Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7349363" data-attributes="member: 92511">That is part of it. In the one case, if you go in for the whole "clerics are clergy/priests" either chosen or devoted and willing servants of their deities. Even if you don't delve into "religion" or even "deities," you're dealing in devotion and faith and strength of ideals.In the other, whether you willingly seek out the patron or not or "accidentally" (trip and fall?) end up pacted, you are getting something from the patron for YOUR benefit, that YOU'RE after... and they benefit from the association in some [generally unspoken and mechanically meaningless] story way, of course. But you are out for something for yourself. That's not how you are a part of the religious service of a god.That is another part of it. One is, allegedly, a fully "divine" entity. A deity. A god. Or, if you want to go Basic, an "ideal" like Law/Order or Chaos. Even if you don't want to delve into the whole potential omnipotence omniscient omnipresent beings, these are beings inhabiting (if not originating from) the "Higher/Outer" planes. Yeah, yeah, the evil ones can be found in the lower planes, mostly (if you look at myth & legend and follow any kind of realistic structure of your world's mythologies/religions) because they have been "thrown out" or "cast down" into those planes for their crimes against the shiny glowy good -or at least civil divine-rules-following guys. But they are still gods.The other is, by definition, certainly NOT a "Higher/Outer" planes being. Those from the outer planes are "lesser" non-god beings, demons, devils, angels, etc... Others are "Inner Planes" beings -elementals, fae, undead. Again, not gods. Magical! Yes. Not gods as D&D treats them. Or "becawz Far Realmz iz kewl," not Inner or Outer or anything in between, while simultaneously being Inner and Outer and in between. But they are not those "Higher/Outer plane" beings treated in the game world as deities. Cult followings? Sure. Heretical Sects? Maybe. Pagan ritualists? Why not. Perhaps even a regional structured organized religion. But what is being attached to and venerated is not truly [or as of yet] a divine being.  There is the nature of the relationship between the entities. One is a willing and mutually accepted relationship. Even in the case of distant or unspoken gods, there is an acceptance of the cleric by the deity and a dependence (for power, for comfort, for world view, ethics and morals, etc. etc...) of the cleric on the deity. The warlock is "[com]pacted." There is a contract between the warlock and their patron. I give you this...and you do this (even if it's something that will never be spoken or understood in or out of game) for me. It's, like, an unhealthy co-dependence. I'm not interested in you, but we're gonna stay together because we "have" to. You're not doing this because YOU want to. Your patron is not [necessarily] doing this because THEY want to or [necessarily] with you. But there's this unbreakable magical contract, ya see. So, ya know, "the rules of magic/laws of the cosmos say so," and all of that. There are the mechanics of the game. Clerics have a certain set of armor, weapons, HD, features like "channeling divinity." Warlocks have different armor, weapons, HD (maybe I'm not sure off the type of my head). They don't have (though it would certainly make sense to me to make this mechanical change) "channeling eldritch energies." They DO, however, have "invocations" (which, truthfully, makes significantly more sense as a term for a clerical power). But invocations work differently, again mechanically in the game, than channeling. They both get "at will cantrips" and spells but choose [largely] different types of spells from different separate lists.You seem to be looking for "a reason." That's not how D&D (and fantasy RPGs writ large) work. It's not that simple. There are several subtle and nuanced differences that, taken together, make the two separate -admittedly similar, but separate- class concepts. Also admittedly, D&D does itself NO favors trying to broaden inherently more narrow and focused fluff of classes to encompass "pleasing anyone's ideas of anything."But there is no, "Clerics are clerics because X. Warlocks are warlocks because Y." One accepts the fluff and mechanics that say they ARE separate/different things. Or one does not.If one wishes to purposely blur the lines between concepts, come up with corner-case after corner-case stories for any and all combinations of abilities, and/or outright ignore [or purposefully misinterpret] the fluff of a class to suit their purposes -as it seems more and more of the D&D/fantasy RPG-playing culture are willing to do- then there is no point in having classes at all and D&D is dead. It becomes some other game. Can be a fun game. Can be a great game. But eventually, it will not be D&D. This, however hypothetical, combination does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of a perspective (if not paradigm) shift in the fantasy RPG/D&D culture.</blockquote>

Verification