D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?

[EzekielRaiden]

You can use extensive house rules to do whatever you want. However, necrotic damage is just one aspect of the warlock that's traditionally opposed to celestial creatures.

A Celestial Patron, for a warlock, is akin to a paladin becoming an Oathbreaker. Or, perhaps, a Death Domain cleric. Its the exact opposite of what the default class embodies. Its doable, but highly questionable and hard to get right. Especially without ruining the whole "forbidden lore," dabbler in dark magic, and iconoclast aspects of the warlock. Its the class for the whole "witch" archetype. Pelor and his angels as a patron risk making warlocks... mainstream. As if its just something you can casually engage in.

That's a very good way to put it. Warlocks, in general, are supposed to have a somewhat-questionable nature to them and their powers. They do not, at all, have to be "bad people," but their powers are generally presented as the kind of thing that should give you pause.

I think a lot of the pro-"merger" (or at least "merger-friendly") people see the difference as being more like the gap between Sith and Jedi: different philosophy, different method, but same power source. Whereas for me, (a) the different philosophies and methods are what make them different things, and (b) I don't actually think they are "the same" power source. (Part of that is informed by my appreciation for the "Investiture" thing 4e did, of course.)

 

[Shasarak]

You can use extensive house rules to do whatever you want. However, necrotic damage is just one aspect of the warlock that's traditionally opposed to celestial creatures.

I did not really see a Warlocks shtick as being opposed to celestial creatures.

A Celestial Patron, for a warlock, is akin to a paladin becoming an Oathbreaker. Or, perhaps, a Death Domain cleric. Its the exact opposite of what the default class embodies. Its doable, but highly questionable and hard to get right. Especially without ruining the whole "forbidden lore," dabbler in dark magic, and iconoclast aspects of the warlock. Its the class for the whole "witch" archetype. Pelor and his angels as a patron risk making warlocks... mainstream. As if its just something you can casually engage in.

I could imagine the traditional Clerics of Pelor treating a Warlock of Pelor as an outcast just because he exists outside of the church structure and does not worship the "right" way.

I also like the concept that Good can also have "forbidden lore" where normal uninitiated folk can not handle the truth. [/Jack Nicholson]

 

[GSHamster]

I could imagine the traditional Clerics of Pelor treating a Warlock of Pelor as an outcast just because he exists outside of the church structure and does not worship the "right" way.

That's an interesting way to put it. Rather than Warlock of Pelor, reskin the class and call it a Heretic of Pelor.

 

[Greg K]

I've been wondering that if a warlock has made a pact with a patron, be it a demon, devil, old one or a fey, can he be a good guy? I mean you sold your soul just for power, doesnt that inhibit good alignment?

What do you guys think?

In the campaigns I run, making a pact with a demon, devil or old one is a definite no to be good (or neutral). You will be evil as a pact with one of those means the character is required to use their new power to serve their patron's interests in the way cultists do in 70's movies and tv shows and that means doing evil things. If you don't, the patron will strip the character of their powers and the character will either be killed or otherwise have some terrible fate bestowed upon them such as being transformed permanently into something like a dog with a dog's mind (as per an episode of Kolchak: The Night Stalker). Since I don't allow evil PCs, I don't allow those patrons as PCs

As for Fey warlocks in my campaigns, it would depend upon the individual Fey patron.

 

[Mephista]

I did not really see a Warlocks shtick as being opposed to celestial creatures.

Necrotic damage, curses, deals with fiends, excessive mind control akin to a mind flayer, deception and inflicting madness, calling upon creatures of darkness, draining life energy from slain foes, casting people into hell, summoning undead, inflicting fear and shadows/darkness in general. Tell me when any of this starts to sound like something that an angel, archon, or Pelor-like sun god would not only endorse, but actually teach.

Thematically, the warlock's spells and abilities definitely tend to the dark side of magic. Even the sorcerer and wizard have enough spells they can serve as a buffing specialist - the warlock has maybe the Fly spell, some teleports; the warlock is all but purely destructive and debuffing magic. Gods such as Pelor are tied to the positive energy plane, light, life. Even when destructive, the magic is almost always radiant damage.

