D&D 5E can warlocks be good guys?

[steeldragons]

I think, maybe, some of the problem is the concept of 'consequences" which have no formal mechanics..and, personally, I don't believe they should. But some more concrete examples or emphasizing that the warlock has this other entity that is now, inextricably interwoven with them.

Not for the power, per se. As long as the warlock has their magical powers, the entity is holding up their end of the bargain. But beyond that. That entity has their own goals. Their own schemes. Their own purposes. The game really doesn't give a whole lot of direction in HOW to use that in play and it's basically "on the DM" to figure out what that entity wants and how they act. How do they interfere with the warlock's life? How often/when to they step in to tempt or coerce ("You will perform this task for me in the mortal world or else...")? What is it the entity is actually after and how -ifthe warlock can discern/find out what those are- can the warlock thwart them without losing their power?

It's the lack of ye olde "You will follow this path or -consistent or egregious deviation from it- you will no longer be a paladin." Some of us liked those restrictions, limitations, and/or guidelines for effective roleplay in classes and alignments of yore. The warlock, including 5e, does not have anything like that spelled out. You get your powers, and now we don't have to worry or talk or think about your patron ever again.

Taking a pact with an otherworldly patron should have consequences. Real consequences, stemming from the patron's machinations/affections/attention/WHATEVER the premise of the pact is, to be challenges and [attempt to be] conquered in game.

No, it's not something "every class" has to deal with. If you [any player, not any particular "you" here] are not willing to take on that facet a character, then the class isn't [should not be] for you. That is not something that detracts from the character or usurps control of the PC form the player. That is a facet that, in theory, the player knowingly steps into by choosing this class.

The warlock, the paladin, the Lawful monk... the (if you go back far enough and want to use it) Good ranger, I think may be a step too far here. Possibly even a different/new sorcerer origin (Wild Magic is kinda pointing toward this) that involves the PCs "connection" to arcane energies and if something goes awry (self-doubt, celestial alignments, phases of the moon, the dragon that sleeps beneath the world is inhaling in their snoring slumber the ephemeral/innate arcane energies that it breathes, whatever), they can't properly wield those arcane energies.

The cleric has long suffered from this as well. Pick a deity (or originally just a "cause/ideal [alignment]") and that's where your spells are. Play it pious. Play it murderous hobo. Doesn't really matter unless your DM makes it matter. Will you receive divine "guidance/visions"? Messages from angels in dreams? See/read signs in the natural world that only have symbolic significance for your religion? We have no way of knowing or measuring that...in game/mechanically. So, for those focused on a mechanical side of play, none of that "matters to whether or not the character gets their spells or is able to channel.

If there were some way to say, in the book, something that involves consequences: for relying on a deity, a patron, achieving and maintaining one's personal enlightenment/behaviors to a level of enacting "magical" abilities, then I think, the warlock [and cleric and paladin and monk] would be a "richer/fuller" class.

And, again, no the wizard doesn't [have to] have that. The fighter doesn't have to act xyz or risk losing his extra attack. Or whatever. It becomes a baked in assumption and layer of the class.

Many others, I am sure, would hate this and cry foul that the DM [fiat] was capable of intruding on their PC. But...ya know...isn't intruding on the PCs kinda [part of] what the DM is supposed to do? Create and control the external forces in play in the game world that act on/effect the lives of the PCs. A deity or patron is, certainly, an external element.

Anyway, this is kinda tangential...first cup of coffee and all that...but I'm pretty sure there's a point or two in there that might make sense/be productive.

 

[Mallus]

If you have seen the movie "The Little Mermaid":

Ariel, a mermaid princess, makes a pact with Ursula, a sassy drag-queen squid.

I really dig the idea of Ariel as a warlock. Also, "sassy drag-queen squid" is a beautiful phrase. I believe I have to put one in my current campaign. Actually, I'm kinda surprised no one's tried to play a sassy drag-queen squid -- it's the sort of thing my players would do.

Riffing off of warlock Ariel, I was imagining a child who unknowingly swore a pact with an entity who was masquerading as their imaginary friend. The child is now --and forever after-- a warlock bound to said entity. But the child is good, or at least tries to be as they grow up. I'm sure there are like dozens of good puberty metaphors in this character concept.

Also child-soldier warlocks. Kids who were forced to swear pacts, turned into weapons by a military/militia, and then rescued/freed after the war. Their powers remain, their bond remains, but some of them try to heal, atone, and do good. One does wonder how the adult soldiers control children who are armed with warlock powers. I guess much in the same way you control a child armed with an AK-47 full of live ammunition.

