D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?

[billd91]

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

Sure, they do. People have been using real life gods in D&D since the early days of D&D. Even 5e does so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You're not demonstrating that plagues are exclusive to evil, just that evil gods tend to like 'em. I wouldn't dispute that evil gods like plagues, I would just dispute that good gods in D&D are somehow prohibited from using them. Evil gods like fire, too, and good gods are entirely capable of using it as well.

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

The real-world examples are only meant to inform how such an apparently counter-intuitive creature could look and be consistent and draw inspiration. It's not different from saying that you could use real-life stories about witches to model a fey-pact warlock, or real-life stories about crusading knights to model a paladin.

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.

...which is exactly why it fits with the idea that a Celestial warlock is doing it. It doesn't fit. It's secret. It's a hidden side. It's a dimension others deny. All that secret nasty business is totally meaty Warlock-inspriation material. In a game where this is an option, everything you say would be said by the clerics of the faith...and the warlocks would know it's not nearly that simple.

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.

Well, someone can take any oath and pretend to worship Bahamut (paladins don't get their power from gods). But that digression aside, there's little reason why D&D as a whole would forbid making the choice for a Good deity to grant secret forbidden divine knowledge to someone who would work with them on a common goal (even if that individual wasn't the most morally upstanding character around). I can get that some DMs wouldn't want to truck in that, for various reasons, but I don't get that the game itself forbids this.

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're not demonstrating that angels and lights are sole methods that Pelor uses, just that he tends to use 'em. I wouldn't dispute that Pelor likes angels, I would just dispute that Pelor is somehow prohibited from also using darkness and plagues.

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 don't think you and I share a definition of "working" in this context.

I don't have a theory, I just have a proposal that might be kind of fun for some tables. You're suggesting that such a thing is not permissible (unless one somehow violates the rules with a "house rule"), which doesn't seem to truck with my experience.

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

There's no claim of exclusivity, though, simply of promotion.

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.

I think warlocks with a celestial pact should explore whatever path seems like fun to the people at the table. Call me mad.

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.

It's not incompatible, it's just atypical.

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.

Necrotic damage isn't evil, it's just typically used by evil. Fire isn't evil. Healing isn't good. D&D energies and elements don't have inherent alignment tendencies. There's no exclusive provenance.

Pelor can cast someone into darkness. And so Pelor can concievably have agents with secret knowledge who specialize in darkness, who are regarded as heretics by the Church of Pelor, and who nonetheless get their power directly from him, with their strange rites beneath the New Moon.

 

[Mephista]

Sure, they do. People have been using real life gods in D&D since the early days of D&D. Even 5e does so.

In Greek Mythology, the Erinyes, also known as the Furies, were triune goddess that slew oathbreakers. The D&D equivalent is different. Angels in christian lore are vastly different from the ones in D&D lore. Medusa, in greek myth, was a goddess of healing along with her sisters. Where is that in the entry in the Monster Manual? Tiamat. Babylonian primordial goddess of the ocean and chaos. In D&D, she's a Lawful Evil five headed dragon goddess.

Where is this related to real life gods again? Seems to me that changes are made to the gods to fit them into the default cosmology and setting, not the other way around. So, I say it again. Real life gods are not the same as D&D gods.

 

[Mephista]

You're not demonstrating that plagues are exclusive to evil, just that evil gods tend to like 'em. I wouldn't dispute that evil gods like plagues, I would just dispute that good gods in D&D are somehow prohibited from using them. Evil gods like fire, too, and good gods are entirely capable of using it as well.

Fire is thematically associated with the sun, light, and goodness as much as it is with hellfire in 5e.

Meanwhile, in 5e, disease is flat out associated with the Death Domain, which is associated with evil high priests. That's right in the DMG. On the PHB side, the Life domain talks about how its associated with non-evil gods, and works at curing the sick. The implications are pretty strong.

The real-world examples are only meant to inform how such an apparently counter-intuitive creature could look and be consistent and draw inspiration. It's not different from saying that you could use real-life stories about witches to model a fey-pact warlock, or real-life stories about crusading knights to model a paladin.

Except that, in real life, your examples would be embodied by the Fiend pact. Not a celestial one. Fiends are the dark angels that spread plagues.

...which is exactly why it fits with the idea that a Celestial warlock is doing it. It doesn't fit. It's secret. It's a hidden side. It's a dimension others deny. All that secret nasty business is totally meaty Warlock-inspriation material. In a game where this is an option, everything you say would be said by the clerics of the faith...and the warlocks would know it's not nearly that simple.