I could imagine the traditional Clerics of Pelor treating a Warlock of Pelor as an outcast just because he exists outside of the church structure and does not worship the "right" way.

And what of the average citizen? The ones who don't care about the finer points of academia? You would be being taught magic directly from a god or his angels. The mere fact that you have sustained friendly contact with a holy being isn't going to make most people look at you with awe? "Oh, and last night I spoke with a Solar in my dreams, and he asked us to go help out this village. We're on a mission from God!"

That is vastly different than a devil whispering in your ear, asking you to do this little thing, stop these bandits. Just think of all the people you'll help by killing those outlaws. Don't worry about the cultists moving in after. Oh, and here's a little bit of power to help you in your mission. Its not so bad, is it? Saving people, that is? Its not like you're attacking someone Good, now is it?

Or drawing strings of magic out that mind flayer's thoughts that got stuck in your head when they tried to capture you last month. Its thoughts are rolling around in your head, but you can handle it. Just pick out what you need, and ignore the parts that tell you its okay to read a person's most private thoughts, that its okay to dominate and mind control others, that calling upon things from outside reality can't possibly hurt.

Or serving as Titania's pet warlock. That's kosher, right? She's one of the good people? Just because she's ordered a war on some goodly elves that sided with the Glooming Court on a matter decades ago and wants them all dead doesn't mean anything. Or opposing human settlement encroachment. Nothing wrong with playing tricks on them, driving them crazy with dark delusions. Its all for the Queen, and she's got to be one of the Good Guys. No, her entire war isn't about vanity. It just can't be. Shut your mouth! I don't care what everyone else in court says! I'm not a dirty assassin! ((Remember, the DMG explicitly said that the Summer Court rulers aren't Good, and the entire eternal war with the Glooming Court is over petty insults. All other fey patrons are definitely dark or evil.))

I also like the concept that Good can also have "forbidden lore" where normal uninitiated folk can not handle the truth. [/Jack Nicholson]

And what exactly would forbidden lore of Good creatures look like? Forbidden lore is knowledge that is dangerous, blasphemous, or harmful. Blasphemous and harmful divine creatures tend to be fallen angels and evil empyreans (and thus qualify for the Fiend pact).

Jack Nicholson in that movie, if you remember, ordered the murder of one of his own men because he had a medical condition, couldn't keep up with the other men, and wanted out before he died. That's not the actions of a Good man. Its the actions of a Lawful Evil man drunk on his own self-importance.

That's an interesting way to put it. Rather than Warlock of Pelor, reskin the class and call it a Heretic of Pelor.

And what would a Heretic in D&D be like? By definition, a heretic is going against the teachings of their god. Which implies that they're either insane (direct communication with gods kind of clears up the whole issue of what is or isn't the will of the divine), or actually following a different god in secret (at which point, they're not anything of Pelor).

I can totally see a warlock that worships Pelor with an erinyes as a patron, where the warlock making the common mistake of confusing the erinyes for an angel. It does happen. And the warlock would be a heretic. But that's still fundamentally a Fiend Pact.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Necrotic damage, curses, deals with fiends, excessive mind control akin to a mind flayer, deception and inflicting madness, calling upon creatures of darkness, draining life energy from slain foes, casting people into hell, summoning undead, inflicting fear and shadows/darkness in general. Tell me when any of this starts to sound like something that an angel, archon, or Pelor-like sun god would not only endorse, but actually teach.

Part of my schooling is as a student of religion and culture, so I can tell you there's quite fine examples of gods who define goodness and justice doing stuff that looks a lot like this, both in religious texts and stories, and in the traditions that surround them.

Like, you wouldn't think that controlling fiends, for example, would be much of a thing a good deity would be into, but the wise king Solomon in the occult tradition was said to build his temple with the help of fiends that he had bound into service. That even makes some logical sense - if the force of Good is the true power in the world, the fiends must obey it as well. A celestial warlock who has bound fiends is forcing those demons and devils to act toward goodness and peace (which is part of where the danger comes from - a warlock who doesn't do this correctly is not going to be facing a happy demon!).

