Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9479583" data-attributes="member: 42582">First, "disingenuous" means not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (from Oxford Languages via Google).So you're accusing me of not being candid or sincere - ie of lying or deceiving. (Or, alternatively, you don't know what the word means?) The accusation is rude and unwarranted. Second, what is a source of conflict is up for the participants in a game to decide. I decide that my PC is an orphan - is my parentage a source of conflict and drama? or a non-issue? Neither answer is compelled. Either is open.To me, it seems pretty likely that if a player wants to exercise control over the disposition of their PC's patron, it probably means they don't want that PC-patron relationship to be a source of drama or conflict. And that wouldn't surprise me - why would a player want to build a PC who is mechanically more-or-less on a par with everyone else's, but who is liable to have all their abilities taken away as a result of unilateral GM decision-making.(There's also a question about the fiction - why is the patron not bound by the pact? - but that's a separate thing.)And DnD Beyond addresses that tension like this:Some Warlocks respect, revere, or even love their patrons; some serve their patrons grudgingly; and some seek to undermine their patrons even as they wield the power their patrons have given them.That seems to put the player, not the GM, in the controlling seat as far as the existence and character of any tension is concerned.</blockquote>

Verification