Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9809507" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mean, you can make that argument if you like, but the text pretty pointedly does not mention deities as an option. It says, "Your pact draws on the Upper Planes, the realms of everlasting bliss. You might enter an agreement with an empyrean, a couatl, a sphinx, a unicorn, or another heavenly entity. Or you might call on numerous such beings as you pursue goals aligned with theirs. Your pact allows you to experience a hint of the holy light that illuminates the multiverse."Both the Fiend and the Great Old One patrons explicitly call out either outright divine (e.g. Tharizdun) or debatably/nearly divine (e.g. Asmodeus) figures. It's very noteworthy that the Celestial patron refers to "heavenly entities" and not gods. Beyond that, nothing in the Celestial warlock actually requires a divine figure of any kind--or indeed even sapience of any kind. It's basically just you being a fount of radiant energy--healing and restoring to your allies, blinding and burning to your foes.So, while you could decide that, as a special thing just for your table, that your Celestial Warlocks are actually god-botherers. But it wouldn't really be in keeping with the lore of the class, which speaks of how "Warlocks view their patrons as resources, as means to the end of attaining magical power." It does note that some Warlocks may respect or even love their patrons--but many do not.Point being, it's less an "extremely reasonable" take that Celestial Warlocks serve some god or gods, and more "just barely avoiding outright contradiction with the text". It isn't expressly contradicted, sure, but the preponderance of evidence points to Celestial Warlocks getting their powers from less-than-full-deity patrons. Worth noting, in 5e, "empyreans" are specifically the non-deity children of deities, so it's not even like they were dancing around the deity/non-deity split there, they go all the way up to the brink but then don't actually say the thing.Is it really? That surprises me, given the text only barely avoids rejecting the idea.I don't think it's nearly so in flux, but personally I would say talk to your GM about ANY class you want to play. Period. End--or, rather, beginning--of discussion.But that's mostly because 5e has inducted us into this glorious new era where every single rule, every. single. one. needs to be treated as though it is a gossamer filament prepared to evaporate at the kiss of dawn's first light, until your GM specifically and explicitly confirms that yes that is in fact actually a rule of the game. Until they decide it isn't. Which they can do at any time.</blockquote>

Verification