Except that its inconsistent with what has been established. You are rewriting the entire character, twisting things in a way that doesn't make in-universe sense. That's just bad writing, bad game design.

Internal consistency is critical for immersion and suspension of disbelief.

Well, someone can take any oath and pretend to worship Bahamut (paladins don't get their power from gods). But that digression aside, there's little reason why D&D as a whole would forbid making the choice for a Good deity to grant secret forbidden divine knowledge to someone who would work with them on a common goal (even if that individual wasn't the most morally upstanding character around). I can get that some DMs wouldn't want to truck in that, for various reasons, but I don't get that the game itself forbids this.

Oaths untied to gods are immaterial - the majority of paladins worship gods irregardless, and often swear the oaths at gods' altars.

D&D as a whole likely would never make such a character because its not internally consistent. And, as I've said before, that's kinda important to maintain. If you have a being that goes around killing people to prop up their rule, that would be a Lawful Neutral at the best. Its inconsistent with how Good is portrayed in books.

You're not demonstrating that angels and lights are sole methods that Pelor uses, just that he tends to use 'em. I wouldn't dispute that Pelor likes angels, I would just dispute that Pelor is somehow prohibited from also using darkness and plagues.

Celestial patrons would include angels, by nature of how the Patron system works. We're talking about Celestial patrons, so therefore we must be talking about celestial creatures. In 5e, that's angels, couatl, empyreans, unicorn, and pegasi. These will serve as the bulk of teachers. However, its inconsistent with their portrayal in the DMG to teach spells that warlocks typically use.

If your supposedly Good deity employs undead and fiends to teach, I submit that 1) he's not really Good in the D&D sense, and 2) that's still a fiend (or fey, or GOO, or Vestige) Patron there. Certainly, its vastly out of character for Pelor to do so.

Technically, we shouldn't be talking gods at all, but that was an example another poster brought up, and the Patron list does include two gods (Asmodeus and Tharizdun, the Chained God) as examples, so that's that.

I don't think you and I share a definition of "working" in this context.

I don't have a theory, I just have a proposal that might be kind of fun for some tables. You're suggesting that such a thing is not permissible (unless one somehow violates the rules with a "house rule"), which doesn't seem to truck with my experience.

You are making a proposal to make major alterations to the setting of Greyhawk to fit a character. If that's fun, go ahead at your table. However, if it doesn't make sense for a story that the DM has in mind for the game, then should you expect such changes to be adopted, just because?

All that is immaterial anyways. I'm talking about Pelor as he is written, as the vast majority of people play him. I don't care what individual tables do. That was never what this was about. This was a discussion if it made sense for Pelor, as presented in a way we all know, to sponsor a warlock.

And, frankly, I'm annoyed with how your characterizing my take on house rules. Yes, changing a setting in such a major way is home brew content, a house rule. Its not dirty or something you shouldn't do. However, individualized settings have zero place in a discussion on published material at a meta-level.

I think warlocks with a celestial pact should explore whatever path seems like fun to the people at the table. Call me mad.

I'm calling you being internally inconsistent that doesn't make sense as a story. Classes come with built in themes. They're not just a collection of mechanics.

It's not incompatible, it's just atypical.

When you are effectively rewriting things to make it work, then yes, its incompatible.

Necrotic damage isn't evil, it's just typically used by evil. Fire isn't evil. Healing isn't good. D&D energies and elements don't have inherent alignment tendencies. There's no exclusive provenance.

The cosmology section in 5e suggests otherwise. The positive energy plane (which is life energy) wraps around the higher planes, the negative energy plane (which is the source of necrotic energy that destroys the living) wraps around the lower planes.

Pelor can cast someone into darkness. And so Pelor can concievably have agents with secret knowledge who specialize in darkness, who are regarded as heretics by the Church of Pelor, and who nonetheless get their power directly from him, with their strange rites beneath the New Moon.

Casting someone out of your domain isnt' the same thing as championing the outcasts. This is purely homebrew content that changes who and what Pelor is and stands for. This isn't atypical. This is flat out changing the default. Which, at your table, is fine. Its not something that the vast majority of players use.

That's like saying "Well, my table lets Rangers use Hunter Marks and an off hand attack all with the same bonus action! So, the RAW is wrong!" You changed things to work at your table. Alright, that's fine. It doesn't help as part of the discussion. Everyone needs to come from the same baseline, or as close as you can get to it.