Meanwhile, I have a player running a Good character, a member of the Harpers, with a Great Old One patron. The PC's patron is insatiably curious about the Prime Material Plane, and finds everything on the Prime Material Plane fascinating and bizarre. Perhaps, when it presents its findings to others of its kind, it will receive their equivalent of a PhD, or maybe even a Nobel Prize, for demonstrating that *intelligent life can exist even when limited to three spatial dimensions*.

This is also wonderful. So far, the best & most convincing argument for non-evil warlocks are the interesting characters being presented in this thread!

 

[Greg K]

I am going to disagree with those arguing that Ariel is a good example of a Warlock pact. There are usually two types of pacts made
. The first is the the type in which the person gets something such as wealth, social power, fame, beauty, youth, an exceptional talent in a skill (e.g, playing an instrument, architecture), gaining a few extra inches below the belt and, after a certain length of time, the demon/devil gets their soul. We see this in various episodes of Supernatural episodes including with Bella, Dean, John, and the episode "Crossroad Blues". Bella made a ten year deal to have her parents killed to end being molested by her father. Dean made a 1 year deal to bring back Sam. John makes a deal to stop Dean's soul from being reaped and live just long enough to say his goodbyes to Sam and Dean.

A similar approach is seen in the movie, "Bedazzled" with a few differences. First, the person gets three wishes before their death and then the soul goes to the Devil (you can't wish for more wishes or to have the contract ended). Another difference is that in the Bedazzled approach, all wishes end up being corrupted by the devil and having a serious downside as the devil will play with your wording).

In both of the above, pacts do not require loyalty to or serving the entity with whom you made the pact. You get a benefit to be paid for with your soul upon death after a given time has passed or circumstance is met and with no interference (Supernatural) or you get the Devil screwing with you and he still gets your soul (e.g., Bedazzled). In some stories there is a way out of the pact (e.g., in Bedazzled, one's soul is saved if a wish is used for a completely and truly selfless act).

Ariel's type of bargain for legs would fall along the above type of pact

The second type of pact involves pledging to loyally serve the Devil in exchange for real power (e.g., the ability to do powerful real magic). We see it in many legends and stories about witches gaining magic by "consorting with the Devil" in exchange for being in there service. It is a common theme in 70's occult movies and TV shows (e.g., the "Devi's Platform" episode of Kolchak: The Night Stalker). In these pacts, there is no redemption. You serve your master and the penalty for failing you master or turning on your master is being instantly killed, stripped of powers and killed, stripped of powers and polymorphed into a normal dog with a dog's mind rather replacing your own ("The Devil's Platform"), etc. We even see this type of pact in Supernatural episodes (e.g., the episodes "Malleus Maleficarum" with the book club and "Swap Meat" with Gary's friends require pledging you allegiance to a powerful demon or the Devil). In "Malleus Maleficarum", the book club members pledge their allegiance and learn magic. One gets killed for telling the demon "master" (whom is in the body of a friend) to shut up. Another is killed with a gesture for turning on the "master" and attacking it with a spell). In "Swap Meat, Gary is told that to become a powerful witch he must pledge his allegiance to the Devil and, Sam earlier told Gary's friend's Trevor and Nora that once you cross the line you cannot come back (Gary is smart and doesn't make the pact). In my opinion, this type of pact is the Infernal Warlock- pledge your loyalty to serve a powerful dark entity in exchange of power. Once you do it, you cannot turn back even if you entered with good intentions ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). Trying to renege by going against your patron or its wishes just results in you character being dead or otherwise out of the campaign (e.g., stripped of powers and transformed into a normal black cat, black dog or something similar).

Now, I might be willing to accept that someone with a change of heart could go to the temple of a powerful good deity for refuge. As long as they stayed there, they would be safe, but they would lose any Warlock powers and be hunted by their patron and its servants as soon as they stepped outside. They might even pick up the cleric or paladin class (I would require them to stay and train for several months). If a PC, I would allow for them to keep their background, training in armor, weapons, and skills and take Level 1 in a new class. I would not, however, allow them to keep their patron granted abilities and I would not grant anything to boost up for the loss of power and the character would still be hunted. However, as I do not allow evil PCs, I still would not allow the PC warlock in the campaign so the idea of the redeemed Warlock would better serve as the starting background for a beginning character (in which case, I would start by sending low powered servants of the former patron).

This is my take on infernal warlocks based on the influences I use when campaign building. As such, when I run, a player wanting to play an Infernal Warlock has the choice to accept that there are no PC Infernal Warlocks as they will have to be evil (furthering their patron's goals which are evil) and play something else as I don't allow evil PCs or they find another table. I respect that others may choose to run it differently at their table, but I would not play in a campaign with infernal warlocks as PCs.

