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: 9480157" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure where not binding the PC comes from - the PC is a party to the pact.But you are correct that my general view is that the player gets to play their PC. It's not the GM's job to tell the player what their PC needs to do to retain their core abilities.Are you really meaning to imply that the only way to put pressure on a player of a warlock is via their patron? Or that the only way to put pressure on the player of a PC who has a mother is by threatening the PC's mum?If not, then I don't see where your comment is coming from. I've played cleric and paladin PCs. In so doing, I've been put under pressure, as a player. In this thread I gave an example of a paladin player being put under pressure about his PC's faith. None of this requires the GM to use the character's deity to tell them what they should do or believe, if they are to retain their god-given abilities. Why should a warlock be any different?You seem to be assuming that the patron can only matter if the GM plays it. But that's not true, just as it is not true that a paladin or cleric's faith and devotion can matter only if the GM plays the deity. I posted some actual play upthread to illustrate this point - <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-d-2024-players-handbook-reviews.705769/post-9476577" target="_blank">D&D (2024) - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews</a>. You read and "liked" the post.So given that you have read an actual play account of how faith and devotion can matter without this requiring the GM to play the deity or tell the player what faith and devotion demand of their PC, why would you insist that when it comes to a warlock and their patron matters must be different?I don't know where this idea of distant and non-demanding gods comes from. Historically in D&D play there has been a lot of debate about interventionist GMing in relation to clerics and paladins, just as in this thread there is debate around interventionist GMing in relation to warlocks.I don't even think there is that big a gap between a warlock and an old-fashioned anti-cleric: one way of thinking of the old anti-cleric or anti-paladin is precisely as someone who has struck a deal with a devil or demon.But anyway, my view in relation to paladins and clerics is the same as in relation to warlocks: it's the player's job to play their PC, not the GM's. And so it is the player's job to work out what their faith, or pact, or whatever it is demands of them. As I've said, my own experience in play is that there is no need for the GM to play the deity or patron as an adversary of the PC, in order for matters of faith, devotion, loyalty etc to be made part of the subject-matter of play.Here's another old post of mine, where I elaborate a bit on my views: And some more thoughts are here <<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-alignments-improve-the-gaming-experience.351646/page-8#post-6251189" target="_blank">Do alignments improve the gaming experience?</a>> and here <<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-alignments-improve-the-gaming-experience.351646/page-50#post-6270085" target="_blank">Do alignments improve the gaming experience?</a>>:[spoiler]I do involve the deities directly in my game, but I take it for granted that if one of the players is playing a cleric or paladin of that deity then I am not the only one who has a stake in that NPC. Just as if I bring a PC's parent, or hometown, into play, the player of that PC has a stake in that too.So, for instance, in my 4e campaign more than one of the Raven Queen worshippers has met with and interacted directly with their god, played by me as an NPC - mostly in the course of being resurrected - but that doesn't mean I assume I'm at liberty to have her do whatever I might feel like, including stripping them of their abilities based on an adverse moral judgement.I see this as a special case of a more general principle - that in certain mechanical situations the GM does not have sole authority over NPC behaviour. So, for instance, if the game involves morale rules, and the NPC fails a morale check, then the GM is obliged to honour that. Or, if (as in 4e, for instance) the game has social resolution mechanics, and the players by dint of those mechanics extract some concession or favour from an NPC, then the GM is not at liberty to just disregard that (any more than s/he can just disregard a damage roll against an NPC's hit points during combat) - s/he is obliged to honour that.So in the case of a god, or a PC family or hometown, the player has automatically acquired a stake in that simply by dint of PC creation. And as a GM I am obliged to honour that.***************************If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplar of a value, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity" separate from the player's conception of the value in question. And what is the player's conception? That will be explored in play. Part of good GMing, for me at least . . . is framing situations that put the player's conception to the test.[/spoiler]I think the extrapolation from the approach I've been using for over 30 years for clerics and paladins, to warlocks, is pretty straight forward.</blockquote>

Verification