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

[Scribe]

You think I don't talk up Level Up enough? I guess I could do more.

Oh you talk it up, but you keep saying its 5e. Its not, and this little back and forth we had you seemed to associate it with 5e instead of breaking away and having it be its own thing.

The fact you have your own house rule document, 500 pages I believe you said, so I'd say fly that flag. You are not playing 5e, you are playing LU - Micah Edition.

 

[Bae'zel]

see, i'd say you're making assumptions about what form a 'pact' needs take, that there are always concrete terms stipulated and agreed to, the initial pact needn't be an obvious transaction, a warlock-to-be could perform an ritual for power that's light on the specific results....

For sure, the most clever patrons would make the pact's bargain subtle or vague.

But if a patron is dishing out an enchanted blade, a familiar or a tome of power, and escalating abilities and magic... there should be some kind of reason? Even an alien Great Old One has an endgame, a motivation of some kind, even if it's just "haha the more warlocks that I have in the prime material plane, the stronger my power becomes (once I have 666 servants, I can finally become a GOD)".

But yeah, it can be long term and have zero impact on the campaign... but it would be more interesting if it did. Even if it is just "yeah I'm a Warlock but my patron doesn't care what i do and I keep getting stronger... except that from the ashes of my dead body a portal will open and Azathoth will finally enter our world and devour it".

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

see, i'd say you're making assumptions about what form a 'pact' needs take, that there are always concrete terms stipulated and agreed to, the initial pact needn't be an obvious transaction, a warlock-to-be could perform an ritual for power that's light on the specific results, carrying around that old amulet from the attic that's your good luck charm, or a whispered prayer in a moment of desperation silently heard and answered, all without an inkling of there being anyone on the other end or that any of those are serving as tacit agreement to a deal with more strings attached than an industrial loom.

and what does the patron get out of it? why their soul of course, in a measly 60* years or so (geez, these mortal lives are so short, aren't they?), maybe even sooner knowing the dangerous hi-jinks some of these people get up to, so let that mortal run around having their fun, the more powerful they get then all the more valuable their soul will be when they finally breathe their last and it falls into their lap.
*yes i know longer lived species exist

Doesn't bother me much, though you might still expect, if I were DM'ing for the axe-chopping block loom to be a pushed narrative thus again "making the patron matter" I might also make the patron try to push events to expedite the process, again making the patron matter at least in narrative, maybe some Final Destination style coincidences with your patrons callsigns pop up. This might occur because in DnD mere mortals, given supernatural power, will typically find a way to duck collection given enough time. Though, this is very patron-type variable

 

[TwoSix]

While I get what you're arguing here,wouldn't you consider a Paladin's oaths, a Druid's circle, a Cleric's faith... arguably a Monk's Monastic order too could be considered spritual balls and chains?

Sure, and also all things I wouldn't impose on a character unless the player expressed interest in exploring them.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Sure, and also all things I wouldn't impose on a character unless the player expressed interest in exploring them.

I wouldn't need to "impose" because I would have discussed how these class philosophy or constraints will shape the PC. But if they spit in the face of the PC they created I would try to right the ship. I feel the paladin does need some form of principle-driven behavior for example... otherwise lets make that generic fighter... which I will STILL insidiously creep a narrative on because I can't help it

 

[TwoSix]

But if they spit in the face of the PC they created I would try to right the ship.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Remathilis]

While I get what you're arguing here,wouldn't you consider a Paladin's oaths, a Druid's circle, a Cleric's faith... arguably a Monk's Monastic order too could be considered spiritual balls and chains?

Depends on what the trade off is.

A paladin has to be true to his oath, but that oath does not need supernatural micromanaging. Especially when certain oaths (like crown or glory) aren't religious in nature. Though admittedly, I would treat not playing to your oath as the most grievous of the choices here, akin to not playing to your alignment.

I spelled out a bunch of ways you can get divine power and not have a God watching over you. I even forgot pantheism (worshipping the pantheon as a whole rather than one specific God). Even with all that, heretics, pariahs and clerics who never were part of temple training (prophets) all exist.

I consider nature to be a force of magic rather than a divinity, so even more than clerics a druid expelled from the druidic order can remain a druid as long as they keep the proper respect for nature. Ditto rangers.

Monks learn their training from monasteries but many monks are wander far away from their home base as a matter of course. As monks have moved from innate mystical to a more martial prowess, I find the monastic elements are even less important.

Wizards and schools/orders/traditions, bards and colleges or barbarians and paths don't affect thing in the slightest unless the PC wants to make that a factor. The fighter, rogue, sorcerer and artificer likewise have no class defined bonds except those the PC willing accepts. Too early to call on psion but I've usually treated it like a wizard tradition rather than an oath or such.

