D&D General The Player's Quantum Ogre: Warlock Pacts

[Scribe]

I'm clearly one true waying this.

You are, you did so on the last page, and then you accused me of it instead, while I simply pointed out that in a game with multiple gods, alignments, and cosmic forces maybe 'its all love' is not the singular option you made it out to be.

If a mod wants to declare that I'm at fault here and its ME somehow claiming there is only one true way, boot me from the thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

What on Earth does that bloody MEAN?

It could mean a lot of things. There were warlocks in multiple seasons of Critical Role, for example, and they're patrons seemed to matter quite a bit. What they don't have to mean is a loaded gun to the warlock's head.

Trust rears its ugly head again.

 

[Necropolitan]

If you're worried a DM will unfairly punish you then don't play with them.

Clerics should be faithful to at least some extant, Paladins should need to keep to their Oaths, and Warlocks should have their Patrons matter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It could mean a lot of things. There were warlocks in multiple seasons of Critical Role, for example, and they're patrons seemed to matter quite a bit. What they don't have to mean is a loaded gun to the warlock's head.

Trust rears its ugly head again.

Okay.

It's hard to "trust" something when you're told, "Oh, it could mean anything!" Yes. That's the problem. It could mean A N Y T H I N G.

It'd be nice to have a dialogue that includes even hypothetical examples. I don't know the warlocks of CR, so I'm afraid that doesn't really tell me anything.

What are the parameters here? How far are you permitted to go? How far am I permitted to go?

 

[Warnavick]

If you're worried a DM will unfairly punish you then don't play with them.

Clerics should be faithful to at least some extant, Paladins should need to keep to their Oaths, and Warlocks should have their Patrons matter.

I don't think this is being debated. As all those can be true without any mechanical levers. What the current discussion as I understand it to be is : should those things be able to have a significant mechanical impact, should players be able to opt out of that mechanical impact by discussing it with their DM, and if there should be more than one way to portray the relationship of these aspects?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you're worried a DM will unfairly punish you then don't play with them.

How can I know which is which until after they've done it, unless they talk with me about it and specify some things?

Clerics should be faithful to at least some extant, Paladins should need to keep to their Oaths, and Warlocks should have their Patrons matter.

Okay. I ask, as before, what does this mean?

Because "matter" is about as telling someone over the phone that something is "over there". Technically, it's a nonzero amount of information, but it isn't helpful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

It's hard to "trust" something when you're told, "Oh, it could mean anything!" Yes. That's the problem. It could mean A N Y T H I N G.

It'd be nice to have a dialogue that includes even hypothetical examples. I don't know the warlocks of CR, so I'm afraid that doesn't really tell me anything.

What are the parameters here? How far are you permitted to go? How far am I permitted to go?

Either side can go as far as they want, subject to the social contract for their group, and any campaign parameters established in session 0.

As far as CR is concerned, very roughly, there were two warlock PCs. Both communicated with their patrons (and they with them) regularly throughout the campaign, checking in and/or making requests of each other. At least one PC ultimately broke with their patron and eventually acquired a new one, with their powers changing as a result.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think this is being debated. As all those can be true without any mechanical levers. What the current discussion as I understand it to be is : should those things be able to have a significant mechanical impact, should players be able to opt out of that mechanical impact by discussing it with their DM, and if there should be more than one way to portray the relationship of these aspects?

Exactly

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The point is that the deity can see what most can't, and they have every reason to want engaged, enthusiastic, proselytizing shepherds.

I'm not saying relationships can never be dysfunctional. I'm saying that the idea that ABSOLUTELY EVERY deity is just gleefully waiting to pull the plug the moment a cleric acts in even the slightest out of line way is goddamn ridiculous. It is stupid. It is self-defeating.

Gods who do this would not have worshipers.

I mean ... it's pretty trivial to find lots of examples, in holy books in use today, as well as those of religions no longer practiced, where the central divine figure does terrible, terrible things to his worshipers when they cross a line, sometimes without realizing it. And they still do have worshipers.

(Trying to avoid real world specificities here, obviously.)

 

[Wolfram stout]

Because mechanical balance is not my primary concern. Setting logic and verisimilitude are.

So I don't disagree with using setting logic/versimilitiude at all. But the player should have the main hand in their character backstory.

See my warlock is not making an opened pack such as give me power and I will obey you. It's I beat a devil in a fiddle contest and won a thread of its power. He can't take it back or kill me directly. Now if the DM wants this devil to occasionally send it's minions after me. Cool I just hope he spotlights the other PCs

My fae warlock got his power by freeing a fae lord in animal form from a silverthorn bush. If the DM wants to make it that his enemies (who may have trapped him) are now unhappy with me, cool.

And the Daggerheart method works for me as well. In fact I really like the twist and turns you can do with fear.


All that aside, if some of us are a bit paranoid of DMs using the pact due to setting logic, can you provide an example of what you would do as a DM of a warlock player? If you have and I missed it I apologize.