I don't have any questions for the design team - I thought I was talking with you??
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?
- Thread starter PnPgamer
- Start date
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Yes, and I asked you how the pact was evil if the character didn't know the patron was evil. You responded with questions. I quoted you as a reference.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
The overwhelming consensus is, "Yes, Warlocks can be good guys." A vocal minority advocates--or at least advocated--that Warlock was inherently the most evil option you could pick, strictly more evil than Assassins and Necromancers--but that position may have softened.
So, tonight, a player asked me if he could multiclass an Oath of Devotion LG paladin character as warlock.
We created a new Patron category. He is now playing a Celestial Patron warlock (multiclassed with his Paladin levels). The Patron-specific abilities are roughly equivalent to Fiend Patron abilities. Instead of Dark One's Blessing (temporary HP when he defeats a foe), he adds points to his Lay On Hands pool. Instead of Devil's Sight, he has this: "In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight". Instead of Chill Touch, he has Radiant Touch. His patron requires him to oppose the rise of Tiamat. He was doing that anyways; now he has more ways to do so.
Meanwhile, we had some Adventurer's League certificates for magic items. One of them was printed as VOID. WotC intended this as sort of like a voided check... but the party's already-in-play Great Old One warlock called dibs on that magic item, rather than any of the other certificates in the pile, which had actual printed magic item descriptions. Excellent roleplaying, and his Patron has enabled him to attune the VOID magic item. It will be quite useful.
We created a new Patron category. He is now playing a Celestial Patron warlock (multiclassed with his Paladin levels). The Patron-specific abilities are roughly equivalent to Fiend Patron abilities. Instead of Dark One's Blessing (temporary HP when he defeats a foe), he adds points to his Lay On Hands pool. Instead of Devil's Sight, he has this: "In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight". Instead of Chill Touch, he has Radiant Touch. His patron requires him to oppose the rise of Tiamat. He was doing that anyways; now he has more ways to do so.
Meanwhile, we had some Adventurer's League certificates for magic items. One of them was printed as VOID. WotC intended this as sort of like a voided check... but the party's already-in-play Great Old One warlock called dibs on that magic item, rather than any of the other certificates in the pile, which had actual printed magic item descriptions. Excellent roleplaying, and his Patron has enabled him to attune the VOID magic item. It will be quite useful.
Evidently, you doubt that I heard you and replied. I don't know how to help you further.
I can speculate why someone else would say the pact is evil if the character didn't know the patron was evil, but that isn't what I'd personally recommend. I asked if you were talking about a particular character. You don't have to do as I recommended to ask me a question for how to do it the way you would prefer. I would be happy to help, if I have the time.
Perhaps the mere act of pursuing power in this way is evil. Perhaps you want to justify not calling it evil. If it's the latter, I suggest you just say you don't use alignment restrictions. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. You are still free to redefine what is evil in your campaign, such as Riley37 does.
I hope I have cleared away any obstacles to our having an enjoyable discussion in the future, on any subject. I was asked, myself, whether I used the text's definition of evil. I don't have a problem with any of it, but it doesn't equal the total body of knowledge we have on the subject. I am as free to draw upon knowledge from elsewhere as you or Riley37 is. The text makes no effort to disallow that, but even if it did, anyone would still be free to change anything they wanted.
The class is shockingly evil to me, as written, even though a few of the official patrons are not evil.
The discussion here has shown a lot of sharp disagreement, becoming vitriol in reply to my own comments, which oddly are among the shortest. The primary issue of contention seems to be whether the text means the same thing for everyone who reads it, and whether that text is the highest authority.
Is it so bad to be told you would have to be evil to be a typical warlock of the fiend or great old one? If the DM doesn't allow any evil PC's, then it could be a big downer because then you'd have some players who like it but can't play it. I recommend letting the alignment of the patron match the warlock.
The disagreement is mainly between between people who think it's inherently evil to kill things using Vampiric Touch *but* not inherently evil to gas them to death using Cloudkill and other people who think that distinction is kinda silly. In this thread the latter outnumber the former.
Put another way, it's a disagreement between people who prefer to read into texts rather than read out of them.
Put another way, it's a disagreement between people who prefer to read into texts rather than read out of them.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Which is perfectly fine--except that you presented your opinion, originally, as the only way to interpret the text--and told others they had to "redefine things" in order to get their opinion. In other words, as with several conversations before this, you held up the books as supporting your perspective and making your perspective "right." Then...
...you say things like this, once people cite the text and demonstrate that your argument either doesn't fit the text as-written, or is a personal interpretation of the text rather than its explicit meaning. Also, whether a post is short or long has nothing to do with whether it is inflammatory--and some of your posts, whether you think it or not, have been inflammatory.
No, it is not so bad to have that--in fact, several people responded to your initial "it has to be evil, it's even more evil than assassins and necromancers!" post with, "Well sure, Infernal pacts are almost surely evil, and GOO pacts aren't necessarily much different, but surely the Fey pact doesn't have to be evil?" So you're retreating to the position others originally took in opposition to you, and acting as though it is a call to reasonableness against people who are being unreasonable.
That said, your last recommendation is very solid--and mirrors, perhaps ironically, the way that Paladins worked in 4e. Paladin was the only class (IIRC) that had any kind of "alignment restriction" in 4e: you had to start out with the same alignment as your god. You could change later on, and nothing would directly change (but you'd probably have your church after you for heresy if you changed dramatically). Warlock, whether 4e or 5e, seems to fit a similar mold. I could see someone arguing for being "within one step" of their patron's alignment--so a Lawful Neutral person could potentially make a pact with a Lawful Evil entity--but just straight-up matching to patron alignment makes perfect sense.
That said though--yeah, it would be pretty bad if one was gung-ho about playing a GOO or Infernal Warlock and couldn't because the DM essentially banned those classes. "I don't permit Evil PCs" + "GOO and Infernal pacts are only for Evil characters" = "GOO and Infernal pacts are banned at my table." It may not be explicitly said, but it's a deductive consequence of the previous two statements. There is no case where the first two statements are true and the third statement is false unless the DM makes a special exception (which would mean, more or less, violating either the first rule, allowing an evil PC, or the second rule, allowing a GOO/Infernal pact Warlock that wasn't evil.) Any situation which eliminates player enthusiasm about non-abusive, rules-as-intended play is something I consider "pretty bad."
Similar Threads
