D&D General The Player's Quantum Ogre: Warlock Pacts

[TorgoTheWhite]

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here.

Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid?

Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else she'll take away all the Druid's magic?

Does the Wizard have to sweat about the possibility that everything they've studied and worked for could just disappear, not just their notes, but literally magic itself just abandoning them, without explanation?

I understand why you want roleplay hooks. I think it's good to have them, and I think players should be open to this. That said, I also think that it's reasonable for the Warlock to ask, "Why should I be subject to worries that I'll get to keep playing my character, that nobody else has to deal with?" It's not like the Warlock is stronger than anyone else. (Arguably, it's weaker in many ways; that's why 5.5e buffed it.) Yes, it's cool to leverage the story of transactional power to create richer, more interesting experiences. That needs to happen in a way that doesn't make Warlock players feel singled out for special harsh treatment.

Your intent--like the others in this thread--is almost surely not harmful. Or, at the very least, you want any such "harmful" things to be only harm perceived by the character, not harm felt by the player. But if we're going to be asking, "Why would players be so strongly against this?" we need to consider the player's perspective, and that perspective is likely to be one of wondering why they're getting singled out for special attention when the Warlock as a class doesn't offer much that is terribly impressive or extreme compared to any other class.

I'm not understanding the nonstop punitive assumption here. It looks like some DMs saying the patron should matter and then you jump to tirades about assumed punishment. All those class counterpoint are punitive.. but previous statements are not all punitive regarding the Warlock

 

[Dausuul]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

Warlocks are on the weaker side as classes go. If they're going to have extra RP restrictions, they should come with corresponding RP benefits; "you get to keep using your class abilities like classes stronger than you can do without any hassle" does not count. Only two other classes face such constraints, and clerics and paladins belong to religious orders that are often significant assets. Warlock patrons can too easily become pure down side.

Furthermore, the notion of a "pact" tends to be overlooked by both player and DM. A pact has terms and rules. The PC should not be purely at the patron's mercy; they should have limits on what can be demanded of them, and be able to make their own demands in return.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Warlocks are on the weaker side as classes go. If they're going to have extra RP restrictions, they should come with corresponding RP benefits; "you get to keep using your class abilities like classes stronger than you can do without any hassle" does not count. Only two other classes face such constraints, and clerics and paladins belong to religious orders that are often significant assets. Warlock patrons can too easily become pure down side.

Furthermore, the notion of a "pact" tends to be overlooked by both player and DM. A pact has terms and rules. The PC should not be purely at the patron's mercy; they should have limits on what can be demanded of them, and be able to make their own demands in return.

Sure, absolutely. What they don't get to do in my campaign is ignore their patron entirely because they like the Warlock mechanics.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Part of the issue is the triviality or commonality of magic. It used to be rare and special, but the “DPS” of typical magic users isn’t all that special compared to other classes (until they get reality shattering powers at higher levels).

And in most default fantasy settings, it seems like most inhabitants don’t do a double take at seeing a purple-skinned tiefling warlock with fire hair strolling into town. “Ooh who’s your patron? Mine’s so and so” in casual conversation like the weather or your favorite sports team.

So yeah, in what seems like current mainstream D&D-like fantasy worlds, Warlocks aren’t really special anymore, so why give them extra RP baggage, right?

Which is why I don’t like “vanilla” fantasy settings. In my D&D campaigns, Warlocks are unique and have the potential to do greater things than fighters, or even Wizards.

edit: as a D&D GM, I try to bring in extra RP opportunities, in-world connections and boons/banes related to each PC's chosen class, whether "mundane" Fighters or "exotic" Sorcerors. Deities commune with Clerics, Thieves Guilds contact Rogues, Nature spirits ask favors of Druids etc. But that's just me because I see "Class" as more than a package of abilities to be taken for granted. Fighters don't have mystical patrons or require extra effort to maintain their abilities beyond training, but they have a reputation like famous athletes, for good or ill.

