TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: LiferGamer on September 15, 2020, 09:51:11 AM

Title: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: LiferGamer on September 15, 2020, 09:51:11 AM
First thing I think of is a misguided lost soul that's made a bargain with dark powers who will NOT come out of it ahead.

Not Pokemon. 

(https://www.drivethrurpg.com/images/6274/251622-thumb140.jpg)

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/251622/Baby-Bestiary-Caretaker-Warlock-5e (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/251622/Baby-Bestiary-Caretaker-Warlock-5e)


Shit like this is why I am so glad to have found you all.



Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: hedgehobbit on September 15, 2020, 10:06:01 AM
Whenever I hear the word Warlock the first thing I think of is how the rendered fat of an unbaptized male child is the primary ingredient in a potion of flying.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Simlasa on September 15, 2020, 11:58:56 AM
I think of the male witches on Bewitched.

But I wouldn't mind playing a Pokemon-like yokai wrangler... and that Caretaker Warlock idea doesn't fly up my skirt and steal my nards either, it sounds cute and fun.
Plenty of fantasy stories have characters protecting and bonding with young creatures the grow to be powerful (or dangerous).
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Pat on September 15, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
When I hear the word warlock, I think of curling up the edge of the world.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on September 15, 2020, 01:37:35 PM
I think of the Warlock b-movies.

Outside of D&D's strictly-defined classes, words like druid, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, witch, etc don't have well-defined meanings owing to their fictional nature.

A warlock could be anything from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock) a male witch, an oath-breaker, a conjurer of spirits, or something else.

D&D's warlock isn't even a coherent concept since you can make a pact with the same stuff worshiped by clerics. Why is there a difference between a warlock, a druid, and a cleric who all get their power from a nature deity?
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Ghostmaker on September 15, 2020, 01:55:21 PM
I think of the warlock I played in a 3.5e game who would consistently animate dead enemies and unleash them upon party foes. And who wanted to collect enough onyx to reanimate a giant crustacean so they could use it as a mobile fortress.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Mishihari on September 15, 2020, 03:00:37 PM
I think of the WoW class, pretty much demonologists.  They never seem to pay the price for their perfidy, though.  Weaksausce.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Pat on September 15, 2020, 03:23:58 PM
D&D's warlock isn't even a coherent concept since you can make a pact with the same stuff worshiped by clerics. Why is there a difference between a warlock, a druid, and a cleric who all get their power from a nature deity?
I've never actually played in a game that used warlocks, but I always thought the core inspiration (which I referenced above) is the warlock from the Lawrence Watt-Evan's Ethshar series, specifically The Unwilling Warlord novel. The idea is that warlocks tapped into some unknown "source", and they could channel that power to fly, perform what amounts to telekinesis, self-heal, and so on. The more they used the power, the more powerful they became, and the easier it became to use the power, even inadvertently.

The downside is the more attuned they became to the source, the more attuned it became to them, and while nobody knew what the source really was, all warlocks knew it wasn't nice. After a certain point, they would all start having nightmares they couldn't describe on waking, which eventually became whispers they couldn't quite make out even when they were awake. Whatever the source was, it was calling them, and the call became stronger as they became more powerful. Eventually all warlocks vanished in the night, presumably flying away to the source, never to return.

From a story standpoint, it provides hubris, temptation, mystery, and eventual doom. The D&D version sounds like they added additional powers, removed most of the limitations, and shifted the source a bit to more traditional pacts of some kind. But otherwise, remarkably similar.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: VisionStorm on September 15, 2020, 05:08:10 PM
When I hear the word Warlock I think of a gimmicky made up NuD&D (4e+) class that’s arbitrarily different from other caster classes just for the sake of being different and adds to the endless variant stream of what’s essentially a warrior, caster or specialist; needlessly complicating the game so that I can’t just improvise NPCs/Enemies without stopping the game to look up what endless bloat of tiny class features they get that specific level. I also think of Tumblr and cutesy tiefling bois who are nonbinary.

