Make Warlock application only

[Enaylius]

I saw in another thread knightmare suggested it. Over the last two months I agree. Warlock is not a class like fighter, ranger, wizard, druid, etc... where you can just make up a quick backstory and splash for 'powers' and role play it any way you want to on a whim. A lot of players want warlock powers without actually role playing one. Worse yet, some take a handful of levels for powers or mechanics without ever intending to play the consequences of one.

[WeWhoEat]

Speaking as a warlock, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

[scriver]

As for what to do with all those warlocks who already exist, I still think the "everyone creates characters called Peasant and goes on witch hunt" idea sounds likes fun

[Hoihe]

As for what to do with all those warlocks who already exist, I still think the "everyone creates characters called Peasant and goes on witch hunt" idea sounds likes fun

Druids can lead these peasants, they make excelent Warlock hunters alongside Spirit Shamans, thanks to their spells !

[Catam]

And the infamous Aasimar warlock... I cringe when I see this. An Aasimar Warlock (as well as halfling!) should be considered against power build rules... well as much as any other race that isn't tiefling, human or half-orc. There is no other reason besides build mechanics to create a warlock with races that simply have no interest in the tainted and ambitious deed of bartering one's soul for those corrupting powers.

From the D&D 3.5 Sourebook:

Background: Warlocks are not half-fiends or tieflings by default (although many creatures of those kinds become some of the most powerful and terrifying representatives of the class).

Races: Ambitious and often unprincipled, humans are the most likely to seek out the dangerous shortcuts to power that lead to life as warlocks. Half-orcs are common as warlocks as well, since they often find that the powers that create warlocks do not discriminate against individuals of mixed heritage.

Warlocks of other races are rare at best.

About Aasimars:

Society: Aasimar, being more rare than even half-elves, have no true society of their own.

Outlook: Aasimar usually experience a great deal of prejudice, which is all the more painful to the good-inclined Aasimar who truly wants to help others survive in a hostile world. Aasimar are often seen as aloof, when in many cases this is a protective measure born of years of misunderstandings. Aasimar often look upon true celestials and other good outsiders with a mixed envy and respect. The lucky ones recieve occasional guidance and advice from their celestial ancestor, and these Aasimar are more likely to exemplify the stereotypical celestial virtues.

Because an Aasimar's favored class is Paladin, a majority of them follow that path, at least for a time. The philosophy of the Paladin class resonates in the Aasimars' hearts, and they are innately suited for a career championing law and good. Some Aasimar, particulary those descended from a nonlawful outsider, instead become Clerics, since they are naturally wiser and more charismatic than most Humans. Even Aasimar who don't become divine spellcasters gravitate toward divine-related classes such as the divine champion, for the call of the light is very strong.

Aasimar Warlocks are about as rare as a good-willed drow ranger worshipping Mielikki. As far as halfling warlocks... one carrying a sling +4 gets a huge bonus of 6 to those blasts. I've seen that exploit countless times.

The point we are trying to make is simple. Warlocks are rare. They have a direct connection to a corruptive power and have a desire to focus time and effort to develop their skills to use them. Most players who create warlock characters have no concept of the impact it has. As BGTSCC is not a 100% RP server, there are some allowances for those that simply want to make a build and blast things. But when these players being to RP and interact their warlock characters, there should be some quality control on what they make.

Thus the application requirement to take the class or at least some coded limitations would be appreciated.

[tooley1chris]

Making anything application only causes more work for staff and ALWAYS gets complaints of favoritism.
I would much rather see obviously evil or casters who traffic with devils/demons become KOS.
Warlocks are my favorite class to play and the class of my main so...

[Blackman D]

warlocks should be about as KOS as drow honestly

shunned on the surface, accepted in the UD

[Eden]

I agree with tooley, applications only classes could drive to misunderstandings and sometimes fail, as we've seen with the Flaming Fists: beautiful, really beautiful idea but needed removal.
And I agree with tooley too about the KOS, but, apart from the known warlocks our characters already know IG, one should roll spellcraft to identify the type of magic, to know if that is warlock magic. I say that because I personally fear that once you allow people to KOS a class, many could raise a group with the only intent of pking warlocks. The areas are not 5000 so warlocks should hide, but again, knowing how easy could be to find a way to see through invisibility... I fear that somehow the fun of who plays warlocks could be compromised.

