![]() ![]() This was an interesting discussion I had when I played a necromancer wizard followed by a hexblade warlock going from a one shot to a full on campaign. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil ![]() And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. If you don't want it to be an issue among the group then I'd suggest trying to play it off as necessary to defeat your foes, but I honestly don't see a way to justify it as 'good'. The whole subclass is the perfect basis for an 'anti-hero'. Perhaps this vengeful nature is part of your character, and is a flaw you could play into. Personally I find these situations very interesting, and I would thoroughly enjoy playing this out in all its moral-dilemma goodness. You can then play the 'means justify the end' card, which in most stories tends to lead to a character succumbing to evil, or-to use another phrase-'the path to hell is paved with good intentions'. You can say that a creature was evil, but that opens you up to the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument. That's pretty much the definition of evil by most standards. What I'm trying to say is that this subclass feature, when you break it down, is you taking away something's free will, enslaving it, and forcing it to obey you. There are definitely exceptions, especially when the pact is accidental or made in desperation, but the Hexblade subclass's description even refers to its magic as 'dark powers'. The whole class of warlock, barring the new Celestial subclass, has something of an evil/neutral theme with making pacts for power, a generally greedy self-serving choice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |