D&D 5E (2014) can warlocks be good guys?

[SirAntoine]

I'm using the definitions in the 5E PHB. The 5E PHB definition of what a warlock is, and the 5E PHB definition of damage types, and the 5E PHB definition of Law and Good.

YOU ARE NOT.

You don't have to use them if they don't suit you, but could you please be honest about it?

You must be mistaken. Give us quotes if you can. I'd like to see where it says that.

 

[Riley37]

You must be mistaken. Give us quotes if you can. I'd like to see where it says that.

Fair enough, will post again from home with PHB at hand.

 

[Ahrimon]

I find the DnD alignment system (except 4e) good for identifying specific situations and modeling general tendencies, but it completely falls apart as a model of anything even remotely realistic. Real life never falls neatly into those little boxes and playing any heavy RP game doesn't really work out if you insist that everyone has to be inside the lines.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You must be mistaken. Give us quotes if you can. I'd like to see where it says that.

Definition of alignment (p 33-34, Player's Basic Rules v 0.2):
"ALIGNMENT
A typical creature in the world of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or netural). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."

Here are the given definitions of the Good alignments, all emphasis in original:
"Lawful Good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."
"Neutral Good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs."
"Chaotic Good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

And for the other two Lawful:
"Lawful Neutral (LN) act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."
"Lawful Evil (LE) methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order."

Definition of Necrotic damage (Player's Basic Rules p 75, emphasis in original):
"Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and a spell such as chill touch, withers matter and even the soul."

You may read the Warlock class description from this image, the free preview of the Warlock. (Image from BoingBoing.)

 

[Mallus]

It is a parody series, and at the same time it treats some topics with utter seriousness; sometimes parody is a way to make an ethical point.

This sentence could describe a large part of the 3e & 4e campaigns I ran over the last 10 years (including both homebrew settings)! So, agreed!

 

[Riley37]

Definition of alignment (p 33-34, Player's Basic Rules v 0.2):

Thanks EzekielRaiden!

"Lawful Good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Copied from PHB p. 105:
"Stories of warlocks binding themselves to fiends are widely known. But many warlocks bind themselves to patrons who are not fiendish. Sometimes a traveller in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it."
From p.106: "What kind of relationship do you have with your patron? Is it friendly, antagonistic, uneasy, or romantic?"

A traveller encounters a lord of the Seelie Court. The traveller enters a romantic union, marries the lord, and says "I do", swearing to cherish, honor and obey. The marriage oath, in this case, is also a warlock pact, because the fey lord's magical power rubs off (so to speak) on the mortal. (See also: Polgara and Durnik in the Belgariad.) Having stumbled into this pact, the mortal joins the Seelie Court ("thy people shall be my people", as Ruth said), follows its rules and becomes one of its defenders, possibly risking their life to fend off Unseelie attacks... while also insatiably seeking to know the husband/patron/lord and his ways ever better.

This warlock's story is straight out of the canonical PHB text, and "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society". (The warlock's husband/patron is both a maintainer and an arbiter of the expectations of Seelie Court society.) This warlock thus matches the canonical description of Lawful Good, quod erat demonstrandum.

A Great Old One warlock, however, seems more likely to "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect", and thus be Chaotic Good.

Definition of Necrotic damage (Player's Basic Rules p 75, emphasis in original):
"Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and a spell such as chill touch, withers matter and even the soul."

I've seen old, sick, withered people. I've seen burn victims. If you'd rather kill people with Fire damage than with Necrotic damage, then you are cruel, and thus evil by my standards, though not by the PHB's standards. If you claim that withering someone to death is more inherently evil than burning them to death, then I don't see how your definition of evil comes from the PHB.

"I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written."
Okay, your turn to find anything in the 5E PHB which supports that assertion. Good luck!

 

[BryonD]

"I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written."
Okay, your turn to find anything in the 5E PHB which supports that assertion. Good luck!

I am curious and have not read the whole thread. Do you agree that as written the books tend to presume/nudge warlocks more to evil than good?

I strongly agree with you that they don't have to be. I think there are some really cool ideas for non-evil warlocks. (love KM's posts at the front this thread)
But I feel as if someone at WotC was actually trying to build up tension in the class by tempting "good" characters to either be evil in some actions, or create characters that don't do evil, but are easily mistaken for it.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I'm playing a 5E warlock in a homebrew campaign right now. In this world, the Witchlords/Elan created or summoned an entire race to be their slaves: the Tainted (rough equivalent of tieflings). My character is a tainted whose parents were freed by their master, so he is technically free. However, other Witchlords don't honor this sort of freedom. My character's main goal in life is to free his people from permanent enslavement.

