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

[CreamCloud0]

I have admittedly not read every single post in this thread very closely, but I did go back and reread the OP and have to wonder when a warlock pack "being a part of the actual fiction of the game" became equated with taking away their powers?

i think the throughline was if your pact is a part of the fiction then you're going to interact with your patron, if you interact with your patron surely at some point they're going to want something from you given this is supposedly why patrons would create warlocks in the first place, and if you don't want to provide, what's going to happen when the logical leverage your patron has is cutting off your powers.

 

[Bae'zel]

Then again, l love religious schisms, different denominations, mystery cults, and false prophets as elements of story telling and you don't get that if clerics get stripped of their power if the deity is personally auditing the clerics piety and wrongthink.

Every DM interested in religious organizations and the internal politics should read or watch historical fiction (for the story beats and themes).

Reading the book and watching the movie of The Name of the Rose definitely left me wanting to explore more of the potential of clerical orders.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A thought as I was typing my last comment. Basic D&D (BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia) clerics do not serve Gods. They serve a belief system that is most often their alignment (Law, Chaos or Neutrality). Immortals (Basics answer to the a Gods) do have churches but clerics are not assumed to be connected with them by default. In Basic, you are a cleric as long as you serve your alignment faithfully.

And somehow, this little world building tidbit is ignored by plenty of people who believe Basic is the best OS version of D&D (judging by the sheer number of clones it has). So if you want a good example of a beloved version of D&D that doesn't shackle clerics to a God for power, look no further than the Known World.

They're not shackled to a God, but they are shackled to a code: behaving according their chosen cosmic alignment. All the same stuff can apply, more or less.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think players are generally allergic to anything that smells of taking away their control of their character. It is that simple, I think.

I have a warlock PC who HATES his patron -- and his patron wants his soul. So my warlock got himself a ring that will absorb his soul on his death, just to deny the patron the end of the bargain. Because screw that demonic entity. I just want the power, baby. (Maggart Aimes is a self serving NE, btw.)

Classic ENworld "question answered correctly in first response post" action here!

No sarcasm, I fully agree this is the absolute core of it. And every class where the PC and/or their powers can potentially be messed with by an outside entity has this to some greater or lesser extent - players getting concerned about having powers taken away or being messed with.

I gotta be real - I know I'm incredibly allergic to that myself. I often play characters who that could happen to, but I'll always ensure full alignment between the PC's goals and the dictats of the religious order or the like (this has notably lead to me playing a number of religious fanatics, which are frankly, a joy to play!).

What I'm not sure I agree is true is that:

many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game

Emphasis mine. That's not something I've seen to be the case myself. In fact, I've mostly seen evidence to the contrary in games I've played in, and actual plays I've watched/listened to/read. I can envision it, because I've seen it with other, similar classes, but I think a lot of Warlocks want that conflict to be present (sounds like your one does for example).

Indeed, what I've seen more of is DMs who seem to think involving the patron is some sort of horrific and unreasonable burden on them than players who are terrified that they might have to deal with this!

 

[Micah Sweet]

For what setting? The world books discuss various deities for Dragonlance, Eberron, Realms and Exandria, and the GH deities get a name drop in the DMG. Most other settings have either no religion (Athas) or no fixed ones (Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer). The only setting that religion is a key aspect of if Theros (befitting it's Greek origin).

To be honest, a deities and demigods book has kinda been a waste. No D&D setting uses Greek or Norse deities. (Well, except Planescape but they use all deities). Aside from a few interlopers to Mystara or Faerun, the vast majority of D&DG are kinda useless. I even question how many DMs use themi in their homebrews rather than make their own.

I at least think most settings can get away with referencing demon lords and archdevils, save for Athas and Eberron at least. Everything existing in the Great Wheel has more or less stopped every setting from having dozens of duplicate lord's of Hell at least.

WotC (and TSR before them) got money from me every time they released a book with a strong focus on gods, religions and planar stuff. Hardly a waste.

 

[Bae'zel]

To more succinctly summarize my take on this thread:

• For all but the most superficial, casual campaigns, it is important to me, as a DM, that any character's Class, Species, or Background has its meaningful place within a campaign setting.
• However, those traits should only be "tapped" as an enticement for the players to have their characters become more deeply engaged with the in-game world.
• In other words, used as a carrot, not as a stick. "Hey, engage with this aspect of your character for additional benefits, mechanical and narrative".
• If the player doesn't want to, that's their loss. There may be consequences, socially or narratively within the setting if they act in direct opposition to the themes of their traits though. But those consequences will never be a punishment that reduces their PCs abilities.
• Lastly, try to do this for classes beyond just the classically arbitrated ones (Paladin, Cleric and Warlock).

 

[Voadam]

Basic clerics have varied.

Here is from Moldvay Basic:

"Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess. They are trained in fighting and casting spells. As a cleric advances in level, he or she is granted the use of more and more spells. However, clerics do not receive any spells until they reach 2nd level (and have proven their devotion to their god or goddess)."

It then however never mentions gods again.

Here is from the Rules Cyclopedia:

"A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause can be an Immortal being dedicated to a specific goal or attribute; sometimes the cleric is serving only his alignment, and has no interest in immortal beings. The D&D game does not deal with the ethical and theological beliefs of the characters in the game."

"All clerics belong to orders, or clerical societies, made up of clerics serving the same ends. A brand-new cleric character is at the very bottom of his clerical organization; as he gains experience levels, he will also gain new powers and responsibilities pertaining to his clerical order. The DM will decide, and will inform you, how the clerical orders of his campaign are arranged."

It is interesting that the powers gained are specifically pertaining to the order, implying they are taught or unlocked, not granted.

Later in the RC it says this about deities:
Immortals and Deities
The Immortals of the D&D system and the deities of the AD&D system should not be converted between the game systems.

 

[Scribe]

I mean we can pick and choose what version, variety, supplement, applies for any class, its rarely going to be consistent.

A thought I had however, was that 5e has formed a cohort that is going to look at it (5e) as definitive. How much of 5e-ism's are now going to be ingrained and referenced for the next 20 years as 'the way' from Ancestry options, Classes, Subclasses, even just the names!

"Thats not a Paladin, it needs to be Oath of X."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean we can pick and choose what version, variety, supplement, applies for any class, its rarely going to be consistent.

A thought I had however, was that 5e has formed a cohort that is going to look at it (5e) as definitive. How much of 5e-ism's are now going to be ingrained and referenced for the next 20 years as 'the way' from Ancestry options, Classes, Subclasses, even just the names!

"Thats not a Paladin, it needs to be Oath of X."

Sad. We really need to actively practice the DIY philosophy ourselves if we want to keep it.

 

[Scribe]

Sad. We really need to actively keep the DIY philosophy ourselves if we want to keep it.

Thankfully this is the Golden Age of RPGs.