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

[Ahrimon]

I don't see "Alignment: evil only" anywhere in the warlock class description. I don't see it under the assassin or necromancer, either. Just the opposite, in fact. The necromancer's description states that "not all necromancers are evil."

I've had discussions like this with [MENTION=6731904]SirAntoine[/MENTION] among others in the past and you'll just have to come to accept that he expresses his personal views on DnD as #TheOneTrueWay to play. I've come to understand that he's been playing for a long time and is very set in his ways. While his opinions are no less valid than anyone else's opinion he sticks to very narrow view of things from my point of view. I'm sure he is a great DM/Player for his group and what they have works for them. Just don't be surprised when they stick to their little corner of this grand hobby of ours.

So, while many of us here appreciate the multiple ways to look at any story, trying to convince him that he's wrong will probably be exasperating at best and futile at worse and will probably derail the topic of the thread if anything.

I mean hey, it's a message board. We all have our opinions.

And if I've stepped over the line with this post I apologize to anyone and everyone. I just hate seeing good threads derailed with stubbornness from both sides devolving into arguments.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So, you go by the book.

I don't even use alignments in my games. For me, this discussion is purely academic.

Does it give their alignments? My PHB just says their names. Most sound pretty bad, and some of the worst of the worst are there. Even under archfey, hags are mentioned, and they are evil.

The Queen of Air and Darkness is evil, as are most hags. Titania, Oberon, and the other archfey of the seelie court are good or neutral.

Great Old Ones are more alien than evil. Regardless, it says you can play a warlock who has learned how to tap into the power of a GOO and it might not care about you or even be aware of you, so the alignment of the GOO itself isn't even relevant unless you want it to be.

Fiends are evil, but it says "you have made a pact with a fiend from the lower planes of existence, a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims." You can have an antagonistic relationship with your patron. You don't have to do what your patron tells you to do. Maybe a fiend tricked you into believing it was an angel or something else, and now that you've discovered the truth, you've vowed to fight back. Maybe you just made a terrible mistake, and now regret it. Maybe the fiend was the dupe and YOU tricked IT, and now it hates you and sometimes you have to fend off the assassins and other minions it sends to kill you. In any case, just because your patron is evil doesn't mean you have to be!

It's also worth noting that all of the pacts and patrons in the book are simply examples and suggestions. The player and DM should work together to create a patron that will work for their game, and it's up to them to decide what the nature of the warlock's relationship with it will be. It might be a big part of the warlock's life, or a distant, aloof entity that has little or no impact at all. You aren't required to use the patrons or pacts they provide, either. If the player wants to be a fiend pact warlock but doesn't want to have an evil patron, re-flavor it as a celestial or genie pact instead. The warlock's flavor text is just fluff. It's there to provide inspiration for stories and character concepts, not to take options away.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The warlock's flavor text is just fluff. It's there to provide inspiration for stories and character concepts, not to take options away.

Furthermore, the fluff text (while optional) also suggests the possibility that a pact can be inherited--that the deeds (evil or not) of an ancestor can be visited upon the descendant. Is it "evil" to be born in a particular family? Perhaps the family's legacy is well-known, which results in a self-fulfilling prophecy; when witch-hunters come a-knockin' every time one of the kids hits puberty, there's a decent likelihood a person will reach for the power they need to protect themselves.

Or consider the child, kidnapped at birth, and raised by a cult. Perhaps, despite a twisted upbringing, they realized something was wrong--or perhaps they were freed by good people, and shown that there is a different way. It is a greater victory to convert evil to good, after all! And sometimes it pays to have someone who can pass among the enemy without being instantly sniffed out as a Goody-Goody Two Shoes. A character might even have, as their over-arching quest, the desire to expunge their Warlock Pact and replace it with something more wholesome (e.g. on successfully annulling the contract, becoming a Cleric or Paladin of the god whose power enabled it).

So...yeah. There are clearly pact-givers which are not expressly evil (some of the Archfey, possibly some of the Great Old Ones), and even if one's patron is evil, that doesn't mean the Warlock wanted the pact, actually understood what the pact meant, or fell into the agreement in such a way that compromised his or her moral character. (Again: "playing with fire," even hellfire, is not the same as being evil--it's just very, very risky, and ambitious.)

Unfortunately, though, I have to agree with Ahrimon. SirAntoine's opinions are quite resolute. If the books support him, he is right; if the books do not support him, they and their authors are wrong.

Edit:
This is not to say that SirAntoine is wrong to play his way at his table. If Pacts are always evil at his table because that's just how he sees the nature of a pact, more power to him. I don't doubt, even for an instant, that that will give him and his group more hours of roleplaying than one could fit into a lifetime. I will continue to see it very differently, however, and hope a day comes when he can recognize that neither of us is objectively "right" about it.

 

[SirAntoine]

I don't even use alignments in my games. For me, this discussion is purely academic.



