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

[Remathilis]

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.

It should be noted the RC language (which appears in the All New Black Box as well) was probably an attempt to remove the BADD elements of from Basic to make it more kid friendly. Basic has almost no planar stuff until you get to the Immortals level, no Gods (with Immortals filling a semi similar role) and not tying clerics to them (especially with no explicit mechanical consequences for losing your faith).

Still, the change from Moldvay's god's to Alston's worthy cause is significant because it does mean the cleric's identity is not inexorably tied to a God or divine being, nor something that can be given or taken away.

 

[Voadam]

It should be noted the RC language (which appears in the All New Black Box as well) was probably an attempt to remove the BADD elements of from Basic to make it more kid friendly. Basic has almost no planar stuff until you get to the Immortals level, no Gods (with Immortals filling a semi similar role) and not tying clerics to them (especially with no explicit mechanical consequences for losing your faith).

Still, the change from Moldvay's god's to Alston's worthy cause is significant because it does mean the cleric's identity is not inexorably tied to a God or divine being, nor something that can be given or taken away.

Moldvay does not say their powers can be taken away. That was notably in contrast to what Gygax had done in the 1e DMG for AD&D.

1981 B/X does not have any BADD triggering demons or devils or that sort of stuff either. The reference in Moldvay Basic to gods is so slight that for years I had thought there was none until I did a specific search of my PDF when discussing it in another thread here awhile ago. The word god shows up just seven times in Basic, and that includes the inspirational bibliography listing Daulaire's Norse Gods.

I do not have a Mentzer Basic PDF (and my hand me down boxed set is packed away) to see what that version has to say on gods and such.

 

[Remathilis]

Moldvay does not say their powers can be taken away. That was notably in contrast to what Gygax had done in the 1e DMG for AD&D.

1981 B/X does not have any BADD triggering demons or devils or that sort of stuff either. The reference in Moldvay Basic to gods is so slight that for years I had thought there was none until I did a specific search of my PDF when discussing it in another thread here awhile ago. The word god shows up just seven times in Basic, and that includes the inspirational bibliography listing Daulaire's Norse Gods.

I do not have a Mentzer Basic PDF (and my hand me down boxed set is packed away) to see what that version has to say on gods and such.

Gary, and AD&D by contrast, is especially punitive when it comes to characters.

The reason I figured the demons and devils didn't appear in the 81 set was originally due to scope. They were supposed to be high level foes and B/X has a cap of around 10th(?) level, so if they had opted to keep going with it rather than the Metzer revision I don't know if they would have included them. Suffice to say there is a major tone shift from Gary's Greyhawk and Great Wheel and BECMI's Mystara where only the elemental planes are referenced until you get to Master and Immoral rules.

But that's off topic regardless. Clearly, the AD&D notion of cleric's having power only at the whims of their deities won out until 4e pulled away from the notion.

 

[Voadam]

Gary, and AD&D by contrast, is especially punitive when it comes to characters.

The reason I figured the demons and devils didn't appear in the 81 set was originally due to scope. They were supposed to be high level foes and B/X has a cap of around 10th(?) level, so if they had opted to keep going with it rather than the Metzer revision I don't know if they would have included them. Suffice to say there is a major tone shift from Gary's Greyhawk and Great Wheel and BECMI's Mystara where only the elemental planes are referenced until you get to Master and Immoral rules.

Expert tops out at 14th level, it has disintegrate spells and such.

But that's off topic regardless. Clearly, the AD&D notion of cleric's having power only at the whims of their deities won out until 4e pulled away from the notion.

3e had a lot of variety in options. Eberron clerics being any alignment and gods being theoretical was pretty big there.

4e made it default core cleric with their investiture powering.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Expert tops out at 14th level, it has disintegrate spells and such.

View attachment 416671

3e had a lot of variety in options. Eberron clerics being any alignment and gods being theoretical was pretty big there.

4e made it default core cleric with their investiture powering.

But Eberron's way of doing things, as much as folks around here love to talk it up, remains pretty much an Eberron thing. It's no more universal (until the aforementioned 4e), than the very much existing in the setting pantheons of Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or the Realms. Same with Eberron's cosmology. 3e as conceived lorewise followed pretty closely on TSR's heels, even if it didn't necessarily reprint all the details.

4e changed the game in ways It's never really changed back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Write up the pact with the DM. Get the obligations from both sides down on paper. Not only would that be awesome, and something that I think most DMs would not only allow, but be happy to do, but it would be better for roleplaying both the patron and warlock, AND put your mind at ease even more than what @Micah Sweet is suggesting.

Then why

in God's name

Does bloody EVERYONE

Who talks about the "social contract"

Completely refuse to ever even gesture at this

Unless I beg and plead and shout and hyperbolize?

I've asked nicely. I've begged. I've done practically every damned thing I can think of to get people to give examples of this, which I will note you are specifically calling collaboration because it is you telling ME to write up the pact, and they adamantly refuse to give even the teeniest, tiniest bit of limitation whatsoever beyond "social contract social contract social contract".

