D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?

[Ahrimon]

Another thing to consider is that while the baked in flavor may be a pact, there's nothing mechanically that is tied to the concept of the pact. A Warlock could easily be flavored as using stolen knowledge. Perhaps he found an ancient tome or carvings in in some ancient cave that unlocked the knowledge that some entity wanted buried. It would be interesting to have a warlock who was constantly dodging agents of an entity while stealing more and more power.

 

[Riley37]

I just find it hard to swallow the idea that Bahamut would willingly select (or accept a request from) someone who wasn't already more-or-less a Cleric/Paladin/etc. anyway.

A person can have the same *motivations* as a cleric or paladin, and have different *gifts*.

If someone wants to fight the cult of Tiamat, and lacks the WIS for Cleric and the STR/DEX for Paladin, but has lots of CHA, then Bahamut can either grant that person a pact, create a level 1 warlock, and gain one more warrior against Tiamat; or Bahamut can decline, leaving that person at 0 level... and not gain one more warrior against Tiamat.

Which is the more responsible choice, from Bahamut's perspective?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A person can have the same *motivations* as a cleric or paladin, and have different *gifts*.

If someone wants to fight the cult of Tiamat, and lacks the WIS for Cleric and the STR/DEX for Paladin, but has lots of CHA, then Bahamut can either grant that person a pact, create a level 1 warlock, and gain one more warrior against Tiamat; or Bahamut can decline, leaving that person at 0 level... and not gain one more warrior against Tiamat.

Which is the more responsible choice, from Bahamut's perspective?

There are no direct Paladin powers/abilities, in 5e, which depend on Dex or Str. All of the actual magic they wield is dependent on Charisma already--and, for at least one encounter per short rest, a Devotion Pally (the Oath which makes the most sense for Bahamut) can make up for not having good Str (or Dex) with her Charisma.

It's not just a matter of having greater forces, which I tried to communicate earlier but I guess I didn't. Bahamut is a Lawful Good guy. I believe he prioritizes Good first, but Lawful is always a consideration. The fundamental nature of the Warlock pact, in my opinion, doesn't jive with that. While it might be a "binding contract," and so "lawful" in that sense, the implicit nature of the "Warlock" class is that you can do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't violate the (implicitly) narrow range of unacceptable behaviors. I think Bahamut is substantially more selective than that. He absolutely appreciates and welcomes anyone--of any class--who wishes to fight the Cult of Tiamat, and for really helpful people, he might even try to float the occasional divine intervention as a "thank you." But that's a far cry from handing out power to just Joe Anybody who happens to dislike Tiamat.

So...I genuinely believe the more responsible choice, from his perspective, is not to give out power to absolutely everyone who meets the bare minimum requirements of agreeing with one narrowly specific goal. Power is easily abused. Giving out power to anyone that you think might use it to further your ends is an abuse of power itself. Bahamut, being a god of protection, hope, and justice, would probably not be very inclined to make "vigilante" type people unless he felt there was a dire injustice that needed to be corrected sooner rather than later.

Also, remember that I'm coming into this from 4e, where even to become a Divine class proper, you have to have Investiture: a ceremony whereby a fragment of divine power is bestowed upon you; generally done by the clergy, though it requires the deity's permission and can be done without the clergy if the deity wants it badly enough (the implication is that non-ceremonial Investiture is more "expensive" due to the limitations on overt Divine intervention in PoLand). It's very, very explicitly fluffed as something the gods take with utmost seriousness because they can't take it back. Powers that are constantly held on the end of a "gotcha" string are stupid and encourage DM abuse merely by existing, so I'm never going to consider a "Bahamut pact" one that Bahamut can just yoink if he feels it's not working out. (And that would strike me as a not-particularly-lawful action anyway).

 

[Quartz]

How about Titans as sponsors of Warlocks? Especially in a classical-themed campaign - after all, they were overthrown by the Gods, so they can't have clerics. Thus warlocks would be a back door.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It may be worth mentioning that in the 5e context, a paladin doesn't receive power directly from a god. Their power comes from their oath, and if you have the Oath of Devotion, you can follow a god, or not, and still get powers. In a sense, a paladin relates to their god like the devout wizard I presented above - a god represents good things about the world, but isn't directly responsible for my abilities. If a paladin of Devotion who followed Bahamut suddenly offended the god, but still cleaved to the principles of Devotion, they wouldn't become an Oathbeaker, though a paladin who followed an edict from Bahamut that violated the oath would become an Oathbreaker. It's also possible to gain power from an oath that you idolize but don't always adhere to - nothing in the RAW stops you from being a CE Paladin of Devotion who wants to atone but can't always stop burning orphanages...

Clerics are explicitly joined with a god, however, so Bahamut has a bigger influence there.

the implicit nature of the "Warlock" class is that you can do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't violate the (implicitly) narrow range of unacceptable behaviors

Just from a religious perspective, this pretty much defines most sacred rules that faithful people follow. 10 commandments or a Golden Rule or "make sacrifices" are a pretty narrow range of unacceptable behaviors, and other than that, you can do as thou wilt (which is also one of those rules: "Love, and do as thou wilt").