The Queen of Air and Darkness is evil, as are most hags. Titania, Oberon, and the other archfey of the seelie court are good or neutral.

Great Old Ones are more alien than evil. Regardless, it says you can play a warlock who has learned how to tap into the power of a GOO and it might not care about you or even be aware of you, so the alignment of the GOO itself isn't even relevant unless you want it to be.

Fiends are evil, but it says "you have made a pact with a fiend from the lower planes of existence, a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims." You can have an antagonistic relationship with your patron. You don't have to do what your patron tells you to do. Maybe a fiend tricked you into believing it was an angel or something else, and now that you've discovered the truth, you've vowed to fight back. Maybe you just made a terrible mistake, and now regret it. Maybe the fiend was the dupe and YOU tricked IT, and now it hates you and sometimes you have to fend off the assassins and other minions it sends to kill you. In any case, just because your patron is evil doesn't mean you have to be!

It's also worth noting that all of the pacts and patrons in the book are simply examples and suggestions. The player and DM should work together to create a patron that will work for their game, and it's up to them to decide what the nature of the warlock's relationship with it will be. It might be a big part of the warlock's life, or a distant, aloof entity that has little or no impact at all. You aren't required to use the patrons or pacts they provide, either. If the player wants to be a fiend pact warlock but doesn't want to have an evil patron, re-flavor it as a celestial or genie pact instead. The warlock's flavor text is just fluff. It's there to provide inspiration for stories and character concepts, not to take options away.

Thank you for the information. I recommend you use alignment, and alignment restrictions for such character classes as the warlock, paladin, and ranger. The warlock only has to be evil if he or she knowingly makes a pact with an evil patron.

I'd rather not have to criticize the language used in the PHB, but that's what I'd have to do to explain why I would still recommend this.

 

[Riley37]

I've had discussions like this with @SirAntoine among others in the past and you'll just have to come to accept that he expresses his personal views on DnD as #TheOneTrueWay to play.

He sure does. Perhaps he was bitten by a radioactive mule, and gained superhuman stubborn powers. He asks for text from the rulebooks, then ignores it when it doesn't fit his preconceptions. I don't think that belongs here, because, well, if you have absolutely no interest in, or respect for, what's written in the 5th Edition books, then why post in that section of the forum?

"There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty."

What cannot be cured, must be endured. We might as well pay him as much attention as we do to the banner ads.

 

[SirAntoine]

He sure does. Perhaps he was bitten by a radioactive mule, and gained superhuman stubborn powers. He asks for text from the rulebooks, then ignores it when it doesn't fit his preconceptions. I don't think that belongs here, because, well, if you have absolutely no interest in, or respect for, what's written in the 5th Edition books, then why post in that section of the forum?

"There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty."

What cannot be cured, must be endured. We might as well pay him as much attention as we do to the banner ads.

I am not here to correct you when you are wrong. I don't have the arrogance or the time. Perhaps you want to have a conversation with one of the moderators. I did not try to have an argument with you, or win one.

 

[SirAntoine]

I've had discussions like this with @SirAntoine among others in the past and you'll just have to come to accept that he expresses his personal views on DnD as #TheOneTrueWay to play. I've come to understand that he's been playing for a long time and is very set in his ways. While his opinions are no less valid than anyone else's opinion he sticks to very narrow view of things from my point of view. I'm sure he is a great DM/Player for his group and what they have works for them. Just don't be surprised when they stick to their little corner of this grand hobby of ours.

So, while many of us here appreciate the multiple ways to look at any story, trying to convince him that he's wrong will probably be exasperating at best and futile at worse and will probably derail the topic of the thread if anything.

I mean hey, it's a message board. We all have our opinions.

And if I've stepped over the line with this post I apologize to anyone and everyone. I just hate seeing good threads derailed with stubbornness from both sides devolving into arguments.

This post did more harm than good. I am not stubborn, or telling people they are wrong. I just shared that I would say warlocks are evil.

 

[SirAntoine]

Why make some --theoretically mechanically balanced-- classes inherently more difficult to play than others?

What purpose does that serve?

(I mean, all PCs lives should be difficult because they're adventurers, so none of them are getting a free lunch. Or if they do get free lunch, it's probably a disguised Mimic that'll try to eat them!)

The purpose would be to make up for the shortcut in this case. In the case of a traditional paladin, with a LG alignment requirement, the harder road was there because it was the opposite, a harder road.

 

[SirAntoine]

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

I hope that list also includes the assassin and the necromancer, even though they are only given subclasses in the 5th Edition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I hope that list also includes the assassin and the necromancer, even though they are only given subclasses in the 5th Edition.

As he noted later, he was being sarcastic. The DMG does not do that for any of those three classes. However, I can't blame you for not seeing the sarcasm--I didn't either, at first.