When offered power to help him in his cause, he jumped at the chance without looking to closely. In short, his pact is with a fiend who is apparently mostly amused by his futile (so far) efforts. But the character is good, and striving for a good cause. Just because he uses tools and powers provided by an evil immortal that doesn't make him evil.

Edit: ENWorld helpfully suggested this thread from 2008: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?228885-How-do-Good-Infernal-Pact-Warlocks-work

 

[SirAntoine]

Thanks EzekielRaiden!

"Lawful Good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Copied from PHB p. 105:
"Stories of warlocks binding themselves to fiends are widely known. But many warlocks bind themselves to patrons who are not fiendish. Sometimes a traveller in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it."
From p.106: "What kind of relationship do you have with your patron? Is it friendly, antagonistic, uneasy, or romantic?"

A traveller encounters a lord of the Seelie Court. The traveller enters a romantic union, marries the lord, and says "I do", swearing to cherish, honor and obey. The marriage oath, in this case, is also a warlock pact, because the fey lord's magical power rubs off (so to speak) on the mortal. (See also: Polgara and Durnik in the Belgariad.) Having stumbled into this pact, the mortal joins the Seelie Court ("thy people shall be my people", as Ruth said), follows its rules and becomes one of its defenders, possibly risking their life to fend off Unseelie attacks... while also insatiably seeking to know the husband/patron/lord and his ways ever better.

This warlock's story is straight out of the canonical PHB text, and "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society". (The warlock's husband/patron is both a maintainer and an arbiter of the expectations of Seelie Court society.) This warlock thus matches the canonical description of Lawful Good, quod erat demonstrandum.

A Great Old One warlock, however, seems more likely to "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect", and thus be Chaotic Good.

Definition of Necrotic damage (Player's Basic Rules p 75, emphasis in original):
"Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and a spell such as chill touch, withers matter and even the soul."

I've seen old, sick, withered people. I've seen burn victims. If you'd rather kill people with Fire damage than with Necrotic damage, then you are cruel, and thus evil by my standards, though not by the PHB's standards. If you claim that withering someone to death is more inherently evil than burning them to death, then I don't see how your definition of evil comes from the PHB.

"I'd say you have to be evil, beyond any doubt. The class is more evil than the assassin or the necromancer, as written."
Okay, your turn to find anything in the 5E PHB which supports that assertion. Good luck!

I find it hard to help you further. You questioned my honesty.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am curious and have not read the whole thread. Do you agree that as written the books tend to presume/nudge warlocks more to evil than good?

I strongly agree with you that they don't have to be. I think there are some really cool ideas for non-evil warlocks. (love KM's posts at the front this thread)
But I feel as if someone at WotC was actually trying to build up tension in the class by tempting "good" characters to either be evil in some actions, or create characters that don't do evil, but are easily mistaken for it.

I don't think it is so much a matter of "pushing" as it is the archetype itself leaning toward qualities which are commonly associated with being evil. Namely: ambition, a thirst for knowledge that borders on lust, and a risk-accepting or "willing to play with fire" attitude. But none of these things is actually evil, in and of itself. Plenty of legitimately good people have had some or all of these qualities--and sometimes they learn or reveal things that would not have been discovered otherwise, or would have waited far, far longer. I'd say some of the medieval anatomists fit that description--it was a crime against God and man to dissect a corpse, and of course the vast majority of corpses available to the early anatomists were obtained through highly illegal and morally questionable means. Yet modern medicine probably would not exist--or would exist in a vastly diminished form--had those brave men failed to seek out that knowledge.

In a sense, the Warlock is a narrative mirror to the Paladin. The Paladin inherently steers towards a narrative of devotion, personal sacrifice, and purity of purpose--characteristics we typically associate with "good" people. They need not be, since one can have a purity of vengeance (a "dark knight") or a purity of "cleansing" (a "Knight Templar/Well-Intentioned Extremist" to use the TVTropes terms), but there's a certain mythic cachet to it. Then on the flipside, you have the Warlock, which steers toward a narrative of ambition, forbidden knowledge, and "playing" with forces beyond one's understanding. Again, such characteristics are not automatically anything--good people can absolutely have ambition, we usually call that "having a dream" and pursuing it--but the mythic background such a narrative draws on tends to involve people who don't care about the welfare of others and actively take what they want.

If it's possible to play a morally-questionable Paladin (presumably an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, in 5e), I don't see why it would be impossible to play a morally-sound Warlock (as noted by others above, probably favoring the Fey pact, as it has the fewest moral connotations).

I find it hard to help you further. You questioned my honesty.

In that case, reply to me, since I also presented (essentially) all of the same information without commentary on you or anything you had said. The quotes you requested have been provided. Any references you find which suggest, to you, that the Warlock class must be more evil than Assassins or Necromancers would be welcome.