 

[Riley37]

This is my take on infernal warlocks based on the influences I use when campaign building.

Okay, fair enough. I like the analogy between a warlock who displeases their Infernal patron, and thus loses class abilities, and a paladin who violates their oath, and thus loses (at least some) class abilities.

But could you please tell us your take on Great Old One warlocks and Arch-Fey warlocks?

If you don't have any influences - if you have no experience with stories about how great old ones interact with mortals, or with how arch-fey interact with mortals - then do you apply your judgement of Infernals, to Great Old Ones and to Arch-Fey, or do you start with a "clean slate" and the text of the 5E Player's Handbook?

Also, go read any of the many versions of "Thomas the Rhymer", and read Lovecraft's "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath", and perhaps some of Gaiman's "Sandman" stories. Well, try them, see if you enjoy them, at least.

 

[Riley37]

Credit where due: "I want to be you, Ariel, so I can hang out with giant sassy drag-queen squid" comes from "If Men Were Disney Princesses", around 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bFZ2cIh-H5M

Meanwhile, my conception of the N-dimensional Great Old One patron owes a lot to Walther Jon Williams.

 

[Greg K]

Okay, fair enough. I like the analogy between a warlock who displeases their Infernal patron, and thus loses class abilities, and a paladin who violates their oath, and thus loses (at least some) class abilities.

But could you please tell us your take on Great Old One warlocks and Arch-Fey warlocks?

If you don't have any influences - if you have no experience with stories about how great old ones interact with mortals, or with how arch-fey interact with mortals - then do you apply your judgement of Infernals, to Great Old Ones and to Arch-Fey, or do you start with a "clean slate" and the text of the 5E Player's Handbook?

From what I know of Sidhe and similar creatures from some other cultures, you don't want to piss them off. There are those that might generally be good, but those spirits are still capricious and will punish you if you don't show proper courtesy and respect. People are careful in how they interact with others, because you never know if that stranger is a fey whom will bring harm to you or your family if, accidentally, offended. Therefore, I think the power will still come with the price of serving the goals and wishes of a fey patron as in an episode of Merlin. However, I would allow for good Fey as I wrote in an earlier post . (Note: I would put the witches in "The Craft" in this category).

As for warlocks of the Great Old Ones, I have no interest in using them in a campaign. To my understanding, however, in the old Weird Tales, it is dealing with "knowledge man was not meant to know" "filling the seeker with regret for what they have learned, destroying them psychically, or completely destroying the person who holds the knowledge"*. Thus, in my campaigns, it would be for evil cultists and NPCs and not for PCs. My view is influenced by the Call of Cthulhu rpg, an old monster comic about an Aztec god that was actually an Old One, and the Lovecraft Wiki . However, if I wanted to use Old One's, I would go back and read Lovecraft, REH, and others in the "Lovecraft Circle" such as Clark Ashton Smith (which is on my list of things to do).
* the second quote is from the Lovecraft wiki.

 

[SirAntoine]

Hi SirAntoine. I was just wondering that if hypothetically you had a player who really wanted to play a warlock who was good or at least some form of neutral, was tricked into his pact, how would you treat them as their DM? What sort of obstacles would they need to overcome? Would you sometimes try to tempt them with extra power? Maybe have them struggle with their sanity? When I'm a player as opposed to a DM, I try not to worry so much about how easy my character has it, because I find that if they're struggling in their life, it makes their story all the more colourful.

Would you allow a player to play a good warlock who was tricked into their pact, so long as they were actually questing to get rid of their pact?

I always got the impression from 3.5 that warlocks only alignment restriction was that they had to be some form of chaotic? Or maybe it was some form of chaotic OR some form of evil. I know the ONLY type of good you could play as a Warlock in 3.5 was Chaotic Good.

If you were a good warlock, serving a good patron, there wouldn't be as much need to make a pact. A good patron taking on a character like this will do so out of generosity, and love. Your allegiance would come naturally, over any pact made just by your word.

That said, a pact depends on you to honor your word. If you want to back out of it, you can. You may need to be pay a costly price. In the case of an evil patron, it might mean your death, or worse. If the evil patron tricked you into making the pact, though, it would not be binding. At that point, it would just be intimidation, and it should be easy to appeal to a higher power for help. The evil gods don't want fiends just tearing up their followers, but they would probably consider altering the terms of the deal rather than just dismissing it. They might require you to perform some special service(s) for the temple instead of working with the fiend.

A neutral patron would most need to get you to keep your word. He wouldn't operate so much by threats, or have greater loyalty from you. If a neutral patron tricked you into a pact, you would just walk away from it.

Now the thing is, as part of the cost, you may need to lose all your experience levels as a warlock forever.