Necrotic damage? Curses? The Plauges of Egypt! Madness? One of the things Muhammad was afraid of when speaking with angels. Fear? Appropriate response in the presence of some great divinity! Casting people into Hell and calling on the spirits of the dead? That's basically what happens in the Book of Revelation!

And what exactly would forbidden lore of Good creatures look like? Forbidden lore is knowledge that is dangerous, blasphemous, or harmful.

It would likely look a lot like hermeticism, alchemy, occultism, etc., that has existed in the Real World.

Seriously, there's evocative archetypes to cull this stuff from. Think of most charismatic religious practices (snake handling, seizures, speaking in tongues) or of mystery cults of the Greek gods (this cave is your rebirth!) or, again John Frickin' Dee, the Ur-Magician. Heck, even various religious figures - prophets of all stripes have preached forbidden, disruptive, and uncomfortable truths (it's part of what makes 'em prophets!). Plauges and boils and frogs and death are the weapons of Good as well. turning sticks into snakes?! Gnosticism and spiritual alchemy and....all sorts of stuff.

It's not clerics doing this. Clerics are concerned with the ministrations of the faithful, the establishment of the religion, the official church hierarchy, they heal, they protect, they treat. They fight in defense of others. They are temple priests, learned scholars of their faith, leaders of the umma, centers of their community.

Warlocks are the ones spreading divine plagues and mystery-cults. They are the ones concerned with revelation and divine retribution and (occasionally unwilling) prophecy. It is not the mainstream churches that know such unspeakable truths, to hear the voice of the gods reverberating in their skulls...it is these lone wild mad visionaries.

To be a cleric of a good god is to be a priest, faithful, devout, and kind. To be a celestial warlock is to be a force for divine retribution, a prophet, a revolutionary, a seer of things unseen, a speaker in the tongues of the angels, a master of secrets man was not meant to know (because they are too close to the true reality of the divine).

 

[Mephista]

Part of my schooling is as a student of religion and culture, so I can tell you there's quite fine examples of gods who define goodness and justice doing stuff that looks a lot like this, both in religious texts and stories, and in the traditions that surround them.

D&D isn't like real life religions and cultures. Odin's called the Doer of Evil. There's mention of God in the Bible doing evil (yes it even says the word evil).

This is dramatically opposed to D&D gods who embody Good or Evil. A god of Good can't, by definition, act Evil. In D&D terms, most gods from our world would actually be closer to Lawful Neutral, with tricksters like Loki being the Chaotic exception.

Trying to compare D&D religion to real life religion is going to fail miserably, because the two have very little in common. You can't cast a Communion spell with an angel of the Abrahamic God and settle which version of the religions is correct. You choose single gods to worship instead of all of them in a pantheistic manner.

In the real world, the Biblical God sends whales to swallow people, angels to spread pestilence and death, and allows evil angels into his Court, making bets if they can get an innocent man to curse God by torturing him, killing his family. In D&D, that would be a god who ruled over the Death Domain, which is pretty much reserved for Evil gods.

In reality, Right and Wrong are abstract ideas that no one agrees on, and is generally thought to fluctuate with time and culture. In D&D, Good and Evil are objective, measurable forces with concrete, eternal ideals. Maybe its a bit childish, but we're talking about a world with few shades of grey. As much as people want to equate Lawful Good gods to Christian ideals, and Asmodaus as Satan, there are notable differences. The devil in the real world can be equated to a trickster spirit, the embodiment of rebellion for freedom from a being that rules over us in an absolute monarchy, where in D&D the Nine Hells support such hierarchies.

