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

[WanderingMystic]

All of this should be discussed during character creation of course.

But I strongly feel that everyone is sorely missing out if they:

• make a warlock who has no direct, often tempestuous relationship with their patron
• make a Cleric who isn’t deeply religious or spiritual
• make a Paladin who hand waves or ignores their Oath
• make a Druid who doesn’t really existentially associate much with nature, flora and fauna
• make a Monk who doesn’t study and train hard, following a Path or discipline

To each their own, but I wouldn’t play D&D with people who don’t want to engage AT ALL with the core concepts of their characters. That’s utterly boring to me. Again, to each their own if you find this thematic stuff problematic for some reason (I certainly hope not!)

While to a point I agree with you that a character should be invested in their back story a class boils down to just a set of mechanics that can be refluffed to suit your desires. I have seen and have used the Warlock to represent magical experimental gone ary, (grafts, magitech, ) to represent a different way of looking at the sorcerer or enhancing natural powers, a collector of relics and artifacts who doesn't have magical abilities just trinkets or gadgets that produce an effect. As long as their story makes sense and they care about it they the label of the class should not matter.

While the idea of being indebted or controlled by a patron can be fun you are imposing a limitation on their character that no one else has and they get nothing in exchange for it. Now you patron offers you an extra boon in exchange for a service or in exchange for some twisting of your character that is fine and just as plausible as a clerics deity, a paladins order, a noble lord or a high wizard doing the same but to say that because they wanted a magical class that was more like at will abilities (something only the warlock offers) they have to be beholden is not fun.

You could have saved a fey lord so as a boon they grant you powered, your family made a pact with a demon , you have a magical lamp (genie) you were raised from the dead (undead). Now would I personally want my patron to play a part yes I would but that is my choice.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

This dichotomy bugs me as well, but I think the primary answer is that we're talking about two different groups of warlock players here.

 

[bloodtide]

This is true for most players, and not just about Warlock Pacts.

Players hate the idea that the DM can force their character to do anything or loose powers, abilities or skills.

This includes Gods, Rulers, Governments, and Affiliation bosses.

Players demand the freedom to pick whatever they want and do whatever they want. They pick "I'm a member of the Harpers", then just endlessly murderhobo innocent npcs and demand full Harper benefits.

 

[el-remmen]

My feeling is, if you don’t want the possibility of that kind of story (where the fiction of the pact matters) don’t play a warlock. At least, that is what I’d say to anyone wanting to play one in a campaign I was running.

 

[Wolfram stout]

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.

I think a lot of player concern/pushback comes from online people seemingly licking their chops at playing "gotcha"with the warlock players. As in the patron telling the warlock "burn down that orphan or lose all your powers". Hahaha

I doubt that really happens but the way some people post...it seems that way.
For myself, I want the patron to be a part of the campaign but not some overblown Sword of Damocles. To that end as a player I want to build my backstory/pact with the DM so that is engaging for us both.

And a DM that goes too hard to mess with the warlock but doesn't try to burn the wizards spell books or break the fighters weapons (for example) seem to be picking in the warlock.

I suspect 90%+ of tables have no issue with this but online horror stories abound.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And a DM that goes too hard to mess with the warlock but doesn't try to burn the wizards spell books or break the fighters weapons (for example) seem to be picking in the warlock.

This feels extremely hypothetical at this point. AD&D had a whole lot of ways to "back up" or DM-proof spellbooks for a reason.

But the DMs that destroyed spellbooks were also likely playing Alignment Police with the paladin player, giving the cleric player an activist jerk god to deal with, etc.

The idea that this is somehow a special problem just for warlocks feels ahistorical. (I'm sure we can find people who say it happened to them, but absent the rest of the table chiming in, it could also just be like they felt picked on while ignoring the endless rust monsters chasing the fighter around, etc.)

As so often in ENWorld threads, the key answer here is: Talk to your players. Talk to your DM. If you are not a good fit for one another, play with someone else.

WotC is never going to fix the interpersonal problems at your table, and that's not their job. And if it's not warlock pacts, it will be something else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

I’ve never seen a player object to the patron becoming a bother or even the bbeg. Just to their character getting nerfed as a dumb “plot” gotcha.

That said, I prefer the Warlock to not even need to have an actual “patron”. I think the patron model makes the class thematically less good, overall.

 

[overgeeked]

I think a lot of player concern/pushback comes from online people seemingly licking their chops at playing "gotcha"with the warlock players. As in the patron telling the warlock "burn down that orphan or lose all your powers". Hahaha

I doubt that really happens but the way some people post...it seems that way.
For myself, I want the patron to be a part of the campaign but not some overblown Sword of Damocles. To that end as a player I want to build my backstory/pact with the DM so that is engaging for us both.

And a DM that goes too hard to mess with the warlock but doesn't try to burn the wizards spell books or break the fighters weapons (for example) seem to be picking in the warlock.

I suspect 90%+ of tables have no issue with this but online horror stories abound.

A whole lot of the warlock, cleric, and paladin class fiction is dependent on serving a higher power. It’s weird and “a-fictional” to try to avoid having to deal with that aspect of the class. It’s not about hypothetical gotchas. It’s about undermining the fiction. If you don’t want to have a patron, god, or oath don’t play a class with those fictional aspects.

I think someone upthread nailed it. As almost always, it’s a split between the gamers and role-players. The gamers want the power without even the possibility of a drawback while the role-players are at least open to the possibility provided it’s not abused.

 

[Wolfram stout]

This feels extremely hypothetical at this point. AD&D had a whole lot of ways to "back up" or DM-proof spellbooks for a reason.

But the DMs that destroyed spellbooks were also likely playing Alignment Police with the paladin player, giving the cleric player an activist jerk god to deal with, etc.

The idea that this is somehow a special problem just for warlocks feels ahistorical. (I'm sure we can find people who say it happened to them, but absent the rest of the table chiming in, it could also just be like they felt picked on while ignoring that the endless rust monsters chasing the fighter around, etc.)

As so often in ENWorld threads, the key answer here is: Talk to your players. Talk to your DM. If you are not a good fit for one another, play with someone else.

WotC is never going to fix the interpersonal problems at your table, and that's not their job. And if it's not warlock pacts, it will be something else.

I agree. I just have not seen many post in the 5 ed era that show willingness to go after the other classes like I have seen about the warlock. But again agree this is almost certainly an online thing and doesn't really occur too much in the wild.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

the role-players are at least open to the possibility provided it’s not abused.

My warlock player -- who remade his wizard into a warlock as far back as 3E -- actually came to me with a bunch of ideas of how I could make him miserable. A celestial warlock where his patron, an Odin analogue, wanted to find someone else to hang off the Tree of Knowledge, thanks, and was basically trying to trick his warlocks to take over for him. It was pretty great, although the player ended up having real life responsibilities that eventually took him out of the game.