 

[Mephista]

And all that doesn't begin to touch on the thematic overlap with paladins and clerics. A goodly god wants a divine warrior to assassinate someone, there's entire orders of divine warriors sworn to do just that.

 

[Shasarak]

In Greek Mythology, the Erinyes, also known as the Furies, were triune goddess that slew oathbreakers. The D&D equivalent is different. Angels in christian lore are vastly different from the ones in D&D lore. Medusa, in greek myth, was a goddess of healing along with her sisters. Where is that in the entry in the Monster Manual? Tiamat. Babylonian primordial goddess of the ocean and chaos. In D&D, she's a Lawful Evil five headed dragon goddess.

Where is this related to real life gods again? Seems to me that changes are made to the gods to fit them into the default cosmology and setting, not the other way around. So, I say it again. Real life gods are not the same as D&D gods.

There is no essential difference between a real life fictional God* and a made for DnD fictional God.




*Excluding, of course, which God you believe in Gentle Reader

 

[Shasarak]

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.

So according to the PHB, Warlocks are "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular."

Nothing there screams "Evil" to me.

Looking further at the three Pacts (Chain, Blade and Tome) none of which seem to have anything to do with evil.

The is nothing in the Archfey or Great Old One Patron list that is evil, and the only thing in the Fiend list is the 14th level "Hurl through Hell" which is easily re-skinned as "Hurl through what ever plane you want to hurl through"

Even the Eldritch Blast spell does force damage so you can easily spam your attack cantrip without worrying about Necrotic damage.

I think there is nothing there that a Good patron would not teach.

 

[GSHamster]

I think it's more that the Good powers tend to also be "straightforward". It just seems far more likely that a straightforward Good power would not bother with warlocks, and just rely on priests and paladins.

So what you're really looking for is a Good power that relies on misdirection, and being somewhat enigmatic. The only real good Powers like that I can think of are the "trickster" gods like Coyote. maybe Lugh and Hermes. D&D pantheons don't really have many trickster powers that are not overly focused on thieves. Maybe Garl Glittergold for the gnomes.

 

[sidonunspa]

Harry Dresden after he become the Winter Knight...... your welcome

 

[Mephista]

So according to the PHB, Warlocks are "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular."

Nothing there screams "Evil" to me.

That's like saying that researching forbidden occult lore in Call of Cthulhu isn't dark, evil, and won't drive you criminally insane (hint: it does). Warlocks are also constantly characterized by a thirst for power. A look at the spell list shows exactly what kind of power they get - offensive damage spells, mental manipulation, curses, and darkness.

While that's not evil, as D&D defines it, it is definitely on the darker side of magic.

Looking further at the three Pacts (Chain, Blade and Tome) none of which seem to have anything to do with evil.

Blade pact relies on Hex and their 12 ability to deal necrotic damage. Tome is generalized, literally; it lets you get spells from anywhere. Chain has two fiends and two fey-like familiars. The fiends are definitely evil. So, being right once out of three isn't bad.

The is nothing in the Archfey or Great Old One Patron list that is evil,

So, let me get this straight. Dominating and controlling people like the illithid do isn't evil? An ability designed to make you think you're insane or cast into another plane called "Dark Delirium" isn't dark? Granting spells that revolve around insanity and mind control isn't?

Even the Eldritch Blast spell does force damage so you can easily spam your attack cantrip without worrying about Necrotic damage.

Eldritch blast is often accompanied by Hex, which is absolutely necrotic. Arms of Hadar is evoking beings beyond reality into this world, generally the same sort like the evil aboliths. Armor of Agathys calls upon a fiend.

I think there is nothing there that a Good patron would not teach.

Only if you ignore the spell list, which is dominated by necrotic damage, curses, excessive mind control, deception and inflicting madness, calling upon creatures of darkness, draining life energy, summoning undead, inflicting fear, and shadows/darkness in general.

Never mind that the class as a whole tends to name things in a negative light. "Agonizing Blast," "Hurl through Hell," "Dark Delirium," "Thrall," "Bewitching Whispers," "Fiendish Vigor," "Dreadful Word." The list goes on. The sheer weight of everything makes its clear that, even if we're not talking about being Evil here, its definitely on the dark side.

Yes, you can rename and reflavor everything at individual tables, but I prefer to discuss just the default class, and there are any number of things in the class that are troubling to a Good being.

And that's a large part of the attraction of the class. That whole dark, troubling edge to them, struggling to do one thing, while temptations to do others are abound.