D&D General Warlock Great Old One

[jgsugden]

Honestly IMO you are both right. Cosmologically the Vorlons and the Shadows are pretty explicitly Great Old Ones while the Shadows behave like Fiends (and the Vorlons are only slightly more complex). Babylon 5 has a different cosmology from default 5e.

And going into the specifics of the setting I absolutely would stat Lyta Alexander and even Bester as GOOlocks (with Aberrant Minds being the only alternatives) while the Shadows aversion to psionics means Morden would better be represented as a Fiendlock with Dark One's Luck, Command, and Suggestion.

Again, that script book is a good resource for the intent of the author. While we can see things the author did not intend in a work, it is often best when analyzing their work to consider their stated intent and use that as a lens. When you read the unintended into the work of an author, it can disrespect them. Some authors are fine with it (until someone turns it into pro fascist propoganda), but some are very much against people reinterpreting their work.

[B5 spoilers ahead]

While a bit dumbed down for an American Sci-fi audience, both the Vorlons and the Shadows were depicted as being mysterious and inscrutable throughout the series. You didn't know why they did what they did until season four ... and even then, it was mostly abstract by being boiled down to one overarching question of 3 or 4 words for each ... and must be considered in light of the way the story resolved. These beings were so inscrutable that they, themselves, forgot who they were and what they wanted. The majority of seasons 2, 3 and 4 are a journey to understand these beings that defy understanding. Remember all those lessons Sheridan took with Kosh? What was the explicit reason for them? Understanding.

Look how they communicated.

Vorlons: "The avalanche has already started ... it is too late for the pebbles to vote." "Ah, you seek meaning. Then listen to the music, not the song." Remember when Kosh appeared to Sheridan as his father in a dream? There was a bovine form etched into scrut - In scrut ... a bull!

Shadows: Let me put this thing in your body so that I can control you. Almost everything else we ever hear from a Shadow ... we don't. Most of their dialogue is only heard by their Thralls like Mr. Morden. Can we get a reservation in Innsmouth?

Both the Shadows and Vorlons clearly have a variety of servants that were granted something in exchange for something - and it was not always by choice. The Shadows forced Molari into service, as well as the pilots of their ships. The Vorlons took the Inquisitor and demanded obedience from the "lesser races" or face destruction. It is easy to just use a broad brush and say, "Shadows: Evil - and chaotic - Demons!" and "Vorlons: Tyrannical - and lawful - DEVILS!" But JMS, as someone very interested in religious themes, was careful about how he crafted religion into the B5 stories - and he intentionally avoided going down the path of making Vorlons and Shadows fiendish. Despite episodes on religion and the use of Angelic imagery as a guise for Vorlons, he didn't use any of the tropes of infernal, fiendish, diabolic, demonic or porcine as features of Vorlons or Shadows. They were intentionally alien and mysterious.

You can argue any arrangement where someone gives up something for power looks fiendish because we describe such deals with evil as "deals with the devil". Absent the trappings of religious dogma, it is only superficial, however.

Here, the author's inspiration and his goal for emulation was explicitly Lovecraftian mythos. Straight from his own words, that is what was intended, and he was intentional about not using religious imagery or tropes (which I believe was intentional to make the sudden intrusion of the Angelic image a shocking reveal that was not fore-shadowed. Thus, when it hit, it hit hard - showing us that the Vorlons worked in mysterious ways that we were just not comprehending ... but made sense.)

And, yes, I know what porcine means. Did you see Porky in the imagery of the Shadows or Vorlons?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Honestly IMO you are both right. Cosmologically the Vorlons and the Shadows are pretty explicitly Great Old Ones while the Shadows behave like Fiends (and the Vorlons are only slightly more complex). Babylon 5 has a different cosmology from default 5e.

And going into the specifics of the setting I absolutely would stat Lyta Alexander and even Bester as GOOlocks (with Aberrant Minds being the only alternatives) while the Shadows aversion to psionics means Morden would better be represented as a Fiendlock with Dark One's Luck, Command, and Suggestion.

In the Babylon 5 universe, stories about fields are based on Shadows, and stories about celestials are based on Vorlons. But in both cases, this is impersonation for the purpose of manipulation. What they actually are is Great Old Ones (as another GOO, Lorien, explains).

 

[Neonchameleon]

While a bit dumbed down for an American Sci-fi audience, both the Vorlons and the Shadows were depicted as being mysterious and inscrutable throughout the series.

This. Just because we can pretty easily understand the Vorlons and Shadows doesn't mean that the characters can - and certainly doesn't mean the in-setting characters could until very late in the series.

Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. Its motives are incomprehensible to mortals, and its knowledge so immense and ancient that even the greatest libraries pale in comparison to the vast secrets it holds. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.​

​

Entities of this type include Ghaunadar, called That Which Lurks; Tharizdun, the Chained God; Dendar, the Night Serpent; Zargon, the Returner; Great Cthulhu; and other unfathomable beings.​

One thing you can say about Vorlons and Shadows alike, however, is that they aren't indifferent.

And, yes, I know what porcine means. Did you see Porky in the imagery of the Shadows or Vorlons?

And now I'm confused where "porcine" entered this discussion.

In the Babylon 5 universe, stories about fields are based on Shadows, and stories about celestials are based on Vorlons. But in both cases, this is impersonation for the purpose of manipulation. What they actually are is Great Old Ones (as another GOO, Lorien, explains).

This is true. But it means that, depending how far the impersonation goes, Warlocks based on them can be GOOlocks, Celestial locks, or Fiendish locks. Or possibly something else. I would also say that it is 100% against the Babylon 5 themes to make Shadow warlocks psychic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nathaniel, from the Bartimeus books.

Magicians in Bartimaeus are more binders than warlocks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly IMO you are both right. Cosmologically the Vorlons and the Shadows are pretty explicitly Great Old Ones while the Shadows behave like Fiends (and the Vorlons are only slightly more complex). Babylon 5 has a different cosmology from default 5e.

And going into the specifics of the setting I absolutely would stat Lyta Alexander and even Bester as GOOlocks (with Aberrant Minds being the only alternatives) while the Shadows aversion to psionics means Morden would better be represented as a Fiendlock with Dark One's Luck, Command, and Suggestion.

This just says to me that 5e lacks for a proper psionic class, not that these things are best represented by Warlocks. Morden certainly does act like both a Warlock and a patron (or, at least, the representative thereof), but it's telling to me that you feel he needs to be Fiend, not Great Old One.

I certainly agree that B5 has a different cosmology, but the Vorlons, Shadows, and other First Ones act like very powerful Outsiders in D&D terms, not like Cthulhu. The two main groups act like LN angels (with Kosh Naranek being the rare LG one) and CE demons; the rest act like territorial TNs that just want to be left alone. They can be goaded by ordinary deceptions (the fiery ones Ivanova tricked into coming to Coriana VI), they know quite well who and what the "younger races" are and what we generally care about (they just mostly think we are feeble and greedy and a danger to ourselves and others...which isn't entirely wrong). When you finally corner one and get them to answer questions or talk to you, they're quite similar to actual people, with clear and definable beliefs ("It's about ideology!" "Of course. What isn't? Order versus chaos: choose one.") Far from being ignorant or apathetic about us mortals, both the Vorlons and Shadows are deeply invested in getting us to be more like them, take their side, see them as good and desirable. The Vorlons work comparatively openly, imprinting religious symbolism onto various races (at least humans, Narn, Minbari, Centauri, and Drazi) to present themselves as beings of light and goodness and the Shadows as dangerous creatures of darkness and evil. The Shadows work covertly, giving gifts, manipulating, hiding secrets on dozens of worlds, planting seeds that may not grow for ten thousand years or more.

Both of them certainly act like patrons. I just don't see the eldritch horror angle to either of them, the "it is so far beyond us we are barely amoeboid to it" angle, the apathy, the incomprehensible and possibly even undefinable beliefs or reality-breaking nature (e.g. non-Euclidean geometries). The closest the show ever got to that was the Thirdspace "anti-life" aliens, who (notably) were powerful enough to mind-control even Vorlons, and who were presented as genuinely pretty incomprehensible to any living being of our universe, including those very Vorlons.

Lyta probably is best represented by a Great Old One Warlock, but only because that's the only strongly psionic Warlock pact. In all honesty, I don't know if she can really be captured properly by any D&D class, because she is a special creation, something unique left behind as a safety mechanism. She is the kind of thing that would be a potentially dangerous ally NPC, not a player character—and if she were someone's PC, I would expect some heavy homebrew to make her work correctly.

For my part, Bester always struck me as a dark wizard, not a warlock. But that may be more because I see him as pretty terrible at manipulating others with charisma (he mostly just makes them hate him more), but really good at fooling or out-planning them, up until the point that his allies (like Clark, or the Shadows) fail him and thus leave him exposed.