Once upon a time, many years ago (decades really), the word “Warlock” used to invoke images of badass spell casters hexing their enemies and summoning shadowy creatures from beyond. But now it’s just an edgy, trite and overhyped word used by Tumblrinas to wipe their asses with.

I also have to agree with crayon eater that the word has no clearly defined meaning outside of D&D made up distinctions (which are all bullshit, including the idea of separate arcane/divine magic—which has no bearing with real life mystical traditions, which are ALL magico-spiritual to some degree or another, therefore both “arcane” AND “divine”) and if it where up to me there would be no fifty thousand variations of what’s essentially a mystic. There would just be ONE universal caster class and everything else would be a matter of RP or specific skills, feats or equivalent that the character has to define their specific talents beyond their core caster functions.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: jhkim on September 15, 2020, 05:37:11 PM
I think of the male witches on Bewitched.

But I wouldn't mind playing a Pokemon-like yokai wrangler... and that Caretaker Warlock idea doesn't fly up my skirt and steal my nards either, it sounds cute and fun.
Plenty of fantasy stories have characters protecting and bonding with young creatures the grow to be powerful (or dangerous).
Yeah, there are a lot of different kinds of witches and warlocks in different fantasy novels and films/television. The D&D class has some specifics, but like other 5E classes, having the different paths and options means that it can imitate different sorts of characters - varying from the Julian Sands movies of evil antagonist or anti-hero to more positive witch portrayals like Pratchett's Tiffany Aching.

I played a warlock for a while in D&D5. My character was evil-adjacent, and was more wicca-themed with an imp who usually appeared as a raven and using a lot of deception and spying abilities.

In game terms, I'm not sure how I'd handle it if a player wanted their character to be an anti-hero destined to a bad end because of the deal they made. That seems like more of a story-game-ish fate option than D&D. For the OP, would you want a PC witch to be fated to come to grief as a predestined end? Or would you prefer just to not allow PC warlocks?
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Omega on September 15, 2020, 06:30:47 PM
I think of the male counterpart to a witch.The villain The Warlock from the old superman cartoons.
An old 50s western with Henry Fonda.The character in the 2000AD comics.etc.

But really theres so many approaches and uses that its all good really.
Same with Sorcerer.
Another word for wizard, an evil wizard, a movie from the 70s about people transporting nitroglycerine. etc.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: JeffB on September 15, 2020, 06:31:52 PM
This always pops into my mind

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wNIAAOSw1XleM4FE/s-l300.jpg)
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Thornhammer on September 15, 2020, 09:43:02 PM
Whenever I hear the word Warlock the first thing I think of is how the rendered fat of an unbaptized male child is the primary ingredient in a potion of flying.


Truly, a man of taste.


I remember watching that as a young lad, and wondering what in the hell he was putting in that can and then putting two and two together. 


"Oh.  Oh!  ...oh.  Damn, dude."
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on September 15, 2020, 11:11:41 PM
To be fair to the baby bestiary people: Their illustrations & writings about the ways to have baby beasts are immeasurably cute.


But Id say Warlock doesn't fit that aspect still.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: LiferGamer on September 16, 2020, 12:04:30 AM
To be fair to the baby bestiary people: Their illustrations & writings about the ways to have baby beasts are immeasurably cute.

But Id say Warlock doesn't fit that aspect still.


Agreed; I'm not trying to give them shit - but Warlocks?
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Darrin Kelley on September 16, 2020, 01:54:18 AM
Warlock will always come to mind as the series of movies Julian Sands starred in. He made a great villain.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Ghostmaker on September 16, 2020, 09:59:26 AM
I've never actually played in a game that used warlocks, but I always thought the core inspiration (which I referenced above) is the warlock from the Lawrence Watt-Evan's Ethshar series, specifically The Unwilling Warlord novel. The idea is that warlocks tapped into some unknown "source", and they could channel that power to fly, perform what amounts to telekinesis, self-heal, and so on. The more they used the power, the more powerful they became, and the easier it became to use the power, even inadvertently.