So, no. Pelor can't have angels that go around spreading pestilence and death. D&D doesn't work that way. Not with Greyhawk, Faerun, or Planescape. Dark Suns lacks divine intervention like that, so no godly pact here. You can argue it with Eberron, because religions there strange, but generally you won't run into celestial beings either, again making it hard to have a celestial pact. The Silver Flame and its coatls and angels certainly won't work as a Patron. The Sovereign Host might very well be powerful dragons; the default Host, however, has only one god who could work as a Patron, and his "darker aspects" were separated into a different god as part of the Dark Six long ago. In Dragonlance, different kinds of magic were divided between the three moon gods; the white moon upholds lawful magic, protection, and divinations, kinda unthematic for iconoclast warlocks.

And so it goes on. "Good" in D&D simply doesn't have the uncertainty of real life, with clearly defined traits.

Like, you wouldn't think that controlling fiends, for example, would be much of a thing a good deity would be into, but the wise king Solomon in the occult tradition was said to build his temple with the help of fiends that he had bound into service.

Nitpick: King Solomon bound the djinn into service, not demons. There's a big difference.

 

[Mallus]

"Good" in D&D simply doesn't have the uncertainty of real life, with clearly defined traits.

This may be true, but it does invite a question: what provides the definition of "good" in D&D terms? What's the authoritative text(s)?

For (relevant) example, the 5e rules are pretty clear on the subject of warlocks & alignment. A warlock can be Good. Even if they have a Fiend patron. The text isn't ambiguous.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D isn't like real life religions and cultures.

Certainly! But you asked what forbidden lore would look like and what angelic creatures would sanction such "dark"-seeming powers, and so I felt it reasonable to point out that, as far as the archetype/character inspiration/etc. goes, there's plenty of warlock-y stuff in gods of goodness, life, and light. A player who wants a more "Ezekiel"-style character or one who sees themselves as a bringer of plagues and divine judgement, could certainly find a home in a hypothetical Celestial-pact Warlock.

This is dramatically opposed to D&D gods who embody Good or Evil. A god of Good can't, by definition, act Evil.

I don't know that this is true. Gods in D&D are NPC's. Alignment in D&D isn't monolithic. The hidden secrets of Pelor may bring darkness and plague and undead upon his enemies ("If you do not pay homage to the sun, the sun will deprive you of its light, and darkness will reign. I am that darkness!"), in the name of Good or at least in the name of anti-Evil. It's possible for Bahamut to over-reach and do something questionable in the name of righteousness.

So, no. Pelor can't have angels that go around spreading pestilence and death.

I think there is no more appropriate weapon for a god of healing and life to use than pestilence and death. When Pelor is angry with you, you get sick in the darkness and die. When Pelor is angry with you, the Celestial Warlock might come to visit you. They are proclaimed as heretics and liars.

I mean, Apollo is a brilliant example as well. Light and life and delight and when he's offended you get pestilential arrows.

Warlocks with a Celestial pact can explore that aspect of the gods of goodness and light in play.

Not to say that this is the way it must be, of course, just to say that this is an interesting option that isn't logically dismissible. You can say you're not interested in it, or that it doesn't fit with the way you envision the gods in your games, but it's a harder leg to stand on to say that it is something that is inconceivable or nonsensical or is incompatible with D&D as a whole.

Nitpick: King Solomon bound the djinn into service, not demons. There's a big difference.

Depends on the source material you're culling from. And who you ask. The differences are pretty academic, sometimes.

 

[Mephista]

This may be true, but it does invite a question: what provides the definition of "good" in D&D terms? What's the authoritative text(s)?

For (relevant) example, the 5e rules are pretty clear on the subject of warlocks & alignment. A warlock can be Good. Even if they have a Fiend patron. The text isn't ambiguous.

Naturally - I'm talking about a Celestial patron, however. That is totally different. A warlock can even worship Pelor, Loviatar, the Silver Flame, Bahamut, whatever, and still have a fiend, archfey, or abomination for a Patron.

But having an archon or angelic being for a patron is an entirely different matter.

What is the authoritative text? Right now, its the PHB, which gives definitions of each alignment, as well as descriptions of gods and how they divide domains.

