Spell names vs. theme and lore of the EQ2 warlock

[Araxes]

Just some food for thought, not really presenting an argument for any particular spell names ... but ...

As I am browsing the polls, it has occurred to me one several visits now that there are 3 primary themes attached to our spell names, some of which do / do not tie into the 'lore' of the EQ2 warlock, some of which are confused easily with the Necromancer class or other classes.

The three recurring themes in the spell naming are:

"Dark" "Void" "Bertoxxulous"

It seems to me that it is somewhat non-sensical, if you are doing a revamp of spell names, not to pick also one central theme and stick to it.  If certain spells are referencing the Void, as does much of warlock lore, then it seems to me other spells which might reference it also, SHOULD reference it.  The same goes whether the 'Dark' theme was chosen.  Bertoxxulous is not directly the god of the warlock (that would actually be Kyrtoxxulous) but also the over-arching god of Necromancers (although I'd argue Anashti-Sul, also).  So it seems that referencing Bertoxxulous in our spell names is to somewhat muddle the lore of the warlock.  Do we pull our power from the Void, or from Bertoxxulous?  (Rhetorical question.  We pull our power from the Void, actually, if the lore is to be followed, and have very little to do with gods at all - except in the very oldest times.  The modern warlock is something more evolved, though, even insofar as the new lore of Anashti Sul is concerned, which warlocks seemingly play no part in, at all.) Warlock are a neutral class and Bertoxxulous is an evil god -- so our power would seem to be derived from something less biased, like the Void, which minions of are certainly power-bent and destructive but not necessarily good or evil, per se.  We certainly tap INTO that power -- we don't necessarily control it or otherwise affiliate with it.  (If we did, again, we'd then be somehow linked to Anashti which also isn't quite clear.)

The point is that our spell names should seemingly be derived from a central theme as opposed to one lore theme, one overlapping theme, and one contradictory theme.

[Captain Apple Darkberry]

I fully /agree and find it somewhat disheartening that these polls will leave us with no more consistency in naming than we have now.

We will have "Bertoxxolus" stamped onto spell lines when it shouldn't be...at all.

Pick one them...like Void or Dark...and make that cover all the spells that have such a designator in their name.

[Kain3]

I agree that the Void theme is the best one.  I've always thought SOE dropped the ball when it came to the "flavor" of warlocks.  Poison and Disease never seem like quick, widespread destruction... they work better expressed as DoT (read: Necromancer).  I always thought there should be "Darkness" damage to oppose holy damage (maybe even change holy to "Light" instead).

In fact, I think it would have made more sense this way:

Wizard or Sorcerer Class

Thaumatergist Subclass = Fire & Lightning

Warlock Subclass = Ice & Darkness

Arguments can be made... but to me Fire & Lightning mean quick spikes of damage against one thing; while Ice & Dark would be slower, but more encompasing and more damaging (as well as more "neutral."  I mean really, "master of Disease and Decay" = Evil, no two ways about it).  Leave Noxious damage to the Necros, Assassins, and Defilers.

Oh well.  That's my rant and 2 cents

[Morghus]

Yea, I would rather have nothing to do with disease or bertoxxulous. Would rather our spells dealt either dark, nether, null or focus based damage. Our special circlet from WoE even seems misplaced and reversed with the Necromancer version as far as lore/flavor goes....I dont even wear mine.

[Myvatn]

Araxes@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Just some food for thought, not really presenting an argument for any particular spell names ... but ...

As I am browsing the polls, it has occurred to me one several visits now that there are 3 primary themes attached to our spell names, some of which do / do not tie into the 'lore' of the EQ2 warlock, some of which are confused easily with the Necromancer class or other classes.

The three recurring themes in the spell naming are:

"Dark" "Void" "Bertoxxulous"

It seems to me that it is somewhat non-sensical, if you are doing a revamp of spell names, not to pick also one central theme and stick to it.  If certain spells are referencing the Void, as does much of warlock lore, then it seems to me other spells which might reference it also, SHOULD reference it.  The same goes whether the 'Dark' theme was chosen.  Bertoxxulous is not directly the god of the warlock (that would actually be Kyrtoxxulous) but also the over-arching god of Necromancers (although I'd argue Anashti-Sul, also).  So it seems that referencing Bertoxxulous in our spell names is to somewhat muddle the lore of the warlock.  Do we pull our power from the Void, or from Bertoxxulous?  (Rhetorical question.  We pull our power from the Void, actually, if the lore is to be followed, and have very little to do with gods at all - except in the very oldest times.  The modern warlock is something more evolved, though, even insofar as the new lore of Anashti Sul is concerned, which warlocks seemingly play no part in, at all.) Warlock are a neutral class and Bertoxxulous is an evil god -- so our power would seem to be derived from something less biased, like the Void, which minions of are certainly power-bent and destructive but not necessarily good or evil, per se.  We certainly tap INTO that power -- we don't necessarily control it or otherwise affiliate with it.  (If we did, again, we'd then be somehow linked to Anashti which also isn't quite clear.)

The point is that our spell names should seemingly be derived from a central theme as opposed to one lore theme, one overlapping theme, and one contradictory theme.

[Myvatn]

Araxes@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Just some food for thought, not really presenting an argument for any particular spell names ... but ...

As I am browsing the polls, it has occurred to me one several visits now that there are 3 primary themes attached to our spell names, some of which do / do not tie into the 'lore' of the EQ2 warlock, some of which are confused easily with the Necromancer class or other classes.

The three recurring themes in the spell naming are:

"Dark" "Void" "Bertoxxulous"

It seems to me that it is somewhat non-sensical, if you are doing a revamp of spell names, not to pick also one central theme and stick to it.  If certain spells are referencing the Void, as does much of warlock lore, then it seems to me other spells which might reference it also, SHOULD reference it.  The same goes whether the 'Dark' theme was chosen.  Bertoxxulous is not directly the god of the warlock (that would actually be Kyrtoxxulous) but also the over-arching god of Necromancers (although I'd argue Anashti-Sul, also).  So it seems that referencing Bertoxxulous in our spell names is to somewhat muddle the lore of the warlock.  Do we pull our power from the Void, or from Bertoxxulous?  (Rhetorical question.  We pull our power from the Void, actually, if the lore is to be followed, and have very little to do with gods at all - except in the very oldest times.  The modern warlock is something more evolved, though, even insofar as the new lore of Anashti Sul is concerned, which warlocks seemingly play no part in, at all.) Warlock are a neutral class and Bertoxxulous is an evil god -- so our power would seem to be derived from something less biased, like the Void, which minions of are certainly power-bent and destructive but not necessarily good or evil, per se.  We certainly tap INTO that power -- we don't necessarily control it or otherwise affiliate with it.  (If we did, again, we'd then be somehow linked to Anashti which also isn't quite clear.)

The point is that our spell names should seemingly be derived from a central theme as opposed to one lore theme, one overlapping theme, and one contradictory theme.

 /sign