The downside is the more attuned they became to the source, the more attuned it became to them, and while nobody knew what the source really was, all warlocks knew it wasn't nice. After a certain point, they would all start having nightmares they couldn't describe on waking, which eventually became whispers they couldn't quite make out even when they were awake. Whatever the source was, it was calling them, and the call became stronger as they became more powerful. Eventually all warlocks vanished in the night, presumably flying away to the source, never to return.

From a story standpoint, it provides hubris, temptation, mystery, and eventual doom. The D&D version sounds like they added additional powers, removed most of the limitations, and shifted the source a bit to more traditional pacts of some kind. But otherwise, remarkably similar.
Oh wow. I read With A Single Spell (I still have the paperback, in fact) and was fascinated with Watt-Evans's worldbuilding. I need to track down some more of his stuff.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Omega on September 16, 2020, 02:45:16 PM
Quote
Agreed; I'm not trying to give them shit - but Warlocks?
Sold your soul to a unicorn?
In 5e a warlocks patron can be all sorts of weird things so would make sense.
 
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: ShieldWife on September 16, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
Warlock will always come to mind as the series of movies Julian Sands starred in. He made a great villain.


Yes, me too! That’s an under appreciated movie and a great portrayal of a warlock. In fact, I think it’s he’s a well done movie magic user - with a set of impressive and thematic powers that don’t come off as deus ex machina.


More generally, for me a warlock does need to be evil. His magic must be evil in nature, likely drawn from some evil source such as demons.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Pat on September 16, 2020, 03:14:50 PM
Oh wow. I read With A Single Spell (I still have the paperback, in fact) and was fascinated with Watt-Evans's worldbuilding. I need to track down some more of his stuff.
Yes, his world building is definitely interesting. His books tend to take one aspect of the world, and explore the consequences. His characters are a bit flat, but they work fairly well as generic protagonists.

I should dig up the rest of the series, myself. I only read the first 5, so it looks like I'm way behind (14 novels + a short story collection).

He's also a gamer. He calls OD&D "buggy as hell", here:  ;D
http://multiverse.world/blog/2017/11/03/qa-with-lawrence-watt-evans-fiction/
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Darrin Kelley on September 16, 2020, 07:53:33 PM


Yes, me too! That’s an under appreciated movie and a great portrayal of a warlock. In fact, I think it’s he’s a well done movie magic user - with a set of impressive and thematic powers that don’t come off as deus ex machina.


This conversation inspired me to get out my Warlock DVD and watch it.


But the Warlock in 5th Edition D&D I think is a class that definitely has its uses. I like the variety of different patrons one can have. So you can really make the character distinctive. And I think it has room for endless expansion.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Chris24601 on September 16, 2020, 09:31:31 PM
But the Warlock in 5th Edition D&D I think is a class that definitely has its uses. I like the variety of different patrons one can have. So you can really make the character distinctive. And I think it has room for endless expansion.
Another relevant and important part of the 5e warlock’s design is that it’s the closest in design in 5e to the default 4E class structure (cantrips are the at-wills, short rest spells are the encounter powers, the high end long rest spells are the daily powers).


Even if the developers made a point of throwing 4E fans under a bus (the promised “tactical module” to let it play more like 4E, unsurprisingly, turned out to be vaporware), the fact that 5e promised to be an edition for everyone meant it had to at least give 4E a bone (the celestial pact helped quite a bit since the irrevocable pact structure is much closer to 4E’s approach to divine classes).


I find them useful in conjunction with the bard (once they can regain their inspiration dice with a short rest) in recreating several of the more unique 4E classes inside the 5e framework.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: ShieldWife on September 16, 2020, 11:31:08 PM


Yes, me too! That’s an under appreciated movie and a great portrayal of a warlock. In fact, I think it’s he’s a well done movie magic user - with a set of impressive and thematic powers that don’t come off as deus ex machina.


This conversation inspired me to get out my Warlock DVD and watch it.


But the Warlock in 5th Edition D&D I think is a class that definitely has its uses. I like the variety of different patrons one can have. So you can really make the character distinctive. And I think it has room for endless expansion.