The important thing to me is that the PC suffers no mechanical liability. I can argue maybe a paladin who breaks his oath or a cleric who serves a new god might change subclasses, but that is a recommendation, not a rule.

 

[CreamCloud0]

While I get what you're arguing here,wouldn't you consider a Paladin's oaths, a Druid's circle, a Cleric's faith... arguably a Monk's Monastic order too could be considered spritual balls and chains?

paladin's oath maybe somewhat to a lesser degree given their powers are supposedly directly derived from their conviction, it;s still something i think is possible to handwave as a negligible lapse in the grander scale, but the others i don't think so not really.

For sure, the most clever patrons would make the pact's bargain subtle or vague.

But if a patron is dishing out an enchanted blade, a familiar or a tome of power, and escalating abilities and magic... there should be some kind of reason? Even an alien Great Old One has an endgame, a motivation of some kind, even if it's just "haha the more warlocks that I have in the prime material plane, the stronger my power becomes (once I have 666 servants, I can finally become a GOD)".

you're again assuming that the warlock knows these things are coming from another being, they could be entirely convinced they're just figuring out and developing these powers themselves or that their familiar came to them of it's own accord, the blade was sold by a shopkeep who didn't know what they had on their hands, the tome was found in a pile of loot or at the dusty back shelves of a library,

it's so easy for a patron to put these things in their warlock's path for them to 'find' without them knowing a thing, and the reason is the same as before, it's an investment, they give a little, a crumb of their power, and when they get it back that spark might've turning into a powerful flame.

But yeah, it can be long term and have zero impact on the campaign... but it would be more interesting if it did. Even if it is just "yeah I'm a Warlock but my patron doesn't care what i do and I keep getting stronger... except that from the ashes of my dead body a portal will open and Azathoth will finally enter our world and devour it".

i don't deny sometimes it might be more interesting, but other times it can also just as much be seen as an obstruction coming in to get in the way of the campaign's plot, 'oh look, we've got to deal with the song and dance of jack's warlock's patron's giving us hoops to jump through again before we can get back to playing the game we came to play, this dragonheist module doesn't mention anything about needing to appease an archfey's whims before we can go onto raid the vault.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Depends on what the trade off is.

A paladin has to be true to his oath, but that oath does not need supernatural micromanaging. Especially when certain oaths (like crown or glory) aren't religious in nature. Though admittedly, I would treat not playing to your oath as the most grievous of the choices here, akin to not playing to your alignment.

I spelled out a bunch of ways you can get divine power and not have a God watching over you. I even forgot pantheism (worshipping the pantheon as a whole rather than one specific God). Even with all that, heretics, pariahs and clerics who never were part of temple training (prophets) all exist.

I consider nature to be a force of magic rather than a divinity, so even more than clerics a druid expelled from the druidic order can remain a druid as long as they keep the proper respect for nature. Ditto rangers.

Monks learn their training from monasteries but many monks are wander far away from their home base as a matter of course. As monks have moved from innate mystical to a more martial prowess, I find the monastic elements are even less important.

Wizards and schools/orders/traditions, bards and colleges or barbarians and paths don't affect thing in the slightest unless the PC wants to make that a factor. The fighter, rogue, sorcerer and artificer likewise have no class defined bonds except those the PC willing accepts. Too early to call on psion but I've usually treated it like a wizard tradition rather than an oath or such.

The important thing to me is that the PC suffers no mechanical liability. I can argue maybe a paladin who breaks his oath or a cleric who serves a new god might change subclasses, but that is a recommendation, not a rule.

NO mechanical liability? Or just no class features removed? I can picture a paladin being ashamed of their actions and thus having a good amount of social disadvantage particularly with exemplar paladins, maybe bleeding over to a combat disadvantage of some type with limitations... but then experience boost or something if the PC manages to overcome this. I think a good amount of GM's would rephrase these punitive measures as challenges, and typically reward character evolution if the PC overcome. RAW I think anyway, the book comes with plenty 'o curses as well as charms to supply to characters

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I once had my Zealot barbarian player "punished" by embracing a condition that caused him to only be able to use his necrotic strike option (radiant wouldn't work) - that same condition caused this to another NPC zealot as well, it was very clearly narrated (not a trap). This is in a very undead-enriched campaign, so yes, he regretted this for several sessions, but he did embrace the suck and eventually came away from it with a rewarded feat (low consequence feat without the ASI). Now he frequently uses the otherwise poop tier feat, very well, because some heartache was invested in it.