Hellfire Warlock: Get rid of the "evil" requirement

[Tekill]

I don't see a good player using Hellfire, even if they accidentally stumbled upon it. I suppose there could be an Al Simmons Hell-Spawn argument here that you are using the dark magic of the damned to do good. But even on his best day he was barely neutral.

A long time ago my mother was worried that playing D&D might lead me to satanism. As a good person I gave my mother the benefit of the doubt and considered her argument. I came to the conclusion she was just reacting to christian moral panic and that the likelihood of me becoming a satanist was low enough that I could still risk continue playing D&D.
But hellfire on the other hand has been proven to be directly linked to actual hell! A home for a bunch of beings whose main goal is to turn/convert you to the ways of evil.
So as a good person, I would generally say no to Hellfire.

But the non-good, requirement would work nicely imo.
Because the vanilla warlock class already has: Alignment restrictions: Any Evil or any Chaotic. So that would really just include CN to the Hellfire class, which I think works well.

That said, Hail Satan.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

I'll admit it, that last post made me snort. Bravo.

[tankteddy]

Honestly I am fine with it being open to Non good. I personally wanted to make a warlock based on Etrigan from DC comics. Which would basicly be a warlock with Word of changing and Hellfire. Forced to turn into a devil. He is an anti hero that was cursed, using his power to hunt the evil that cursed him.

That being said I'm still waiting on Frostmage to be open to warlock xD

[Mork]

Just set your alignment to Evil and play whatever character you want. It's how many characters are played around here including my "evil" blackguard bard.

If you need to rationalize hellfire warlock being good simply look at this https://faerunian.fandom.com/wiki/Hellbred for a nice example of good character using abilities that come straight from hell.

[Thaelis]

As for the talks of snowflakeism or whatever; I mean yeah, it's D&D. It's a giant fantasy world full of a bunch of nutty creatures and people and I think limiting the experience of your players because you want to pretend that something is "rare" (See: The hoops I had to jump through just to get Genasi decent racials as opposed to having their ECL adjusted because "It would make them more common ) is not a good decision. I respect that there's a balance you gotta strike to please the old folks who have been here for awhile while still keeping new players, but it will never make sense to me to enforce more hoops to jump through for an RP idea as opposed to some tightarses lightening up and letting people play what they might think is a cool character concept.

It's not just about limiting those player's experience though, allowing them to have a Good/Neutral Hellfire warlock gives them a mechanical advantage that they aren't supposed to have. Paladins won't be able to smite them, Clerics can't Holy Word them, they could possibly summon Celestials....

Alignment in DnD isn't just a general statement of your tendency to do subjectively Good or Evil acts. Alignment is an objective standard, decided by the Gods. There's literally someone on another plane watching you and keeping a tally of your actions. Choosing to embrace the powers of Hell would instantly give you -999 points.

[Louvaine]

Just set your alignment to Evil and play whatever character you want. It's how many characters are played around here including my "evil" blackguard bard.

To me, alignment is a dead system. Concept of our characters grow more intricate than simply "good and evil". It's a whole separate disscussion, but to put it simply I agree with Mork's statement here. Play your character, not the alignment forced by your build. Which in itself is but a mechanical tool allowing you to channel fantasy powers of your made up character.

It's not just about limiting those player's experience though, allowing them to have a Good/Neutral Hellfire warlock gives them a mechanical advantage that they aren't supposed to have. Paladins won't be able to smite them, Clerics can't Holy Word them, they could possibly summon Celestials...

Sounds like paladins and clerics should stop metagaming alignments anyway. Not that I imagine there being plenty PvP, since most of warlocks are on paladins and clerics side of conflict on BGTSCC.

[Steve]

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Unfortunately for some, D&D 3.5e is run on Alignments having value, and BGTSCC runs in 3.5e Rules. So if you want to play on BGTSCC, you kinda need to respect the sandbox.

Furthermore, alignment has real, mechanical consequences. Smite, for example. Protection from Evil, another example. So, if you play using these mechanics but then you denigrate Alignment as part and parcel of value to the Game, I would call that being disingenuous.

But now we’re getting slightly off-topic.

[yyj]

Just set your alignment to Evil and play whatever character you want. It's how many characters are played around here including my "evil" blackguard bard.