Awesome. I haven’t seen the movie in many years. I need to see it again.


Oh yeah, the 5th edition warlock is a great class that allows for all sorts of options that depart from a Satanist warlock. I think that the Celestial Patron warlock is pretty neat. Though I have a hard time calling those sorts of characters warlocks.


I can’t help but imagine the eldritch blast as that weird orange energy from the Warlock movie.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: LiferGamer on September 16, 2020, 11:41:32 PM

Yes, me too! That’s an under appreciated movie and a great portrayal of a warlock. In fact, I think it’s he’s a well done movie magic user - with a set of impressive and thematic powers that don’t come off as deus ex machina.

This conversation inspired me to get out my Warlock DVD and watch it.

But the Warlock in 5th Edition D&D I think is a class that definitely has its uses. I like the variety of different patrons one can have. So you can really make the character distinctive. And I think it has room for endless expansion.

Awesome. I haven’t seen the movie in many years. I need to see it again.

Oh yeah, the 5th edition warlock is a great class that allows for all sorts of options that depart from a Satanist warlock. I think that the Celestial Patron warlock is pretty neat. Though I have a hard time calling those sorts of characters warlocks.

I can’t help but imagine the eldritch blast as that weird orange energy from the Warlock movie.


I like the Warlock class a lot, especially as the DM; we had a Celestial Warlock in the party - she was a Tohunga of the Aopouri people (basically transplanted Maori to my campaign world) with a familial spirit as a patron.   Never 'pinged' on the inquisition's sin-dar, and gave us a neat Shamanistic option with minimal fuss.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: jeff37923 on September 17, 2020, 12:24:52 AM
........I think it's a magic-user by any other name.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: HappyDaze on September 17, 2020, 05:19:02 AM
........I think it's a magic-user by any other name.
Yes, but...
Warlock gets singled out because, in 5e, their magic works differently from just about every other magic-user. I don't think this is a problem with the Warlock, I think it's the result of every other magic-user using more-or-less the same system for their magic. If there were more clear differences between the spellcasting of Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards then the Warlock wouldn't feel like such an oddball.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Pat on September 17, 2020, 07:26:03 AM
Warlock gets singled out because, in 5e, their magic works differently from just about every other magic-user. I don't think this is a problem with the Warlock, I think it's the result of every other magic-user using more-or-less the same system for their magic.
I have zero familiarity with 5e, but based on previous editions I definitely agree. The problem isn't that the warlock is weird, it's that everything else is so samey. Almost all spellcasters work the same, with a few exceptions that rarely get any traction. Psionics is probably the biggest secondary method, and it's always struggled for attention and balance. In general I'm in favor of more oddities, not less.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: VisionStorm on September 17, 2020, 03:58:41 PM
Warlock gets singled out because, in 5e, their magic works differently from just about every other magic-user. I don't think this is a problem with the Warlock, I think it's the result of every other magic-user using more-or-less the same system for their magic.
I have zero familiarity with 5e, but based on previous editions I definitely agree. The problem isn't that the warlock is weird, it's that everything else is so samey. Almost all spellcasters work the same, with a few exceptions that rarely get any traction. Psionics is probably the biggest secondary method, and it's always struggled for attention and balance. In general I'm in favor of more oddities, not less.

I’m at the opposite end. While I’m not a fan of Old D&D or D&D’s spell casting system (mostly BC of the Vancian system and arbitrary spell levels with inconsistent power), one of the things that OD&D handles better than WotC era D&D is character classes. 3e+ D&D is a bloated mess of artificially distinct character classes that are essentially variations of warriors, casters and specialists/rogues (the only three classes that should exist) with an overinflated mess of fiddly features that are hard to recall and add to bookkeeping. I prefer streamlined classes that follow an easy to remember minimalistic and standardized pattern of core features that I can use on the fly to improvise NPCs or automatically know what abilities PCs have without having to consult the manual to determine which of hundreds of fiddly barely useful features that class gets each level. And to leave the entirety of the complexity and distinctiveness to Skills, Feats and perhaps backgrounds and/or 2e style “kits”, where they belong.

