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

[Remathilis]

Ignoring power-tripping/tyranny for a second, I think there's a pretty simple question here.

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

Absolutely.

The player defines their relationship with their patron (or deity or other supernatural sugar-parents). In listed several options I have used to make a patron lesser or nonfactor and I much prefer Faith (not the deity) be the catalyst for divine power.

 

[Bae'zel]

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

Depends on the campaign: how casual and superifical it is.

Also how focused the setting is. If we're playing in a more specialized and unique setting (eg the Witcher, Star Wars, Middle Earth etc.) then I'm going to expect every player to follow the tropes of their "class" more closely than a beer and pretzels gonzo game of Shadowdark in a "no name" setting. Especially if the player name drops very specific aspects of said setting, wanting all of the benefits without any of the potential narrative complications. If someone doesn't like that, we'll try to negotiate or find a compromise, or they can leave. Never had this happen though, we always work something out.

 

[Necropolitan]

Absolutely.

The player defines their relationship with their patron (or deity or other supernatural sugar-parents). In listed several options I have used to make a patron lesser or nonfactor and I much prefer Faith (not the deity) be the catalyst for divine power.

And if the DM doesn't like that definition the player is free to find a different DM who'll allow it.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on the campaign: how casual and superifical it is.

Also how focused the setting is. If we're playing in a more specialized and unique setting (eg the Witcher, Star Wars, Middle Earth etc.) then I'm going to expect every player to follow the tropes of their "class" more closely than a beer and pretzels gonzo game of Shadowdark in a "no name" setting. Especially if the player name drops very specific aspects of said setting, wanting all of the benefits without any of the potential narrative complications. If someone doesn't like that, we'll try to negotiate or find a compromise, or they can leave. Never had this happen though, we always work something out.

I mean, if I had a dollar for every "rebel Jedi who isn't part of the order" or "Force User not part of a Jedi/Sith traditions" I'd be able to afford some of those amazing Lego sets...

 

[Bae'zel]

The player defines their relationship with their patron (or deity or other supernatural sugar-parents). In listed several options I have used to make a patron lesser or nonfactor and I much prefer Faith (not the deity) be the catalyst for divine power.

In a more open-ended setting, for sure.

I'd want to negotiate a little in a more specialized, well known and defined setting though. Exceptions can be really compelling though, I admit.

 

[Bae'zel]

I mean, if I had a dollar for every "rebel Jedi who isn't part of the order" or "Force User not part of a Jedi/Sith traditions" I'd be able to afford some of those amazing Lego sets...

That's a very good example, actually. i don’t mind such exceptions as long as they still “work” in the setting.

Please no more “grey” force users who routinely use Dark Side Lightning and force chokes for admittedly selfish power gaming reasons. Argh

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Yes, no, no, I mostly run pre-published material, either campaign arcs or something stitched together from shorter adventures. We are all here to have fun, if the players do not want to go there, I am not going to force it. I am not creating art, and am in the least bit precious about the campaign setting and themes.
If the players want to create some stuff, I will generally try to accommodate them.
I suspect that a lot around here would consider us to be playing at a simple and superficial level, but I think I have never seen a player delve into the deeper lore of a world. Hell, I do not think they ever even keep notes.

I could see how this works for you. I use the VTT whisper on a macro for each player, so I do whisper alot of specialized knowledge to the wizard or warlock. There is a buttload of lore... so depending on your playstyle and campaign purpose. Mine has alot of mystery-solving. The wizard has been filling out the VTT journal.

EACH class has played their parts quite well, sometimes in unusual ways. So people saying why not so-&-so class doesn't hold up in my game. It is just that, the warlock, by nature of "pact" is a more contractually set class at an individual basis than others. Yes, the fighter, probably "worked for the man" at some point.. maybe not, they don't have the same supernatural hard-wired obligation.

The party wizard, gets whispered lore frequently to present however she would like to the party, playing the keeper of knowledge.. she also has stank wizard-eyes. I also canonized that she loves mind-expanding ground pixie dusts or gets an itchy nose if the party defeats a magical being.

The Warlock... boy that one is alot to unpack. The player picked the patron type and said please make the rest a mystery. Basically BOTH parties in that pact made the pact under duress. I love the reminders I have seen though that sometimes the warlock can actually be in the position of authority with the pact - "Give me back my blood Joshua!!!"

The fighter deals with his killer side regularly, now with a cursed weapon on-hand I will force him to deal with the downsides of being a soldier, with some moral compass stripping away.

The monk, raised by wild animals in the Veldt. Embraces the nothingness of the wastes quite well.

Long-winded way of saying it is not easy to guess, but there are a lotto homebrews keen to world-building

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ignoring power-tripping/tyranny for a second, I think there's a pretty simple question here.

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

I think I've been very clear on that point. If you are playing a Warlock in my campaign, your patron will matter, and your pact will come up in the course of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, if I had a dollar for every "rebel Jedi who isn't part of the order" or "Force User not part of a Jedi/Sith traditions" I'd be able to afford some of those amazing Lego sets...

Yes, that does get tiresome.

 

[Remathilis]

Please no more “grey” force users who routinely use Dark Side Lightning and force chokes for admittedly selfish power gaming reasons. Argh

Oh, I HATE gray Jedi with a burning passion. It flies in the face of George defined the Force and deliberately mischaracterized the idea of the Force in balance. (The light side is balance, the dark imbalance. I wouldn't say you need to be perfectly healthy but also need cancer for you to be in balance, you need to be cancer free to be balanced).

But that's a off topic rant for another day.