D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Maxperson]

Who says that pacts can't have secrets? Either cite something or leave your head cannon out of this. I'm calling complete and total BS on this.

Look up any pact between people or countries and see if any had one side include secrets that the other side didn't know about. You can't find any, because a pact can't have a secret and still be a pact. It just isn't how pacts work. Pacts are formal agreements and only that which is above board and agreed to are part of them. No agreement, no pact.

The only head cannon here is yours, because you think that a pact can have secrets that no one agrees to.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Aaaand the thread has turned into another Player vs GM Agency debate.

I apologize for contributing to it moving in that direction. I do think it's...going to be pretty hard to avoid having it come up in this thread specifically, given the question of what GMs should do with patrons, and whether those patrons should be punitive to their warlocks if said warlocks are falling short in some way. But I can also understand why that's not a topic you're super interested in discussing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The rules support this: "At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice:" (2014!PHB pg 107)


The rules negate this: "Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career." (2014!PHB pg 106)

The player cannot unilaterally decide this according the the PHB. They are one voice in the decision, not the only voice.

But by that same token, the GM is not a unilateral voice either. Despite the many (many...many...) claims to the contrary, the player and GM have to actually come to an agreement between them. A consensus, if you will.

 

[Blue]

But by that same token, the GM is not a unilateral voice either. Despite the many (many...many...) claims to the contrary, the player and GM have to actually come to an agreement between them. A consensus, if you will.

Oh course not, the rules are for the player to work with your DM. I never asserted otherwise. I was pointing out where the rules supported (player solely picks the patron) and did not support (player solely sets up the pact) that Paul was saying.

There are direction in the rules for things such as pacts, such as paladin oaths with repercussions for failure. If anything, it's clerics that have little guidance in the rules.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Aaaand the thread has turned into another Player vs GM Agency debate.

That kind of was the original question: how the dm should adjudicate the class's fluff, when the mechanics technically only imply that you should.

Strongly imply, I'll agree, but Rules as Written you shouldn't do much of anything. So the question is about asserting more dm authority than RAW without being a doodiehead about it.

(Which is a subset of the cliché argument that we keep repeating. The trick is to focus on not being a doodiehead in the first place, which isn't that hard, and the rest is downright easy.)

My ultimate final answer to the first question: each character is going to have a slightly different answer. Your best bet as a dm is to have a conversation with the warlock's player and figure out how to best combine the player's vision, your own vision of the world, and the roleplaying opportunities presented, in a way that won't overstay its welcome. But when I've played essentially the same warlock character in multiple campaigns, that answer was different each time.

For example, I play celestial warlocks as being essentially clerics (though more Orders Militant that priests per se). But what that means depends a lot on the details of the worldbuilding (what churches exist, what they care about, etc.) and so the final result was significantly different in terms of roleplay despite having the exact same build. Because they were different dms running different games in different settings.

 

[Distracted DM]

Turned into? I thought that that was the premise of the thread - that the warlock didn't just give all agency to the DM

Nope. What? That was what you got out of the post? A complaint "that the warlock didn't just give all agency to the DM?"

I guess there's just so little provided to work with as a DM, and so much more of an expectation- the warlock-patron relationship seems closer/more "present" than a paladin oath/cleric faith because supposedly warlocks need to be periodically doing direct tasks for their patron if they want more class features.

I probably should've specified that this whole dilemma only came about because one of my players was quite disappointed with Warlocks' lack of patron interaction during a short campaign we had; so after talking it out with them, I ended up making this thread in an effort to gain insights from the folk here
I've had other warlock players but til now they basically just played them as, and I categorized them in my head as, "different-mechanics sorcerers" (which funny enough is how the 3e class was pitched).. just because I didn't know what to make of them.

It's because the player wanted more, but the DM (me) wasn't sure how to go about that because there aren't any tools provided, and the traditions aren't there to fall back on due to the class' newness.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's because the player wanted more, but the DM (me) wasn't sure how to go about that because there aren't any tools provided, and the traditions aren't there to fall back on due to the class' newness.

It's been in the game for 23 years and three editions! That's almost half the game's existence!

But it’s based on traditions that go back at least 400 years. You should read up on Faust (Fiend, several versions of the story), Prospero (Fey, from The Tempest), Dr John Dee (real person, Celestial). More modern sources: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, The Mighty Nien (animation, GOO/fathomer), Baldurs Gate 3, Neverwinter Nights 2.

For GOO warlocks, the source is petty obvious, since Cthulhu is mentioned in the subclass description. But patron indifference is also mentioned, so it isn't a particularly a particularly good choice for players who want to have conversations with their patron. To tie it back to The Tempest, you should check out the movie Forbidden Planet. This kind of patron tends to shade into science fiction. Doctor Who has a lot of this sort of thing for example. The Great Intelligence is your typical jerk patron who controls it's warlocks like puppets but is very limited in its ability to act directly.

But since it comes from your player, why not ask them to describe their patron?

A few notes specific to the text in the 2024 version: Both fey and celestial suggest the warlock might call upon groups of this kind of being, rather than a specific individual; the text for the Contact Patron ability suggest that patrons normally communicate through intermediaries until the PC is level 9. As with all class fluff, I would treat this as suggestions, not rules.

 

[Maxperson]

But by that same token, the GM is not a unilateral voice either. Despite the many (many...many...) claims to the contrary, the player and GM have to actually come to an agreement between them. A consensus, if you will.

Should come to a consensus, not have to. The DM can of course change the rules about how it's done if he was that kind of person.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Should come to a consensus, not have to. The DM can of course change the rules about how it's done if he was that kind of person.

And the players can (and should) walk away and find a new DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Should come to a consensus, not have to. The DM can of course change the rules about how it's done if he was that kind of person.

And you wonder why I take the view I take on your posts.

Should do the respectful and positive thing, not have to--every GM always has the right to be a huge jerk at any time and for any reason!