The theme of... religion? I don't think we need to worry about that kind of overlap, in fact, that sort of overlap is GREAT. If the only religious characters were clerics, then a game centered around a Temple Hierarchy would feature only clerics, or a cleric and a bunch of non-religious classes.
Wut? Which Cleric domains are tied to Fey? Or Fiends for that matter. I have made clerics for fiends before, because I like that flavor, but that isn't an official option in any DnD book I've ever seen.
Okay? Dealing with Death is also the province of the Necromancer, the Phantom Rogue, The Spirits Bard, and Ancestral Guardian Barbarian then... and "Death" is such a broad theme, again I struggle to see the problem? Heck, you also have the Shadar-Kai, The Reborn and the Dhampir which are racial options that can deal with Death as a thematic element. We shouldn't be reducing this type of overlap, this is the good type of overlap.
Because you simplified to be binary.
Is the patron directly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron not directly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron indirectly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron directly involved in granting you some your magic as you advance?
Did the patron send a servant to grant you some magic as you advance, but next level you have figured out something they didn't want you to know?
Did a patron's rival grant you some magic as you advance?
I can break this into more and more questions, are some of these things even possible? What about gaining magic from magical items that you picked up? What about your allies teaching you something?
You seem to constantly want to simplify things into having only one or two possible explanations or options, and I think that goes against the very thing that makes DnD work as DnD.
I am directly responding to your post. If channeling from a different entity or channeling from yourself are both "an entity is involved in how they have magic" then... every casting class has an entity involved. Wizards are involved in how they have magic, because they are the one who studied magic, therefore they are involved.
You need distinctions, or everything just becomes a singular category.
It is a weak point that you hinged on the "if". Let us go back to the original post.
So, IF the event is an encounter with an entity how does that differ from a Warlock Pact. Now sure, both exist, both exist, both exist. I get now that I missed your "if" and originally read your post as " I would like to think the event is an encounter with an entity" which is wear my original refutation came from. But that doesn't make it better, just a different problem.
So, let us take that example you gave. A peasant does a brave deed, and a Solar descends from the Celestial Realms and blesses them with power. How is this different than a warlock pact?
Well... if someone stopped you on the street, and gave you a check for 1 million dollars, how is that different from seeking out a venture capitalist, convincing them to enter into a business contract with you, signing an enforceable legal document, and then them giving you 1 million dollars based on the conditions of that legal document?
I would imagine the difference is... fairly obvious? The person who was just handed 1 million dollars is under no obligation to do anything with that money, they didn't ask for it, they didn't agree to use it for any particular purpose, they might not even want it and consider it a burden on their lives because of how disruptive it would be. They could resent the person who gave them that money enough to spend some of it acting against that person, because the money led to a schism in their family and the loss of their best friend. But none of those things make sense for the person who SOUGHT OUT that money and SIGNED A CONTRACT.
You keep presenting these things as though, as long as any two sentient beings are involved in the exchange, it is basically the same situation. But it isn't. That peasant sorcerer can't go to the Solar and demand they revive their daughter, because the angel promised they would be safe... because the angel never promised them anything. They gave them a gift. And if that gift ruined their life... then the angel is under no responsibility to even care about that. But a warlock has a pact, they have a legal agreement, they have promises and duties.
And sure, you COULD add an agreement to the story of the peasant sorcerer, but at a certain point, you are doing the equivalent of saying you offered someone a basket of strawberries, because you provided a gallon drum of fruit salad and that has strawberries in it. The sorcerer covers SO MANY concepts, and even if you allowed a pact between a sorcerer and another entity to make someone into a sorcerer, you've diluted the themes to the point that they barely exist.
