D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?

[Aldarc]

I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written.

That must be why WotC put the Warlock in the DMG as part of the evil character options.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written.

Really? Even if you have the Archfey pact? That seems pretty benign to me. Certainly less evil than someone whose specific, overt profession is "contract killing."

Necromancy can swing either way so it's hard to judge. The Abhorsen, and her/his apprentice, from Garth Nix's Old Kingdom stories is a good example of a strictly good "necromancer." Though I use quotes because the Abhorsen enforces the boundary between life and Death and fights to eliminate actual necromancers. They also destroy/slay undead using more-or-less the same methods as a regular necromancer, but with "good" ("Charter") magic support.

Or...just to be clear, are you reading the 5e writeup? Because it seems to me that it emphasizes "hunger for knowledge and power" a lot, but someone can be ambitious and intensely curious without being evil. I'd say many of the greatest scientists, engineers, and philosophers had a touch of both, and surely some of them weren't evil. (Consider Imhotep--not the silly villain from the movies, but the real Imhotep, who was possibly monotheistic/monolatristic and also a brilliant engineer and doctor, for his time!)

That must be why WotC put the Warlock in the DMG as part of the evil character options.

I don't own a DMG, so I can't read that section, but color me surprised nonetheless. I'd thought WotC got the memo that people weren't keen on the alignment restrictions, even soft ones...

 

[Aldarc]

I don't own a DMG, so I can't read that section, but color me surprised nonetheless. I'd thought WotC got the memo that people weren't keen on the alignment restrictions, even soft ones...

It was sarcasm.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I think the problem here is visualizing D&D dieties as some sort of two-dimensional alignment puppet based on the few paragraphs that are provided in the core books.

Good in D&D, especially as an objective force, is not some sort of rainbows and puppies paean to pure altruism. While it encompasses that viewpoint, it also recognizes the need to make sacrifices for the greater good as well. Individual entities both defined as good can have opposed positions as to the necessity for various actions. And gods can hold multiple contradictory positions simultaneously by dint of being gods.

That's where the celestial warlock resides, in the spaces where the god of Mercy must, for a time, be the god of Justice. Where a god of Light must explore the shadow he has cast. That breeds conflict, and conflict is where great character concepts are born.

 

[Riley37]

I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written.

As written in the book of SirAntoine. But not as written in the 5E PHB.

Some warlocks use necrotic damage.
Druids can Spray Poison.
Wizards and Light clerics *burn people to death*.
Fighters *chop people into bits*. It's not pretty.


If the ethical test is *who* you kill, and *why* you kill them, then Warlocks can be as Lawful Good as any other class.
If the ethical test is *how* you kill, then I'll take necrotic damage over killing people with fire spells or poison spray.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Sure, either with the John Constantine route, or reskin as celestial or ancestral

John Constantine is my favorite character in comics, but I think it would be a stretch to think of him as a "good guy" per se. He's more of an anti-hero that generally tries to do the right thing (as he interprets it), but sometimes decides to screw it and do what he wants.

 

[JasonZZ]

The Danny Ketch version of Ghost Rider, then. Or even Johnny Blaze's Ghost Rider, with the understanding that he fought against his own patron as much as any other enemy. Someone also mentioned Harry Dresden, and made a decent case for multiple pacts over time in his case, including celestial.

 

[SirAntoine]

As written in the book of SirAntoine. But not as written in the 5E PHB.

Some warlocks use necrotic damage.
Druids can Spray Poison.
Wizards and Light clerics *burn people to death*.
Fighters *chop people into bits*. It's not pretty.


If the ethical test is *who* you kill, and *why* you kill them, then Warlocks can be as Lawful Good as any other class.
If the ethical test is *how* you kill, then I'll take necrotic damage over killing people with fire spells or poison spray.

So, you redefine things.

 

[SirAntoine]

It was sarcasm.

"The memo that people weren't keen on the alignment restrictions, even soft ones...", as quoted by EzekielRaiden, was no good. Alignment restrictions are very popular.

 

[SirAntoine]

I think the problem here is visualizing D&D dieties as some sort of two-dimensional alignment puppet based on the few paragraphs that are provided in the core books.

Good in D&D, especially as an objective force, is not some sort of rainbows and puppies paean to pure altruism. While it encompasses that viewpoint, it also recognizes the need to make sacrifices for the greater good as well. Individual entities both defined as good can have opposed positions as to the necessity for various actions. And gods can hold multiple contradictory positions simultaneously by dint of being gods.

That's where the celestial warlock resides, in the spaces where the god of Mercy must, for a time, be the god of Justice. Where a god of Light must explore the shadow he has cast. That breeds conflict, and conflict is where great character concepts are born.

I never felt alignment was restricting, or inadequately described. I always found it liberating and informative enough it could help in real life, too.