Power is easily abused. Giving out power to anyone that you think might use it to further your ends is an abuse of power itself. Bahamut, being a god of protection, hope, and justice, would probably not be very inclined to make "vigilante" type people unless he felt there was a dire injustice that needed to be corrected sooner rather than later.

I mean, most D&D games I've been a part of have pretty active villains whose dire injustice needs to be corrected sooner rather than later.

Besides, this dovetails nicely with the idea of divine punishment for the misuse of abilities, ie, the "danger" of a celestial pact. You never know when you use an ability if Bahamut is going to turn around and send angelic dragons after your hide because you didn't use it in accordance with his wishes. John Dee constantly had angels reprimanding him and Kelly and the whole bleedin' world for not being good enough. Just as a fiendish patron tries to push their good-or-neutral users to evil, a celestial patron tries to push their evil-or-neutral users to Good.

Powers that are constantly held on the end of a "gotcha" string are stupid and encourage DM abuse merely by existing, so I'm never going to consider a "Bahamut pact" one that Bahamut can just yoink if he feels it's not working out. (And that would strike me as a not-particularly-lawful action anyway).

The way I see it, a celestial warlock who has offended their patron doesn't get powers yoinked any more than a fiendish warlock wh ohas offended their patron does. Rather, the patron tries to arrange for punishments and death. When you've offended Bahamut, the hosts of angels and metallic dragons will be breathing down your neck to destroy you. Which is a pretty cool character hook, IMO!

 

[Mallus]

There are expectations and limitations of flavor that are inherent to the class. Reading the class descriptions tells you that.

Yes. We agree on this. But I don't see why this would mean it's a good practice for a DM to "to be harder on one class than another". That's the part I was objecting to.

The DMs job is the same for every PC: present an interesting and challenging environment to adventure in. This is true if the PC is a paladin, thief, wizard, or warlock. I've never heard DM advice along the lines of, "well, you should go easy on Ralf the Rugged, he's just a fighter. But really amp up the difficulty for Lady Tereza Terrific because she's a paladin". Both PCSs deserve the same from the DM; the opportunity for adventure and meaningful challenges.

And there has to be better and more creative ways to impart 'flavor' than arbitraily deciding some (permitted) classes are harder to play than others.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Bahamut... wouldn't it be more interesting to use a more (cultural) anthropological approach? Instead of starting with "Bahamut is X. Her follows are Y. They do Z", say this "Bahamut is worshipped by cultures X, Y, and Z. Further, the influence of the Bahamutist faith can be found in the occult practices of Q, R, and T".

This way, you can have several several regional Dragon Temples of Bahamut, each worshiping a particular aspect/incarnation, with different practices, alignments, and divine domains.

You can have various orders of Dragon Knight, i.e. paladins, secret societies of Dragon-Blooded, i.e. sorcerer traditions who claim direct lineage, schools of Dragon wizards who claim Bahamut as the source of their mystic knowledge, and even Dragon-Sworn, i.e. warlocks from some distant land where Bahamut isn't considered a deity (exactly).

This framework has the advantage of being more like the way belief systems actually work!

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

The first 5e Game I played in, I played a tiefling warlock. CG, nobleman, loved the people. I played his powers up as a birthright, as he had been born into a human family after Asmodus used his great-great-great- whatever grandmother as a consort. As his parents were ashamed of him, they locked him away. He slowly came into his powers like a mutant, and found that he had a mentor (whom he thought was just a voice in his head) that called himself Ol' Scratch.

Now, the fact that he later rededicated himself to the Castlevania version of Dracula and took over a small demi plane as a Tiefling Vampire Warlock, thats totally irrelevant to how he started.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

I think the Dresden Files books (particularly the most recent one - Skin Game) demonstrate pretty well that a Warlock can be a good guy. Mild spoilers for those who have not read it yet and don't want to be spoiled: [sblock]Not that Harry Dresden is a Warlock. But his patron is an evil (or at best neutral-nasty) Fey, and the Winter Knight portion of his powers comes from her, along with certain evil (or at least neutral-nasty) impulses he resists as best he can. But he remains good, and goes on missions along with evil people and manages to stay good while thwarting their evil plans.[/sblock]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another thing to consider is that while the baked in flavor may be a pact, there's nothing mechanically that is tied to the concept of the pact. A Warlock could easily be flavored as using stolen knowledge. Perhaps he found an ancient tome or carvings in in some ancient cave that unlocked the knowledge that some entity wanted buried. It would be interesting to have a warlock who was constantly dodging agents of an entity while stealing more and more power.

The PHB actually notes this "parasitic" Warlock concept as an explicit possibility for Great Old One warlocks, and invocations are explicitly knowledge as opposed to granted power. Pact Boons are granted by the patrons, which is one reason I've never made a warlock PC that exceeds 2nd level as a warlock--I'm okay with siphoning off secrets but I don't want any long-term commitments. YMMV though.