All that having one hundred and fifty thousand “different” classes that are really just casters, warriors or rogues does is complicate the game and add a bunch of inconsistent, hard to track and often arbitrarily level-gated features that add to bookkeeping and lead to an out of control spiral of ever expanding artificially distinct classes every time someone has a different take on what the thing they call “warlock”, “paladin” or “wizard” should be like. And on the topic of casters in particular, you don’t have an entirely different combat system for every single warrior class. Combat is just combat. An individual warrior may have one or two different tricks up their sleeve (preferably acquired through feats), but they all use basically the same consistent combat rules.

Casters should be the same. The game is already complicated enough with an over-bloated list of hundreds of arbitrarily level-gated spells that are really just variations of “causes fire damage”, “reads minds” or “heals damage”, etc., without adding to it by also giving every caster class an artificially distinct system to ultimately just cause fire damage, read minds or heal damage. Differences should be RPed or based on skills, feats or background-type stuff that simply adds to a baseline core class rather than reinventing the wheel every time someone has a new take that’s really just a warrior...but sneaky, a wizard...but has pets, or a rogue...but has a few spells.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on September 17, 2020, 05:29:51 PM
When I hear "warlock" the first thing I think of is "male witch," in general.


In gaming terms, the next thing I think of is the level title for an 8th level magic-user in AD&D.


After that, I think of the Warlock order (kinda like a class) from Gygax's Lejendary Adventure RPG. It's a magic-user type character that practices "necrourgy," which deals with contacting, calling, commanding, and creating living dead creatures and spirits, as well as related magic.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Slipshot762 on September 18, 2020, 12:54:00 AM
Whenever I hear the word Warlock the first thing I think of is how the rendered fat of an unbaptized male child is the primary ingredient in a potion of flying.


i thought i was the only one.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Spinachcat on September 18, 2020, 04:46:52 AM
I'm kewl with Pokemon Warlock.

It's the bond of familiar/mage, aka Arcane Beastmaster.


The cleric and the warlock both have power gained through a pact. Neither studied like the wizard, but both allied themselves (and attached themselves) to an otherworldly power. Thus, a divine warlock would make sense. 

Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: HappyDaze on September 18, 2020, 05:41:05 AM
The cleric and the warlock both have power gained through a pact. Neither studied like the wizard, but both allied themselves (and attached themselves) to an otherworldly power. Thus, a divine warlock would make sense. 
Not necessarily. In 5e, a cleric is divinely empowered, but they may not have done anything to ask for that power--it may have been thrust upon them and they may (at least initially) have little understanding of their power and its source. Warlocks always actively sought out their power, even if they don't have a full understanding of it. In both cases, 5e lets both off the hook in that neither is necessarily beholden to the source of their magic once play begins.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: LiferGamer on September 18, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
The cleric and the warlock both have power gained through a pact. Neither studied like the wizard, but both allied themselves (and attached themselves) to an otherworldly power. Thus, a divine warlock would make sense. 
Not necessarily. In 5e, a cleric is divinely empowered, but they may not have done anything to ask for that power--it may have been thrust upon them and they may (at least initially) have little understanding of their power and its source. Warlocks always actively sought out their power, even if they don't have a full understanding of it. In both cases, 5e lets both off the hook in that neither is necessarily beholden to the source of their magic once play begins.
That's the DMs job: never let them forget they have a fickle patron.  I stick with old school clerics get their first three levels of spells from faith and ritual, but the higher level ones can be shut off.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on September 18, 2020, 05:45:09 PM
Warlock gets singled out because, in 5e, their magic works differently from just about every other magic-user. I don't think this is a problem with the Warlock, I think it's the result of every other magic-user using more-or-less the same system for their magic.
I have zero familiarity with 5e, but based on previous editions I definitely agree. The problem isn't that the warlock is weird, it's that everything else is so samey. Almost all spellcasters work the same, with a few exceptions that rarely get any traction. Psionics is probably the biggest secondary method, and it's always struggled for attention and balance. In general I'm in favor of more oddities, not less.