So I thought: if choosing to make an entire class KOS, the Warlock guild could become supported by DMs, giving to the guild a base, a tower in a forest, something like that. You know, something you now there is but you don't know where.
This way warlocks could always have a private place to defend themselves against hunters and play togheder. It could be a nice workout to give warlocks something to trade with the possibility to be KOS.

[Dogma]

If Warlocks were application only, might as well make Paladin and Blackguard app only also. Not only are they a very common dip class, but they also always have huge ties to their deity. If they're not going to roleplay that divine blessing -- and the consequences thereof -- they shouldn't be allowed to take it.

But yes, it does create enormous workload for DMs. Perhaps it would be best left at "Have reasons to take this class and adhere to it fully or your alignment will shift and you'll be boned."

Nothing like being lvl 9 of your "planned" 16 warlock lvl build and suddenly you're True Neutral instead of Chaotic.

Err . . wait. That causes DM complaints and favoritism and workload and blahblah . . Hmm.
How to fix . . *furrows brow*

I know! People always fussed over the Nominate RP Exp thing as a function of favoritism or popularity. How about a Nominate Alignment? That way your peers can help evaluate your characters actions and have some kind of tallyboard for DMs to make adjustments by? No exp given, so it's way less "favoritist" and it's an ingame method. And the next time you see a monk disregard the laws of the land (chaotic) or a bard who takes up some noble cause tied in with duties and whatnot (lawful) you can oocly and anonymously make your suggestion.

"What? I got bumped to Lawful Neutral? No! I'm Lawful Evil! Damn you society! I'd do more evil stuff if I could get away with it. I'm Lawful Evil! Not Stupid Evil!" *barbecues a random cat for alignment shift*

Seriously tho. What do you guys think? Don't be all trolly about it. I'm really tempted to just click Cancel simply because it's sooooo opens the thread to be locked here in less than a page of responses. Be good.

[Enaylius]

If Warlocks were application only, might as well make Paladin and Blackguard app only also. Not only are they a very common dip class, but they also always have huge ties to their deity. If they're not going to roleplay that divine blessing -- and the consequences thereof -- they shouldn't be allowed to take it.

DM's can take away Clerics, Druids, or Paladins powers if they go against their deity or break their code of conduct too many times, or even one time if it is a serious enough offense. Players can take screen prints and send their logs to DM's. DM's could do so with a blackguard as well, but a blackguard's code of conduct varies greatly and it would be for more subjective.

I'm not entirely sure that there would be a lot more work. I'm sure the DM's already get a variety of complains about warlocks not rp'ing or going against rp. And complaints from a number of warlocks complaining about supposed 'greifing' incidents. I'd be willing to bet that orangeorange has a couple complaints filed against him for his gnome anti-warlock RP.

[tooley1chris]

My thoughts on making warlocks KOS were aimed at two goals
1: make the class less appealing
2: make rampant use of warlock spells screech to a halt.

Too many times I see my sister's and brothers running across the tradeway in fits of eldritch fury.
(Kudos to Lilith who excuses herself to "refresh her spells" BTW.)
Maybe a witch hunt would stop some of the obscene use of devil/demon granted powers.
Maybe not. Could be fun though.
I bet The Void has an opinion....

[TheVoid]

I've already mentioned this.

Enforce the warlock pacts. You do not have to make them KOS just enforce the pacts or make them choose one from the ones the DM makes available to choose from.

Warlock pacts normally filter out any kind "eccentric" warlock. It also allows the DM to by proxy of the pact maker CONTROL the PC's mortality should they do things out of line from their contractual obligations.

Being a warlock comes with a price same as being a paladin or any other character class that has more detail than the generic base classes.

If we could, I would like to make a background feat at warlock creation that makes them choose one of the few pacts that applicable to a warlock. The feat would do nothing but tag that warlock PC for DMs to "work with" and monitor, just like your alignment.

