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

[TorgoTheWhite]

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here.

Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid?

Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else she'll take away all the Druid's magic?

Does the Wizard have to sweat about the possibility that everything they've studied and worked for could just disappear, not just their notes, but literally magic itself just abandoning them, without explanation?

I understand why you want roleplay hooks. I think it's good to have them, and I think players should be open to this. That said, I also think that it's reasonable for the Warlock to ask, "Why should I be subject to worries that I'll get to keep playing my character, that nobody else has to deal with?" It's not like the Warlock is stronger than anyone else. (Arguably, it's weaker in many ways; that's why 5.5e buffed it.) Yes, it's cool to leverage the story of transactional power to create richer, more interesting experiences. That needs to happen in a way that doesn't make Warlock players feel singled out for special harsh treatment.

Your intent--like the others in this thread--is almost surely not harmful. Or, at the very least, you want any such "harmful" things to be only harm perceived by the character, not harm felt by the player. But if we're going to be asking, "Why would players be so strongly against this?" we need to consider the player's perspective, and that perspective is likely to be one of wondering why they're getting singled out for special attention when the Warlock as a class doesn't offer much that is terribly impressive or extreme compared to any other class.

I'm not understanding the nonstop punitive assumption here. It looks like some DMs saying the patron should matter and then you jump to tirades about assumed punishment. All those class counterpoint are punitive.. but previous statements are not all punitive regarding the Warlock

 

[Dausuul]

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?

Warlocks are on the weaker side as classes go. If they're going to have extra RP restrictions, they should come with corresponding RP benefits; "you get to keep using your class abilities like classes stronger than you can do without any hassle" does not count. Only two other classes face such constraints, and clerics and paladins belong to religious orders that are often significant assets. Warlock patrons can too easily become pure down side.

Furthermore, the notion of a "pact" tends to be overlooked by both player and DM. A pact has terms and rules. The PC should not be purely at the patron's mercy; they should have limits on what can be demanded of them, and be able to make their own demands in return.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Warlocks are on the weaker side as classes go. If they're going to have extra RP restrictions, they should come with corresponding RP benefits; "you get to keep using your class abilities like classes stronger than you can do without any hassle" does not count. Only two other classes face such constraints, and clerics and paladins belong to religious orders that are often significant assets. Warlock patrons can too easily become pure down side.

Furthermore, the notion of a "pact" tends to be overlooked by both player and DM. A pact has terms and rules. The PC should not be purely at the patron's mercy; they should have limits on what can be demanded of them, and be able to make their own demands in return.

Sure, absolutely. What they don't get to do in my campaign is ignore their patron entirely because they like the Warlock mechanics.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Part of the issue is the triviality or commonality of magic. It used to be rare and special, but the “DPS” of typical magic users isn’t all that special compared to other classes (until they get reality shattering powers at higher levels).

And in most default fantasy settings, it seems like most inhabitants don’t do a double take at seeing a purple-skinned tiefling warlock with fire hair strolling into town. “Ooh who’s your patron? Mine’s so and so” in casual conversation like the weather or your favorite sports team.

So yeah, in what seems like current mainstream D&D-like fantasy worlds, Warlocks aren’t really special anymore, so why give them extra RP baggage, right?

Which is why I don’t like “vanilla” fantasy settings. In my D&D campaigns, Warlocks are unique and have the potential to do greater things than fighters, or even Wizards.

edit: as a D&D GM, I try to bring in extra RP opportunities, in-world connections and boons/banes related to each PC's chosen class, whether "mundane" Fighters or "exotic" Sorcerors. Deities commune with Clerics, Thieves Guilds contact Rogues, Nature spirits ask favors of Druids etc. But that's just me because I see "Class" as more than a package of abilities to be taken for granted. Fighters don't have mystical patrons or require extra effort to maintain their abilities beyond training, but they have a reputation like famous athletes, for good or ill.

Indeed. My players are finding out that a simple "remove curse" or "greater restoration" are culture-changing, history-altering spells in barbarian country

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I've occasionally explained to a player, prior to them making a decision that frankly "goes against" the established lore, that what they're about to do would be at some odds with their faction / deity / law / order etc...

"Hey Paladin, you took Oath of the Whatever, and normally that Oath would compel your kind to protect innocents against Daemons like this, do what you want, but it may have some consequences later on if the other Knights find out you didn't get involved"

"Hey Fighter, you are with the Harpers now, and they would have explained to you at initiation that needless torture and cruelty isn't their style; do what you want, but if this gets out, the other Harpers may take issue"

"Hey Druid, burning down the forest to defeat the bandits may be cool with some observed forces of Nature (destructive ones) but other Druids from your Circle may get upset if they find out that you were involved, do what you want though"

I don't PUNISH players for doing these things, but I establish during session zero that I do care about the "reality" of the setting, where factions, oaths, NPC organizations etc matter, for good or ill. They can definitely tell the Knights of the Oath of GoodyTwoShoes, the Harpers, or the Druid Circle of the OakFather to piss off and leave them alone but... they probably won't get any of the perks anymore from those factions. They can still use all of their powers and abilities, no issue, though. But their fellows probably won't help them out during downtime.

Yep, and when those situations do occur. I will hit rewind a little and re-phrase the narrative up to a character core-value break. More often than not it involves some sort of narrative confusion occurring with the player

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I mean I have yet to see a single thing indicating you aren't focused on the story of "person who trusted a powerful being got screwed by it".

No, from what I read several times.. it is about the import of the patron to the whole package. Then posters assuming IMPORTANCE or gravitas is all the punitive + chopping block.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not understanding the nonstop punitive assumption here. It looks like some DMs saying the patron should matter and then you jump to tirades about assumed punishment. All those class counterpoint are punitive.. but previous statements are not all punitive regarding the Warlock

Because, in my experience, that is in fact what it leads to. Making the patron "matter" is, specifically, about attaching negative consequences to an exchange made with a powerful entity in order to gain personal power of some kind. Like...it's very literally "you made a deal with the devil, what did you expect?"

"Making the patron matter" means creating consequences. The consequences of exchanges-for-power are, nearly always, negative. Like that's nearly the entire body of literature about making pacts with powerful beings that aren't gods (because, if it were gods, you'd be a cleric and wouldn't need clandestine agreements). Folks have repeatedly talked about making consequences for the choice of obtaining power in this way. I should think that the fact that this whole space is utterly saturated with the tropes of Doctor Faustus should be a good reason to suspect bad results!