To me, alignment is a dead system. Concept of our characters grow more intricate than simply "good and evil". It's a whole separate disscussion, but to put it simply I agree with Mork's statement here. Play your character, not the alignment forced by your build. Which in itself is but a mechanical tool allowing you to channel fantasy powers of your made up character.

It's not just about limiting those player's experience though, allowing them to have a Good/Neutral Hellfire warlock gives them a mechanical advantage that they aren't supposed to have. Paladins won't be able to smite them, Clerics can't Holy Word them, they could possibly summon Celestials...

Sounds like paladins and clerics should stop metagaming alignments anyway. Not that I imagine there being plenty PvP, since most of warlocks are on paladins and clerics side of conflict on BGTSCC.

I really have to disagree.

Alignments are very important for the system we are using, you cannot set them aside they are very important.

I like to think that if a paladin calls someone evil then the paladin must have a very good reason for doing so.

I have to echo Steve words, this is 3.5 dnd system so alignments are a part of the rules system.

[ajcolt]

All aligned magic is corruptive .

Casting evil spells:

Hidden: show

Sometimes a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells as long as it's not done for an evil purpose. The path of evil magic lead quickly to corruption and destruction.

Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

[Kitunenotsume]

All aligned magic is corruptive .

This is more or less the reason I dislike casting aligned spells at all, but
1) thats unavoidable with [Bless Water], which by all rights is simply water imbued by a god givenl the lack of Unholy water, moreso if the god happens to dislike undead regardless of alignment .
2) Most [Good] aligned spells seem to be restricted to specific deities, or specifically for causing wracking pain and damage to non-good targets
3) Clear oversights exists, like a blackguard could use Righteous Smite on a paladin and get slowly corrupted towards [Good] if they abuse it a lot.

I personally find alignments to be a very useful tool, but unlike in P&P, NWN2 does not properly react to temptations away from alignment. Outside a DM petition you cannot change your alignment as a player, either through slow actions over time or from revelation. What your character was at start is almost certainly going to be the alignment you are stuck with through corruption and redemption, and fails to reflect the ability to shift perspectives with experience of what should be organic and mutable characters.

As such - there isn't any tangible penalty for casting [good] spells as a blackguard or [evil] spells as a paladin, outside of events and personal RP. That said, I think making a class available for tempting one extra alignment worth of warlocks is pretty reasonable. They can't fall to evil if they are not allowed to try the poison.

Not to say you should flop alignments often - that's simply being [Chaotic].

[Rhifox]

3) Clear oversights exists, like a blackguard could use Righteous Smite on a paladin and get slowly corrupted towards [Good] if they abuse it a lot.

"Good spells don’t have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse. An evil wizard who dabbles in a few good spells, most likely to help him achieve selfish ends, does not usually decide to abandon his evil ways because he’s been purified by the touch of the holy."

- Book of Exalted Deeds

Outside a DM petition you cannot change your alignment as a player, either through slow actions over time or from revelation. What your character was at start is almost certainly going to be the alignment you are stuck with through corruption and redemption, and fails to reflect the ability to shift perspectives with experience of what should be organic and mutable characters.

You can also RCR to change alignment to reflect IC developments.

[artemitavik]

While I don't agree that Alignment is the best thing ever, it is an intrigal part of the function of DND mechanics.

If you're going to remove alignment requirements from classes that have clearly sold themselves to some of the most evil creatures in existence, then you might as well just not play DND because you're ignoring a facet that a HUGE portion of the game is based on.

Before you metnion "well, this is NWN and BG, not DND" it totally is DND. It's an engine based off DND, in a lore-universe that is DND. While a great deal of things in BG can be considered "home brew" or "house rules" there is a point to where changing too many of the rules basically makes it ...well... not that game.

[Thaelis]

...classes that have clearly sold themselves to some of the most evil creatures in existence...

This pretty much sums it up for me too

[Kitunenotsume]

And, as far as has been evidenced, the entirety of this change would be going from "Only evil warlocks" to "Evil and chaotic warlocks" because warlocks are restricted to evil and/or chaotic.

[Louvaine]

I still don't get it. Don't we have plenty of CE characters, including hellfire warlocks, roleplaying pretty much LG? What's the point of restrictions? Seems it's only mechanical, which pretty much serves as grounds for metagaming and balancing some spells, smites etc.

It's driving me crazy, but I don't think I get what some of you are saying. Apologies, I'm sure it's not you and it's me instead.