Y'know. The thing I have repeatedly said isn't enough, that is confusing and invisible and constantly shifting and incredibly prone to promoting misunderstandings because people presume agreement where there might be none whatsoever and enthusiastic consent where the exact opposite is true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why

in God's name

Does bloody EVERYONE

Who talks about the "social contract"

Completely refuse to ever even gesture at this

Unless I beg and plead and shout and hyperbolize?

I've asked nicely. I've begged. I've done practically every damned thing I can think of to get people to give examples of this, which I will note you are specifically calling collaboration because it is you telling ME to write up the pact, and they adamantly refuse to give even the teeniest, tiniest bit of limitation whatsoever beyond "social contract social contract social contract".

Y'know. The thing I have repeatedly said isn't enough, that is confusing and invisible and constantly shifting and incredibly prone to promoting misunderstandings because people presume agreement where there might be none whatsoever and enthusiastic consent where the exact opposite is true.

Perhaps there are people here who simply disagree with your stance on the social contract?

 

[Maxperson]

Then why

in God's name

Does bloody EVERYONE

Who talks about the "social contract"

Probably because at its heart is don't be a jerk, which applies to the DM and his using the patron as some sort of punishing force. If the DM is acting in good faith, then the social contract doesn't go any farther than that and it's just the rules, patron and pact being a part of the game.

I've asked nicely. I've begged. I've done practically every damned thing I can think of to get people to give examples of this, which I will note you are specifically calling collaboration because it is you telling ME to write up the pact, and they adamantly refuse to give even the teeniest, tiniest bit of limitation whatsoever beyond "social contract social contract social contract".

I said the player and DM should work together to do it, though I suppose the player could write it up and present it to the DM to read and approve, deny or suggest modifications for.

Myself, I'd prefer to sit down with the player and talk it out. It would make for a much better pact and would represent the act in the fiction as well.

Y'know. The thing I have repeatedly said isn't enough, that is confusing and invisible and constantly shifting and incredibly prone to promoting misunderstandings because people presume agreement where there might be none whatsoever and enthusiastic consent where the exact opposite is true.

I really don't know what you are saying at this point. You went from me suggesting collaboration, to you writing it up yourself, to it being the social contract, and then on to saying the social contract isn't enough. Stop at the first part. Collaboration.

I'm not talking about the social contract which only applies to the point of keeping the DM from being a jerk and doesn't have anything specifically to do with the pact itself.

 

[Voadam]

But Eberron's way of doing things, as much as folks around here love to talk it up, remains pretty much an Eberron thing. It's no more universal (until the aforementioned 4e), than the very much existing in the setting pantheons of Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or the Realms. Same with Eberron's cosmology. 3e as conceived lorewise followed pretty closely on TSR's heels, even if it didn't necessarily reprint all the details.

4e changed the game in ways It's never really changed back.

It has varied hugely over time, edition, and setting.

1e had Lankhmar with spellcasting clerics as White Wizards, not connected to gods.

1e Dragonlance had normal clerics with setting flavor rarity, then in 1e Dragonlance Adventures the 1e specialty priests for each god with themed reduced spell lists, then the gods left and they had godless mystics tapping divine magic in Saga then 3e had both mystics and clerics with the gods return. 4e was IMO actually best suited mechanically to run D&D in Krynn in the post Cataclysm and early DragonWars era where you can function as a fully functional D&D party without clerics.

2e had clerics and druids in the PH, then Complete Priest with nontheistic priests following philosophies and forces, and Legends & Lore providing for Taoist non-theistic spellcasting priests.

3e had non god priests as an option in the PH cleric class description. 3e's default though was Greyhawk with the Greyhawk pantheon. 3.5 Eberron took that core godless option a step farther with decoupling them from codes and alignment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It has varied hugely over time, edition, and setting.

1e had Lankhmar with spellcasting clerics as White Wizards, not connected to gods.

1e Dragonlance had normal clerics with setting flavor rarity, then in 1e Dragonlance Adventures the 1e specialty priests for each god with themed reduced spell lists, then the gods left and they had godless mystics tapping divine magic in Saga then 3e had both mystics and clerics with the gods return. 4e was IMO actually best suited mechanically to run D&D in Krynn in the post Cataclysm and early DragonWars era where you can function as a fully functional D&D party without clerics.

2e had clerics and druids in the PH, then Complete Priest with nontheistic priests following philosophies and forces, and Legends & Lore providing for Taoist non-theistic spellcasting priests.

3e had non god priests as an option in the PH cleric class description. 3e's default though was Greyhawk with the Greyhawk pantheon. 3.5 Eberron took that core godless option a step farther with decoupling them from codes and alignment.

Even the non-god clerics get their power from something outside themselves to which they are devoted. That's what a cleric is.