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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Explain to me how you do that with classes fundamentally based on getting their power from an outside source. If you have a patron, or a God, or an oath, how do you create a believable game world in which those things don't matter if the player doesn't want them to?

I've read several in this thread. Are you sure you're not looking for an explanation that lines up with your head canon rather than with what is plausible?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've read several in this thread. Are you sure you're not looking for an explanation that lines up with your head canon rather than with what is plausible?

Those explanations make the patron or god not matter to the campaign. That is unacceptable to me.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Cursed items are another good example. Where do those stand on the "player has final say" scale?

Yeah, I'm not high on being articulate atm. But this has comparables.

 

[Remathilis]

This is where we disagree. IMO if your priority is making sure the player's cool superpowers for their PC are maintained just as the player wishes regardless of the fiction, then you are minimizing what I consider the most important part of the game: exploring a consistent imaginary world through the PC.

I really don't understand why making sure the patron matters to a class that explicitly has a patron is such a line crossed to some folks.

Explain to me what the sorcerer sacrifices for his cool superpowers? What does the monk sacrifice? The bard or the barbarian? Why does the ranger get a free pass, but the paladin doesn't?

 

[WanderingMystic]

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.

So for me this is what levels 1 and 2 are for, by level 3 or even by level 9 at the latest you have entered into some pact with your patron. Maybe that book starts sending you messages in its blank page, you have dreams of your patron wanting you to be in service, you have a little voice in the back of your head offering you more power if you just open up a bit more.

Let's say you have stolen relics from an ancient cave filled with strange drawing, by continuing to use the items and their powers you might get more disturbing visions, members of the cult might try to persecute or worship you. These are still the patron having a role in your game, that woman who comes into your dreams at night after you put on the locey your grandfather wore is a fae who wants you to grow more powerful before she steals you of to Arcadia to work for her. It won't happen until after twh campaign but it is tefences and not just ignored. That devil you sold your soul to checka in maybe they offer to change the agreement... For a price, maybe they just like to remind you that no matter how hard you fight you will join them in hell.

Now depending on the world you are playing in all this might be more strict or more lax. I have played in Dragonlance and patrons were people like Fistandatilus, Rastlin, having a dragon orb, maybe changing it to be Tinkers from Mount Nevermind and your powers were just devices they gave you. In a game like that many archetypes were not allowed and you needed an in game reason to gain a patron. In Forgotten Realms patrons are a dime a dozen, you can find them just about anywhere so it is easier to justify your choices.

If I were running a dark sun game the only warlocks I would allow would be the sorcerer kings, even if your king died I wouldn't strip your powers away, maybe limit the level you could reach without finding a new sources of power. If you leave then you will be hinted, people who find out you were or are a template will react differently to you but the same can be said of the escaped gladiator, the elemental priest.

 

[GobHag]

Explain to me what the sorcerer sacrifices for his cool superpowers? What does the monk sacrifice? The bard or the barbarian? Why does the ranger get a free pass, but the paladin doesn't?

Nothing. But the fiction of the Warlock is that they do have a sacrifice/payment to get their powers, whether or not those powers are better than those who didn't bargain for it is a secondary concern to Micah

 

[Scribe]

Explain to me what the sorcerer sacrifices for his cool superpowers? What does the monk sacrifice? The bard or the barbarian? Why does the ranger get a free pass, but the paladin doesn't?

The sorcerer, not comparable.
The monk, used to require lawful, discipline. I wouldn't weep if that came back.
Bard and Barb, are not super comparable.
Ranger, nope.

It's about the baseline fiction, and what the designers are trying to say.

 

[Reynard]

The more I think about the title of this thread, the less appropriate an analogy it seems. Quantum ogres are about railroading. Players don't have an equivalent power. "Don't mess with my agency" is not the same thing as "you're going to go on this adventure whether you like it or not."

 

[Wolfram stout]

.

 

[Remathilis]

The sorcerer, not comparable.
The monk, used to require lawful, discipline. I wouldn't weep if that came back.
Bard and Barb, are not super comparable.
Ranger, nope.

It's about the baseline fiction, and what the designers are trying to say.

Super compatible actually.

There is little conceptual daylight between a sorcerer and a warlock. The difference being that a sorcerer is exposed to a source of magic and a warlock seeks out someone to teach them. Yet one is bound to an entity and the other walks Scott free.

As to the others, each had at one time alignment restrictions that stopped you from advancing if your alignment. You could not be a barbarian/monk in 3e without losing the features of one or the other, despite there being no mechanical reason to limit it.

In fact , throughout D&D's history, all classes but fighter and wizard had an alignment-based shutoff valve. Barbarians who became Lawful could not rage in 3e. Bards had to be either partly neutral (1-2e) or non-lawful (3e) or be unable to gain levels. Clerics had to be within one step of their gods alignment. Druids had to be neutral (or partial neutral) and abide by the weapon and armor restrictions. Monks had to be lawful or lose their features and be unable to gain levels. Paladins had to be LG and obey the code. Rangers had to be good and also had a code of conduct prior to 3e. Thieves could not be LG or lose the ability to gain levels. Assassin's became weak thieves of they stop being Evil. And while wizards lacked an alignment restriction, they were one damaged spellbook away from losing all their power.

And you know what? All that had been whittled away. Just like how barbarians went from being illiterate and killing the party mage on site being core parts of the fiction. Or how druids using any sword but a scimitar (a notoriously Celtic weapon) went away. And while I'm sure someone will come and mention how a druid with a battle axe or a barbarian who can read at level 1 are betrayals to the fiction, I'm convinced they have made the game better.