NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9479603" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Don't be patronising.I know you're smart enough to understand that deals with devils are associated with more conflict than relationship with one's mother, even though we can imagine nice devils and difficult mothers. Pretending that this difference in implication doesn't exist is weird.Sure. But choices have implicit meanings. If I choose in my background that my smuggler owes a huge sum of money to an alien crime lord, that has an implicit meaning that this will be a source of conflict later. Choosing to be a warlock is a bit like that. Though of course it is always good practice to openly discuss these things, so that everyone is on the same page.Because being beholden to the patron is part of the fiction of the class. Like having to follow the oath is part of paladin's, like upholding the tenets of their faith is cleric's. There can be exceptions, and not every character needs to be like that, but the classes do come with fiction, and that fiction will affect the narrative.I'm sure they are. But what exactly was the deal? I think it is weird that the class doesn't address this.I have in no point said that the player couldn't be part of defining the initial parameters of the warlock/patron relationship, merely that it is regardless probably for the best if the GM plays the patron. And like you see here, conflict narrative is offered as an example here, yet there is no guidance of how to actually handle it.My initial point was that patron and the pact are narratively a huge part of the warlock's story, yet there is next to no advice or guidance on how to actually handle it and what the pact actually means.</blockquote>

Verification