is all speculative anyhow, there's no harm in brainstorming.

I think their theme oughta be something along the lines of "uncovering that which cannot be known", ya feel me? Perhaps they'd fill more of a supportive role, going heavy into Divination. Although that'd leave them with few interesting combat options. Supplement it with some Illusion spells, maybe? To signify the haunting visions that come to those touched by the Elder Evils. Maybe this could manifest as a short-lived summoning ability. The Warlock could call forth phantasms of myriad aberrations and misshapen undead to attack and inflict madness upon their enemies -- then they'd vanish, as though they were but a nightmare.

Maybe a bit too on-the-nose, though. May as well give 'em Evards at that point.

[Cybernet21]

Paladins always follow a strict code so they need to be Lawful imho.

Opening up paladins to be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good would definetly open interesting RP and let people do paladin characters that have some...doubtful methods without much of a worry.Wich i like as a concept really,Oath of Vengeance type of paladins like D&D 5th edition.

But i really think if something must change paladins should stay either LN or LG and not get LE as a possibilty.

[CosmicOrderV]

Yeah, evil alignments for paladins are already accounted for anyways, in the way that the classes are setup at the moment. Blackguard fills that role, and it has an any Evil requirement. That's why it seems to make sense that Paladin requirements would be an any Good.

[Basementfellow]

Yeah, evil alignments for paladins are already accounted for anyways, in the way that the classes are setup at the moment. Blackguard fills that role, and it has an any Evil requirement. That's why it seems to make sense that Paladin requirements would be an any Good.

Blackguard is a very different class. I've said this before, but it's more like a melee Warlock or something. There's not much room for interpretation with their alignment, either, unlike Paladins -- they summon fiends and raise undead. Explicitly evil. More than that, they just feel... slightly underwhelming, in comparison. At least mechanically. Same for Divine Champion.

In the same sense that every god has Clerics, I don't see why any god wouldn't have Paladins. They all have dogmas, and I'd assume they all have plenty of worthy followers willing to swear themselves in.

[Sea Shanties]

I'm not in favor of adding celestial warlocks, though I'd love to see the Star Pact become an option. With haks, there is a lot that one can add.

So, same questions, but for Star Pacts: What's their theme? What role would they fill? What would their spell list look like?

Seeing as this is all speculative anyhow, there's no harm in brainstorming.

Star pacts would of course need access to Weird and Evards and be able to summon Slaad. Maybe Feeblemind, Phantasmal Killer, other spells symbolizing inflicting madness on their opponents.

What I would like to see for them (and possibly Fey Pact 2.0) would be a revised warlock class built on sorcerer instead of bard and using weavemaster mechanics but drastically curate the spells they have access to.

[The Incredulous Bulk]

Alternatively, if we add custom content, we can just give them new spells (see last sentence of my previous comment).

I'm against good warlocks. They are, or at any rate long have been, a very powerful class. Allowing them to walk around freely in the open and consort with Team Good seems problematic to me, and at any rate discourages playing non-good ones.

[Cybernet21]

Yeah, evil alignments for paladins are already accounted for anyways, in the way that the classes are setup at the moment. Blackguard fills that role, and it has an any Evil requirement. That's why it seems to make sense that Paladin requirements would be an any Good.

Blackguard is a very different class. I've said this before, but it's more like a melee Warlock or something. There's not much room for interpretation with their alignment, either, unlike Paladins -- they summon fiends and raise undead. Explicitly evil. More than that, they just feel... slightly underwhelming, in comparison. At least mechanically. Same for Divine Champion.

In the same sense that every god has Clerics, I don't see why any god wouldn't have Paladins. They all have dogmas, and I'd assume they all have plenty of worthy followers willing to swear themselves in.

Yes and that is good,champions of evil and of good having the same powers would get boring fast. Of course they are gonna be different. Paladins/CoT's are the chosen warriors of good gods while Blackguards are the chosen warriors of evil gods.

I don't think the class paladin should ever be able to be evil.But Lawdul Neutral sure (as i mentioned before, Oath of vengeance from the 5th edition style)

EDIT:"Many refer to blackguards as anti-paladins due to their completely evil nature. They are equivalent in power to the righteous paladin, but devote themselves to the powers of darkness." so yeah,one devoted to the power of light get some kind of powers while those devoted to darkness get other kind of powers but should be equal in power. So lorewise BG's are the evil paladin already.

Now if OOC'ly you think BG's are weak compared to a paladin then the best would be to suggest a buff to them.Although it isn't guaranteed.

[CosmicOrderV]

I totally forgot champion of torm was a thing, lol. That just throws the class concepts out of whack even more.

Neutral paladins would be interesting, though. In that way, perhaps, paladin becomes more generic in terms of where its powers are derived from. That being the strict adherence to the paladin's own beliefs, good or not. Not the belief in a specific god, per se, even if they might identify with a god. Paladins thus obtain generic divine powers from generic domains, philosophies, oaths, or what have you. Their own code.

Which could enable and reinforce the classic dichotomy between good and evil, as truly "Good" paladins are those that get some sort of synergy bonus from the Champion of Torm class. CoT then becomes less strictly about Torm, and more about that Mantle of Good.

Then on the flip side, blackguards, maybe with a little more smiting as RedRopes suggested once, become the counter, and truly the "evil paladin".