Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7488110" data-attributes="member: 6919838">My position is that the nature of the pact determines the nature of the possibilities - just as you describe.Nothing requires the world to ever have a lawnmower pact given by any patron ever.The argument that the lack of an explicit rule allowing the patron to take back powers somehow limits that from happening is what i object to.I believe i even observed that it may well be the case that at some point a patron gives the pawn freedom... perhaps asa reward etc.Which gets all the way back to the key being the &quot;discussion&quot; between player-Gm and character-patron is extremely important and at the core of the warlock character and play (regardless of how real or ephemeral that &quot;discussion&quot; may be on the character-patron side.)Edit to add...to your specific examples - even reference in the PHB refers to granting &quot;access to powers&quot; would seem to point more to the netflix password interpretation - i would not at all be adverse to the lawnmower option as a pact agreement in the right circumstance and case - as that creates a physical object as a manifestation of the pact and source of the powers and so - just like the lawnmower case - the patron (and presumably others) could send his minions to &quot;collect&quot; the item and break the link to powers. Now of course, a patron can normally send other minions to go mess with an &quot;unruly pawn&quot; or a lot of other more subtle means without a lawnmower pact&nbsp; - but to me the added umphh of the warlock needing to be worried about losing his &quot;lawnmower&quot; to even non-patron agencies more than balances out the &quot;patron has to do more work to take it back&quot; side of things. A lot of story hey for a patron can be had&nbsp; when a pawn loses their lawnmower and has to come begging for a replacement.&quot;vasily, are you sayin' you lost another submarine?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7488110, member: 6919838"] My position is that the nature of the pact determines the nature of the possibilities - just as you describe. Nothing requires the world to ever have a lawnmower pact given by any patron ever. The argument that the lack of an explicit rule allowing the patron to take back powers somehow limits that from happening is what i object to. I believe i even observed that it may well be the case that at some point a patron gives the pawn freedom... perhaps asa reward etc. Which gets all the way back to the key being the "discussion" between player-Gm and character-patron is extremely important and at the core of the warlock character and play (regardless of how real or ephemeral that "discussion" may be on the character-patron side.) Edit to add... to your specific examples - even reference in the PHB refers to granting "access to powers" would seem to point more to the netflix password interpretation - i would not at all be adverse to the lawnmower option as a pact agreement in the right circumstance and case - as that creates a physical object as a manifestation of the pact and source of the powers and so - [B]just like the lawnmower case -[/B] the patron (and presumably others) could send his minions to "collect" the item and break the link to powers. Now of course, a patron can normally send other minions to go mess with an "unruly pawn" or a lot of other more subtle means without a lawnmower pact - but to me the added umphh of the warlock needing to be worried about losing his "lawnmower" to even non-patron agencies more than balances out the "patron has to do more work to take it back" side of things. A lot of story hey for a patron can be had when a pawn loses their lawnmower and has to come begging for a replacement. "vasily, are you sayin' you lost another submarine?" [/QUOTE]

Verification