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

[Hexmage-EN]

A single article for Warlocks during 4E introduced the idea of Pact Creeds, which are essentially the same as the code of conduct for Paladin subclasses in 5E. Implementing those might be a fun way to make a warlock's patron more relevant.

Here are the ones from the article, which are all designed for use with the Prince of Frost as a patron:

Bitter Creed

Never Love: The character must show that a life without love is worth living. This is ideal for a game in which romance could bloom, but the fey might also set an ideal lover in the PC’s path to tip the scales of the game.

Be Cold: The PC’s heart must be as cold as ice. The interpretation is broad, but the character might be callous and cruel, especially to enemies. He or she must also remain somewhat aloof from companions and, perhaps, eschew true friendship.

Never Steal: In the eyes of the Pale Prince, Sharaea was stolen from him. The PC must show that not all mortals are thieves. However, theft can be defined in many ways. The Prince maintains that Kasar stole Sharaea’s heart from him. It might be simple enough to avoid stealing objects, but can the warlock avoid stealing ideas?


Vengeful Creed

Seek Vengeance: The PC has been granted power to punish his or her enemies. He or she is expected to pursue this quest without hesitation or remorse.

Show No Mercy: The character must be as cold and ruthless as those of the Winter Court. Any sign of weakness or compassion to enemies cannot be tolerated.

Punish the Deserving: Although the character’s personal quest for revenge is top priority, he or she must avenge other slights as well. In the case of the Pale Prince, this revenge should bring loss and sorrow to those who survive it.


Tragic Creed

Search for Sharaea: Follow any lead concerning the rebirth of Sharaea, and report all findings to the patron.

Spread Sorrow: Every tear the character squeezes from foes is another building block for the court of the Winter Fey.

Follow Instructions: A character who serves the Winter Court directly might receive specific requests at any time. Perhaps a pompous mortal must be humiliated or an artifact needs to be obtained. This works as described in “A Love Lost” above.

 

[Charlaquin]

I prefer to run warlock patrons as working like actual patronage does. A patron gives money to an artist to enable them to keep making art, because the patron likes the art the artist makes, and wants the artist to be able to keep making it. Often, an artist will offer benefits to potential patrons to entice them into offering patronage, or to keep them happy and inclined to continue offering patronage. But, once a patron gives their money to an artist, it is fully up to the artist how to use it. A patron might stop giving money if the artist’s work changes in a way they no longer like, but they can’t take back money they’ve already given.

A warlock’s patron, then, grants magical power to a warlock, because they like what the warlock does with that power, and want the warlock to be able to keep doing magic. A warlock might do favors for their patron to keep them happy and inclined to continue granting them power, but it is ultimately up to the warlock how to use that power. If the warlock starts using that power in ways the patron doesn’t like, they don’t have to keep giving the warlock more power, but they can’t take away power they’ve already granted. Accordingly, I wouldn’t have a warlock who displeases their patron lose their class levels or class abilities. But, they might need to find a new patron in order to gain any further levels in the class. I would be willing to work with the player to decide what to do about subclass abilities - if they’d rather change subclasses, or if they want to try to find a patron of the same type, or if the want to house rule the ability to functionally “multi-subclass,” or some other solution.

 

[Scribe]

A lot of people seem to like the Warlock class mechanics a heck of a lot more than the class fantasy of actually playing a Warlock .

Yes, or they have a wildly different take on the Warlock (Cleric/Paladin) and do not want what they see as baggage.

Note: I've personally come around on the Oath, but my view of Paladin's is that they are absolute fanatics, of any creed or alignment.

Clerics however? Pick a God.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

In most cases I've seen; the former. They seem to like having a plot hook ready-made to give the player a reason to adventure and occasional guidance.

A lot of the time, in more casual or one-sot games, the patron just doesn't come up. I've also seem players who are using the warlock class mechanics to represent a character that wasn't actually gaining their power from a patron.

The only time I've seen a warlock player react badly to a DM's depiction of their patron was when it had diverted fairly severely from the player's writeup, and the DM was using it rather crudely to threaten the character.