Certainly! But you asked what forbidden lore would look like and what angelic creatures would sanction such "dark"-seeming powers, and so I felt it reasonable to point out that, as far as the archetype/character inspiration/etc. goes, there's plenty of warlock-y stuff in gods of goodness, life, and light. A player who wants a more "Ezekiel"-style character or one who sees themselves as a bringer of plagues and divine judgement, could certainly find a home in a hypothetical Celestial-pact Warlock.

Except that "bringer of plagues" in D&D terms is an evil god, not a good one. In 5e, it would be a god with the Death Domain. Talona, goddess of disease and poison from Faerun is Chaotic Evil. Incabulos, god of plague and famine of Greyhawk is Neutral Evil. Morgion, god of disease and secrecy, is a Neutral Evil god of Dragonlance.

Your real world examples simply don't work because Pelor and the other Lawful and Neutral Good deities aren't the Christian God.

I don't know that this is true. Gods in D&D are NPC's. Alignment in D&D isn't monolithic. The hidden secrets of Pelor may bring darkness and plague and undead upon his enemies ("If you do not pay homage to the sun, the sun will deprive you of its light, and darkness will reign. I am that darkness!"), in the name of Good or at least in the name of anti-Evil.

That's the portfolio of a different god. Trying to put that under Pelor is a major stretch at the least. If you don't worship Pelor, he'll weaken and other, dark gods will rise to prominence is the usual threat in D&D. Pelor being the one to bring the plagues is out of character for him.

Now, playing a character who's made a pact with dark forces to scare people into worshiping Pelor? That makes sense for some people. I've seen stranger. Its not the same thing as a D&D Solar Angel being the teacher.

It's possible for Bahamut to over-reach and do something questionable in the name of righteousness.

Good people make mistakes. Especially in the heat of passion. Teaching warlocks is a very deliberate and premeditated choice, and giving out spells that go against much of what the metalic dragons believe in and stand for is highly questionable when there's no need of it - Bahamut does have Vengence Oath Paladins for extreme cases.

I think there is no more appropriate weapon for a god of healing and life to use than pestilence and death. When Pelor is angry with you, you get sick in the darkness and die. When Pelor is angry with you, the Celestial Warlock might come to visit you. They are proclaimed as heretics and liars.

When Pelor is angry with you, that's when you get struck down by light from the heavens in the form of Light Clerics, Paladins, and radiant angel servitors.

You seem to be missing something rather fundamental here. Pelor has an established history, personality, dogma, and portfolio. You are trying to twist him into something he's not in order to fit your theory. Its not working.

I mean, Apollo is a brilliant example as well. Light and life and delight and when he's offended you get pestilential arrows.

Again, real life gods do not equate to D&D gods. That's a false dichotomy.

Warlocks with a Celestial pact can explore that aspect of the gods of goodness and light in play.

"That aspect of goodness and light which the Greyhawk setting firmly establishes as the domain of one of Pelor's evil god rivals."

Warlocks with a Celstial pact should explore the redemption path, just as an Oathbreaker follows the paladin who's given up his sacred vows for a dark desire born of hate or lust or greed.

Not to say that this is the way it must be, of course, just to say that this is an interesting option that isn't logically dismissible. You can say you're not interested in it, or that it doesn't fit with the way you envision the gods in your games, but it's a harder leg to stand on to say that it is something that is inconceivable or nonsensical or is incompatible with D&D as a whole.

Its incompatable with the established D&D worlds, such as Pelor and the gods of Greyhawk. Or his 4e incarnation in Nentir Vale. It doesn't fit with what we know of the celestial creatures in the 5e monster manual.

You are free to houserule things the way you want in private games. However, trying to equate Good aligned gods with those that offer threat if you don't serve them doesn't fit within the descriptions of alignment as we know it. Alignment is flexible, yes, to an extent. That extent does not extend to a NG acting like a tyrant, killing those who don't follow them; tyranny is firmly established towards the LE end of the alignment chart.

If you want to play the devil's advocate, that's fine. But simply ignoring things long established makes no sense what so ever. Rewriting Pelor until he's no longer Pelor isn't the answer.