Basically, being a warlock means that your ultimate destiny will be decided by the DM team just like a Paladin, cleric, and favored soul. Whatever greater being you are cyphoning power from will have the ultimate say of your fate. If a Paladin steps out of line we fall them depending on how drastic their misalignment is too their dieties tennets. Same with a warlock, but normally; according to lore most beings granting pacts are not as benevolent or understanding as a god and consequences are HARSH...

If you read almost any of the canon pacts that are made in FR, most if not all result in the pact signer's death in a very untimely and grotesque often ironic way....

The warlock is a tragic character, it never usually ends well for the majority of them only a few exceptional individuals will be allowed to keep their powers and not be reaped prematurely.

[Catam]

I won't deny that I agree there are many players who create clerics, paladins and druids that simply have no clue what they are doing... earlier today I met a cleric of Kossuth with a winter wolf from the animal domain... at least she did have the fire domain!

I think the OP's point is that players do not respect the class in general and are using it more for mechanics or the simple "I'm naughty!" factor. If someone makes a pact or finds themselves with these powerful and corrupting abilities... it seems silly to simply dabble in it. In the end, the character can harness it for his own ambitions or to try to control these powers to do good... but it is simply becoming redundant to see so many adventurers wielding Eldritch blasts in such a confined area as the Sword Coast.

As I doubt it will ever become an application only class, I'd like to see some consideration put forth towards decreasing the population by possibly having a minimum Warlock class level requirement by 20th, race restrictions, or any other logical ideas as well as Voids awesome idea about the warlock background feat.

[Charraj]

This week, Maria ran into a warlock who had a skeleton out. The warlock said, "Hi," unsummoned the skeleton, and ran along, blasting more giants.

This kind of flagrant disregard for IC RP makes me think there should be a rule that says that warlocks (or anyone) who summon devils, demons, undead, or other evil creatures are consenting to PvP. The current rule is that you can only attack the summons, but you must give the summoner an RP out. I'm starting to think that's not ICly "realistic" in the case of evil summons. I mean, characters with evil animal companions are consenting to PvP, so why not characters with devils or undead?

For warlock invocations, it's a bit harder. How can you say for sure that your PC would recognize a warlock's blasts as anything other than a spell? There are potential metagaming issues there. My non-caster PCs don't recognize warlock invocations for what they are, and they assume that they're just spells. Even if those PCs succeed on the Spellcraft check, I think it's weird for them to know anything about warlock invocations.

But they sure know what a walking skeleton means.

[Raze]

This week, Maria ran into a warlock who had a skeleton out. The warlock said, "Hi," unsummoned the skeleton, and ran along, blasting more giants.

This kind of flagrant disregard for IC RP makes me think there should be a rule that says that warlocks (or anyone) who summon devils, demons, undead, or other evil creatures are consenting to PvP. The current rule is that you can only attack the summons, but you must give the summoner an RP out. I'm starting to think that's not ICly "realistic" in the case of evil summons. I mean, characters with evil animal companions are consenting to PvP, so why not characters with devils or undead?

For warlock invocations, it's a bit harder. How can you say for sure that your PC would recognize a warlock's blasts as anything other than a spell? There are potential metagaming issues there. My non-caster PCs don't recognize warlock invocations for what they are, and they assume that they're just spells. Even if those PCs succeed on the Spellcraft check, I think it's weird for them to know anything about warlock invocations.

But they sure know what a walking skeleton means.

Boy that would sure be terrible for me then since my character relies on undead summons to take the hits. If this happened then woo I can be killed the moment someone comes upon me and I still have a summon out.

Great fun. At least when people find my character with a skeleton I kill it and try to play it off, and once someone does actively try to harm my character for his undead summoning, I will consent to PvP then. Don't pull a someone who shall not be named and punish everyone for something a minority did.

It's already a pain being evil on this server, don't make it worse.

And in before - "That's what you get for being evil!" Right, I get it, but if what Charraj proposed goes through then even people who might not have a problem with undead summoning will have free reign to kill me. Or hell, it would bring metagaming and I could be killed without even getting the chance to bluff it off.