Indeed. My players are finding out that a simple "remove curse" or "greater restoration" are culture-changing, history-altering spells in barbarian country

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I've occasionally explained to a player, prior to them making a decision that frankly "goes against" the established lore, that what they're about to do would be at some odds with their faction / deity / law / order etc...

"Hey Paladin, you took Oath of the Whatever, and normally that Oath would compel your kind to protect innocents against Daemons like this, do what you want, but it may have some consequences later on if the other Knights find out you didn't get involved"

"Hey Fighter, you are with the Harpers now, and they would have explained to you at initiation that needless torture and cruelty isn't their style; do what you want, but if this gets out, the other Harpers may take issue"

"Hey Druid, burning down the forest to defeat the bandits may be cool with some observed forces of Nature (destructive ones) but other Druids from your Circle may get upset if they find out that you were involved, do what you want though"

I don't PUNISH players for doing these things, but I establish during session zero that I do care about the "reality" of the setting, where factions, oaths, NPC organizations etc matter, for good or ill. They can definitely tell the Knights of the Oath of GoodyTwoShoes, the Harpers, or the Druid Circle of the OakFather to piss off and leave them alone but... they probably won't get any of the perks anymore from those factions. They can still use all of their powers and abilities, no issue, though. But their fellows probably won't help them out during downtime.

Yep, and when those situations do occur. I will hit rewind a little and re-phrase the narrative up to a character core-value break. More often than not it involves some sort of narrative confusion occurring with the player

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I mean I have yet to see a single thing indicating you aren't focused on the story of "person who trusted a powerful being got screwed by it".

No, from what I read several times.. it is about the import of the patron to the whole package. Then posters assuming IMPORTANCE or gravitas is all the punitive + chopping block.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not understanding the nonstop punitive assumption here. It looks like some DMs saying the patron should matter and then you jump to tirades about assumed punishment. All those class counterpoint are punitive.. but previous statements are not all punitive regarding the Warlock

Because, in my experience, that is in fact what it leads to. Making the patron "matter" is, specifically, about attaching negative consequences to an exchange made with a powerful entity in order to gain personal power of some kind. Like...it's very literally "you made a deal with the devil, what did you expect?"

"Making the patron matter" means creating consequences. The consequences of exchanges-for-power are, nearly always, negative. Like that's nearly the entire body of literature about making pacts with powerful beings that aren't gods (because, if it were gods, you'd be a cleric and wouldn't need clandestine agreements). Folks have repeatedly talked about making consequences for the choice of obtaining power in this way. I should think that the fact that this whole space is utterly saturated with the tropes of Doctor Faustus should be a good reason to suspect bad results!

 

[Seramus]

I'm not understanding the nonstop punitive assumption here. It looks like some DMs saying the patron should matter and then you jump to tirades about assumed punishment. All those class counterpoint are punitive.. but previous statements are not all punitive regarding the Warlock

I may be getting some details wrong, but it is my understanding that @EzekielRaiden has had some EXTREMELY bad experiences with DM's on power trips in the past, and they feel very strongly that DM's should include a conversation in Session 0 about what kind of behavior and actions should be expected from the Warlock's NPC Patron (if such a patron is being incorporated into the game - some GMs like myself being flexible, and others like @Micah Sweet always including them). This conversation should include mention of any potential punitive measures the NPC Patron might take if the character does not agree to the Patrons requests during play.

This would then allow the player to make an informed decision to skedaddle or not.

I think @EzekielRaiden also advocates for NO punitive measures from NPC Patrons that include such things as loss of character level abilities, penalties to their stats (that don't have saving throws), or being blocked from taking more levels of Warlock, etc. I don't know how they feel about non-mechanical cosmetic consequences like your limb looking like a withered husk, or the NPC Patron inflicting things on the environment around the character, like all plants withering to death. But I assume they are opposed?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I may be getting some details wrong, but it is my understanding that @EzekielRaiden has had some EXTREMELY bad experiences with DM's on power trips in the past, and they feel very strongly that DM's should include a conversation in Session 0 about what kind of behavior and actions should be expected from the Warlock's NPC Patron (if such a patron is being incorporated into the game - some GMs like myself being flexible, and others like @Micah Sweet always including them). This conversation should include mention of any potential punitive measures the NPC Patron might take if the character does not agree to the Patrons requests during play.