I’m at the opposite end. While I’m not a fan of Old D&D or D&D’s spell casting system (mostly BC of the Vancian system and arbitrary spell levels with inconsistent power), one of the things that OD&D handles better than WotC era D&D is character classes. 3e+ D&D is a bloated mess of artificially distinct character classes that are essentially variations of warriors, casters and specialists/rogues (the only three classes that should exist) with an overinflated mess of fiddly features that are hard to recall and add to bookkeeping. I prefer streamlined classes that follow an easy to remember minimalistic and standardized pattern of core features that I can use on the fly to improvise NPCs or automatically know what abilities PCs have without having to consult the manual to determine which of hundreds of fiddly barely useful features that class gets each level. And to leave the entirety of the complexity and distinctiveness to Skills, Feats and perhaps backgrounds and/or 2e style “kits”, where they belong.

All that having one hundred and fifty thousand “different” classes that are really just casters, warriors or rogues does is complicate the game and add a bunch of inconsistent, hard to track and often arbitrarily level-gated features that add to bookkeeping and lead to an out of control spiral of ever expanding artificially distinct classes every time someone has a different take on what the thing they call “warlock”, “paladin” or “wizard” should be like. And on the topic of casters in particular, you don’t have an entirely different combat system for every single warrior class. Combat is just combat. An individual warrior may have one or two different tricks up their sleeve (preferably acquired through feats), but they all use basically the same consistent combat rules.

Casters should be the same. The game is already complicated enough with an over-bloated list of hundreds of arbitrarily level-gated spells that are really just variations of “causes fire damage”, “reads minds” or “heals damage”, etc., without adding to it by also giving every caster class an artificially distinct system to ultimately just cause fire damage, read minds or heal damage. Differences should be RPed or based on skills, feats or background-type stuff that simply adds to a baseline core class rather than reinventing the wheel every time someone has a new take that’s really just a warrior...but sneaky, a wizard...but has pets, or a rogue...but has a few spells.


I totally agree with this.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: HappyDaze on September 18, 2020, 07:21:37 PM
The cleric and the warlock both have power gained through a pact. Neither studied like the wizard, but both allied themselves (and attached themselves) to an otherworldly power. Thus, a divine warlock would make sense. 
Not necessarily. In 5e, a cleric is divinely empowered, but they may not have done anything to ask for that power--it may have been thrust upon them and they may (at least initially) have little understanding of their power and its source. Warlocks always actively sought out their power, even if they don't have a full understanding of it. In both cases, 5e lets both off the hook in that neither is necessarily beholden to the source of their magic once play begins.
That's the DMs job: never let them forget they have a fickle patron.  I stick with old school clerics get their first three levels of spells from faith and ritual, but the higher level ones can be shut off.
I guess it depends on whether your world's gods are anthropomorphic beings of extraordinary power or if they are mysterious forces beyond understanding. In the latter case, they can be fickle when empowering a cleric and then just hands off after that on switch has been flipped. I actually prefer my gods to be less human-like. OTOH, I like warlock patrons to be more relatable, but then there's The Great Old One warlocks that really throw that off.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: areallifetrex on September 19, 2020, 01:21:01 AM
The cleric and the warlock both have power gained through a pact. Neither studied like the wizard, but both allied themselves (and attached themselves) to an otherworldly power. Thus, a divine warlock would make sense. 
Not necessarily. In 5e, a cleric is divinely empowered, but they may not have done anything to ask for that power--it may have been thrust upon them and they may (at least initially) have little understanding of their power and its source. Warlocks always actively sought out their power, even if they don't have a full understanding of it. In both cases, 5e lets both off the hook in that neither is necessarily beholden to the source of their magic once play begins.

The arcane-divine distinction would also be important... if they hadn't gutted any mechanical difference between the two during the last few editions.
Title: Re: When I hear the word Warlock...
Post by: Opaopajr on September 19, 2020, 10:17:01 AM
 ;D  I think of a multiclass two level dip with Eldritch Blast or Paladin Hexbla --  :-X