I can see how JMS would find aesthetic inspiration in the Cthulhu mythos for the First Ones, and how that could be part of his efforts to keep them mysterious until near the end of Season 3, when the Shadow War comes to a head. The Shadows in particular fit well with the "when the stars are right, we will return" concept. But once the wool is pulled from our eyes and we get to see what the First Ones are actually like, they aren't even vaguely Cthulhu-like anymore, neither in behavior nor in thought. Authorial intent may have been to keep them there, but they behave and think in far too many grounded, even "human" (relatively speaking), ways to be like Cthulhu or his brethren.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This just says to me that 5e lacks for a proper psionic class, not that these things are best represented by Warlocks. Morden certainly does act like both a Warlock and a patron (or, at least, the representative thereof), but it's telling to me that you feel he needs to be Fiend, not Great Old One.

Why is this telling? Psychic has a very specific meaning in the Babylon 5 universe in ways that are incompatible with the Shadows. This is a very specific worldbuilding detail.

And I don't think that all B5 psychics are GOOlocks. Just Lyta Alexander and possibly Bester. Talia Winters, for example, I'd say is best represented by a Soulknife; she can make psychic attacks but they aren't that strong and most of what she does is skill based. And the Mimbari psychics we see I'd call Aberrant Minds.

I certainly agree that B5 has a different cosmology, but the Vorlons, Shadows, and other First Ones act like very powerful Outsiders in D&D terms, not like Cthulhu.

And Great Old Ones aren't all Cthulhu; although Great Cthulhu is mentioned by name in the GOOlock suggested patrons section there are others; the exact quote is:

Entities of this type include Ghaunadar, called That Which Lurks; Tharizdun, the Chained God; Dendar, the Night Serpent; Zargon, the Returner; Great Cthulhu; and other unfathomable beings.​

And the Shadows I would say are more like The Elder Eye, the Night Serpent or the One Who Wants to Drown The World In Ooze than they are Cthulhu.

Lyta probably is best represented by a Great Old One Warlock, but only because that's the only strongly psionic Warlock pact. In all honesty, I don't know if she can really be captured properly by any D&D class, because she is a special creation, something unique left behind as a safety mechanism.

If you're going to try to make her a PC then she's definitely a GOOlock. But one of the key things about warlocks is that they are much more unique than members of other classes because of their invocations.

For my part, Bester always struck me as a dark wizard, not a warlock. But that may be more because I see him as pretty terrible at manipulating others with charisma (he mostly just makes them hate him more), but really good at fooling or out-planning them, up until the point that his allies (like Clark, or the Shadows) fail him and thus leave him exposed.

For Bester I can't agree. If you're going for an orthodox caster I could be sold on Aberrant Mind Sorcerer. He's good at convincing people to do what he wants - but is much better at deception than diplomacy. He just hasn't trained diplomacy, considering non-psis beneath him - but he has incredible force of personality and skill at intimidation; he's just not itnerested in being liked. And I really don't see him as a magical researcher or able to switch up his spell list. (I just think the mix of at will abilities and being able to bring some really big guns probably works better).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would also say that it is 100% against the Babylon 5 themes to make Shadow warlocks psychic.

Yeah, true. But that is very universe-specific. I don't think many D&D games would have actual Shadows and Vorlons, just something inspired by them.

A vorlon-inspired patron could work well. In the PCs backstory, they encounter a being that is either completely encased in weird armour, or appears to be a celestial. The being is in need of assistance, and the PC helps them in some way. But the being is actually from the Far Realms. Note that Far Realms doesn't mean "chaotic evil", it just means "incomprehensibly alien". So the patron might appear to be benevolent, but there is always a chance that the DM decides they are going to demand something, well, alien.

Or, you could have a celestial warlock, whose patron turns out to be a lawful stupid bstd in the vein of Kosh2. Make a change from all those nice friendly unicorns and couatl!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Another suggestion: how about a formian (or similar insectoid) hive collective intelligence as a GOO patron? Or Myconid? Or a huge swarm of cranium rats?

A collective intelligence is very alien, very powerful if big enough, and likely psychic.

 

[Hriston]

Father Faustus Blackwood, in the Netflix series Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, while identifiable as a Fiend-pact warlock as the High Priest of the Church of the Night in season 1, is transformed into a GOO-pact warlock in season 2 who devotes himself to the "Eldritch Terrors" and goes by the alias "Father Lovecraft".

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Again, that script book is a good resource for the intent of the author. While we can see things the author did not intend in a work, it is often best when analyzing their work to consider their stated intent and use that as a lens. When you read the unintended into the work of an author, it can disrespect them. Some authors are fine with it (until someone turns it into pro fascist propoganda), but some are very much against people reinterpreting their work.

There is an entire school of literary criticism that holds that authorial intent is completely irrelevant when it comes to understanding a work. The work exists on its own, and only what is in the work matters, not what the author planned to put in there. If an author feels that this is disrespectful, well, lacking respect is in many ways part of the job description of a literary analyst.