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

[EzekielRaiden]

Warlocks, clerics and paladins have built in obligations. If you don't want those obligations to show up, play a different class. You are not required to choose a class that has such obligations built into them.

Then everyone should have built-in obligations, because these classes do not get anything anyone else doesn't.

It's flatly unfair punishment for them otherwise.

I agree that warlocks should not be singled out for harsh treatment.

....then what is the problem here??? You literally just responded to my suggestion of NOT singling the Warlock out by telling me I should get used to Warlocks (etc.) getting singled out!

However, there's zero about most warlock patrons that indicates that the obligation will be harsh treatment.

Er...other than the whole "evil being getting one over on a mortal" thing that nearly all of them have. The Great Old One intentionally forcing you to become more and more like itself. The Devil, frankly doing the same thing but in a personality kind of way rather than a "literally making your brain tentacular" or whatever. The Fey, I mean have you read any stories where the fey are involved? It's literally their jam to do things like screwing people over because they broke rules they didn't know existed.

So...yeah I feel pretty comfortable saying that in D&D fiction specifically, patrons are frequently characterized as actively malicious and trying to harm the people they pact with, but the fiction in the rulebooks says absolutely none of that. Hence the problem. Making the patron "matter" very, very, very frequently means....bringing in all of those thematic things, things used by the fiction of D&D itself, that are actively malicious and punitive.

Again, I want to stress how significant a difference it is to be told what @Micah Sweet said upthread. No instant-character-imploding. Primarily means communication. Probably will include requests now and then--likely, ones designed to be achievable and not obviously horrendous, but which still make me uncomfortable. If a true pact-negation event occurred, and it may or may not ever do so, it would not be a sudden or surprising turn of events, and any such loss would either be temporary (with the pact restored, or a new patron stepping in to take the old one's place), or permanent but with some alternative pathway opening in its place.

That's all I need to know to be comfortable moving forward. I don't need to know the frequency of the requests (we can talk about it if it's excessive). I don't need to know the content. I don't need to know everything about the patron--mysteries can be fun, even in your cosmic "employer". With the above, I feel quite confident that the situation will be one of developing intrigue and interest. I understand where Micah is coming from, and can work within those parameters, while trusting that he will also work within those parameters.

It always, always comes down to not knowing the parameters I'm operating within. Leaving things up to the unspoken, mercurial "social contract", where I cannot ever know what the rules or limits are until after it is (far) too late to do anything, where the presumption of common agreement far too easily traps me into "well I didn't actually agree to that" "then why did you START" type stuff. It doesn't take much--I mean it was literally like a one-paragraph, off-the-cuff thing from Micah!--to break free of that situation. But constantly saying "the social contract" as though it were magic words that eliminated all concerns or issues ain't it.

If you do go out of your way to make a pact with a demon or devil, then you've opted into the possibility of getting harsh treatment. I mean, it's a powerful demon or devil.

Fortunately, there are many different patrons, so you don't have to go with fiends.

I personally would only ever choose Celestial (in part because I like healing, in part because I like the flavor) or maybe some kind of genie or draconic pact, if such a thing existed. (Believe it or not, a draconic pact doesn't actually interest me that much--a rare case where being dragon-y doesn't do anything special for me.) There's a very, very limited context in which I might choose GOO (namely, paranormal investigator kind of character).

 

[Horwath]

best thing to say about this warlock/cleric/whatever requirements.

1. Every mechanical aspect of a character can be explained with RP hooks or requirements.

2. No mechanical aspect of a character should be required to have a RP hooks or a requirements.

 

[TiQuinn]

best thing to say about this warlock/cleric/whatever requirements.

1. Every mechanical aspect of a character can be explained with RP hooks or requirements.

2. No mechanical aspect of a character should be required to have a RP hooks or a requirements.

I would only add a third point: if you do have RP hooks or requirements for one class, you should have them for all of the classes.

 

[Remathilis]

I cannot disagree more. One is magical to their bones, in their blood, the other is a hack being drip fed power by another being.

Some sorcerers still get their power from bloodlines, but many now are just exposed to rare phenomenon and get power. Aberrant sorcery assumes you were exposed to weird magic, not that grandad was a mind flayer.

OK, bring it all back then. Deal.

Ah the old fighter "hidden class feature": you suck so badly there is nothing to take away from you.

Personally, they were all rubbish and can't be happier they are in the dustbin alongside racial level limits and ability score min/max.

 

[Remathilis]

I would only add a third point: if you do have RP hooks or requirements for one class, you should have them for all of the classes.

To be a little honest, it's still annoying that two classes get class-exclusive languages (thieves cant and Druidic) which implies a connection with a group large enough to have a secret language to learn. Luckily, neither class requires you to remain a member in good standing in a thieves guild or druidic order to continue to level up in the class.

 

[TiQuinn]

To be a little honest, it's still annoying that two classes get class-exclusive languages (thieves cant and Druidic) which implies a connection with a group large enough to have a secret language to learn. Luckily, neither class requires you to remain a member in good standing in a thieves guild or druidic order to continue to level up in the class.

To me, it just shows missed opportunities for the other classes. Why not create an obligations table for each class or subclass that you can use to give all of them greater responsibilities in the setting? It’s not that I have a problem with restrictions or abilities with strings attached; it’s the “restrictions for thee but not for me” design.

 

[Horwath]

To be a little honest, it's still annoying that two classes get class-exclusive languages (thieves cant and Druidic) which implies a connection with a group large enough to have a secret language to learn. Luckily, neither class requires you to remain a member in good standing in a thieves guild or druidic order to continue to level up in the class.

it's a minor RP thing that you can ignore or really just have it as background.
in rogue or druid "bood camp" you can learn additional language.
maybe in some parts it's better to be Elven, Draconic or Sylvan instead of druidic.
Maybe "old common" would be better than thieves cant in some areas of the world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

it's a minor RP thing that you can ignore or really just have it as background.
in rogue or druid "bood camp" you can learn additional language.
maybe in some parts it's better to be Elven, Draconic or Sylvan instead of druidic.
Maybe "old common" would be better than thieves cant in some areas of the world.

Agreed. I like both of those, but they are minor aspects of the class, rather than what the point of the class is.

 

[TwoSix]

I would only add a third point: if you do have RP hooks or requirements for one class, you should have them for all of the classes.

Agree with this.

I'm not against games where the setting is defined first, and than the mechanical options for player characters are all derived from the setting conceits. I'm just against that approach for D&D.

And I'm really against the GMs who generate a bunch of detailed setting info putting classes and subclasses into specific setting roles, thus making it much harder for players to simply make characters and get the game going.

 

[JamesLFlowers]

One way to handle player expectations is to do an actual Pact negotiation. Some representative of the Patron shows up and a deal is worked out. There are multiple PACT templates running around the 'net. Or drop hints all along that the player is being groomed by whatever otherworldly power and someday the bill will come due. The Patron demanding a service is a great hook to start an adventure. It is also possible that high-powered followers of a Patron could be the ones demanding service, especially in the case of a Patron where you and your powers are so small you are never noticed.