 

[Voadam]

The obvious response here is: If you didn't want a patron then you should not have picked a warlock.

That's kind of the point.

With a response of intrusive involved patrons ordering the PC around are not inherent in the 5e warlock concept.

Patrons demanding active service is one story option, not the only one.

Besides the pacting with an indifferent Old One there are many other options as well. Pacts can be paid off with the soul at death or first born in the future. Or they could already be paid off entirely in the past and the warlock powers are the reward. Or the pact could even be made by past generations giving you Elric big magic to draw on. Or again Elric could slay in the name of the demon lord when fighting foes "Blood and Souls for Arioch!" Or maybe you won a game of cards with an Archfey and this was how they paid you. Maybe one of your three wishes from a djinni was for magic. Maybe you go Dr. Strange and leave the pacts vague but invoke the patron beings with some of your magic "Crimson Bands of Cyttorak!"

Lots of D&D warlock pact story options where the patron does not tell you what to do now.

 

[Reynard]

Why did the PC enter the pact? And why did the patron? Do either of those questions matter in the campaign? Any warlock in a game I run is going to be affected by the answers.

Warlocks are not clerics. They do not need to like their patrons, and patrons do not need their warlocks' worship. A warlock (like Maggart) can be in it just for the power, and be working the whole time to get out of the ultimate cost while keeping that power. Player goals, my dude. As to the patron -- who knows what these inscrutable monstrous entities beyond mortal ken want or need? Maggart doesn't care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

With a response of intrusive involved patrons ordering the PC around are not inherent in the 5e warlock concept.

Patrons demanding active service is one story option, not the only one.

Besides the pacting with an indifferent Old One there are many other options as well. Pacts can be paid off with the soul at death or first born in the future. Or they could already be paid off entirely in the past and the warlock powers are the reward. Or the pact could even be made by past generations giving you Elric big magic to draw on. Or again Elric could slay in the name of the demon lord when fighting foes "Blood and Souls for Arioch!" Or maybe you won a game of cards with an Archfey and this was how they paid you. Maybe one of your three wishes from a djinni was for magic. Maybe you go Dr. Strange and leave the pacts vague but invoke the patron beings with some of your magic "Crimson Bands of Cyttorak!"

Lots of D&D warlock pact story options where the patron does not tell you what to do now.

Funny how all those options mean the patron isn't important in actual play at the table and functionally mean they have no effect on the PC other than being the vague source of their super powers.

No thanks, personally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Warlocks are not clerics. They do not need to like their patrons, and patrons do not need their warlocks' worship. A warlock (like Maggart) can be in it just for the power, and be working the whole time to get out of the ultimate cost while keeping that power. Player goals, my dude. As to the patron -- who knows what these inscrutable monstrous entities beyond mortal ken want or need? Maggart doesn't care.

Whether the PC cares or not, I still believe the answers to those questions should matter in the campaign if the player chooses to play a character who gets their power from someone else.

 

[Stalker0]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

Consider clerics. I would argue most games aren't forcing players to do all of these religious rituals and maintain a long codex of rules they have to follow, etc etc....even though narratively they should.

I think people often feel the same about warlocks and pacts. Its the source of their power and flavor, but its not meant to be a means of DM control over the character.

 

[Shiroiken]

I find it really depends on the player. My current Warlock player is an amateur author, who always includes plot hooks in her backstories in the hopes that they'll become relevant. While not integral to the overall plot (which is still under construction), I've an entire subplot going on related to her patron and her relationship with him. Depending on her actions (and reactions to his actions), it may end quite badly between them. If so, I have plans for her that might involve switching patrons and possibly even subclasses.

However, I had another player who had the simple idea of a warlock who was tricked into a pact. He wanted to be an evil $#^@, but using the Celestial Warlock Pact. While this was in 2014, the idea would work even better in 2024, since you don't actually choose your subclass until level 3. As a player, he had no desire for it to come up in play. Because of that, and that his backstory made sense, I simply let it slide into the background.