This would then allow the player to make an informed decision to skedaddle or not.

I think @EzekielRaiden also advocates for NO punitive measures from NPC Patrons that include such things as loss of character level abilities, penalties to their stats (that don't have saving throws), or being blocked from taking more levels of Warlock, etc. I don't know how they feel about non-mechanical cosmetic consequences like your limb looking like a withered husk, or the NPC Patron inflicting things on the environment around the character, like all plants withering to death. But I assume they are opposed?

I actually haven't had that many personally super bad experiences. I just have a complete distaste for mechanical expectations being shoved into the zero-communication "social contract" where I will be expected to follow instructions that were never told to me and expected to instantly defer to authority on things I never actually agreed to. I believe in people exercising individual judgment within agreed parameters, and a "social contract" is definitionally unspoken, impossible to review, and only given tacit consent (a concept I very much do not like.)

As for the rest...

• 1000000% yes on the session 0 discussion of...well really anything that may cause radical character upheaval. Talk to me, Goose. Don't presume I know what range of things you think would be fun, and definitely don't presume that I'm automatically giving enthusiastic consent. It doesn't have to be in detail (e.g. Micah's example above, even if it isn't how he would actually discuss it, was completely acceptable despite having no concrete details).
• I would, in general, agree that I oppose complete character derailment at least for my own self. I'm okay with temporary stuff, meaning, the original patron relationship is restored, or a new patron steps in to provide an alternative. I would be substantially less okay with "yeah you just have a completely different character now", and very much not okay with "yeah you just...permanently lose all benefits and don't get anything else."
• Stat penalties isn't something I've thought about but I'm not really sure I'd be that okay with such a thing either. Out of the blue crippling a character is always gonna be a hard sell.
• Withered arm is fine, though I would almost surely begin looking for means to heal, replace, or augment said things. It's fine if such solutions have drawbacks of their own. E.g. maybe I get a weak but functional spectral arm, and can spend an invocation to make it actually powerful and interesting in its own right. The weak arm for example can't do somatic components and requires Concentration to hold anything more than a couple of pounds (e.g., no shield on that arm without concentration), but with the invocation it can do various cool things instead. That's paying a resource to replace a lost function, but gaining cool side benefits for said investment.
• Environmental effects are.....tricky. I get why folks would aim for that, but like, that also now means I'm in a position where just playing my character is outright harmful, even when I'm not doing anything bad or wrong, which feels like a "how dare you like X" situation, doubly so if nobody else is at risk of dealing with such things. So, maybe put some limits on there? Perhaps plants die only when the character gets angry (something I can partially control, and which the character can try to prevent), or only when casting a spell at its normal casting time (e.g. how Defiling is sometimes portrayed), or only when drawing on active-use invocations or the like.
• None of the above, other than the "communicate, do not rely on so-called 'tacit consent' and unspoken 'social contract' stuff", applies only to me. I don't get to speak for what any other players at the table would desire or are comfortable with. Doesn't matter if I think a thing is the worst crime ever committed by a GM. If the other player is into it, and it isn't clearly harmful to my character too (and no, "we succeed less" doesn't count as "harmful to my character"), then it's none of my business, plain and simple. My thoughts could not possibly be less relevant.

 

[Remathilis]

The DM CAN decide the player's not a good fit for their campaign and kick them out though.

And the player can decide the power-tripping DM can go kick rocks and take half the group with him. If your negotiating style is my way or the highway, you better have an infinite supply of fresh suckers willing to join your table to replace all the ones you alienate.