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

[Micah Sweet]

Right but people are advocating for here is the idea that anyone who chose to play a Warlock signed up for an intrusive boss, which is more of a problem (and more work for the GM) that a Paladin's Oath or a clerics extremely nebulous "devotion" -- for a class that by the fiction should have LESS intrusive requirements than those who supposedly 100% dedicated themselves to a religion or code.

Clerics and paladins are IMO no less bound than warlocks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh, barbarians, bards, fighters (meaning the magic subclasses) monks, rangers, rogues (magic subclasses), sorcerers, and wizards, etc. do not have any special ties or consequences to their magic powers. I don't see them as pointless classes to play.

Any of them can, and that can be fun to play, but it is certainly not the only way to enjoy playing a character.

I had a lot of fun playing a 3.5 warlock who got his powers being descended from the archdevil Fierna but being a good guy who did not work for her (in contrast to his father, my prior character who was a tiefling soulknife who did work for her, which was also great fun to play).

None of those classes have the narrative of getting their power directly from another being. Apples and non-apple fruits.

 

[Seramus]

One: sometimes they do. Depends on the god. Certainly other members of the faith might take a more active role.

Oh yeah, sometimes they definitely do. The gods of one setting might be distant and aloof, the gods of another might make direct pronouncements and expect ye mortals to obey them, the gods of a third might actively try to kill you like Hera and Herakles! There's even room for tricking a god into giving you power, and then going rogue with it!

I'm reminded of Kashaw from Critical Role, who hated his god and wished her dead!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't like re-skinning, and I don't accept it as an objective good by any means. More an occasional necessary evil when improvising.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't want to badger any player, but part of the class narrative of the class the player chose is that they receive their power through an agreement with a patron. That patron IMO needs to matter to the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All characters learned their skills from someone. They all have backstories and ties to setting elements outside themselves. The rogues old guild can come for them, or the wizard's master can summon them for aid. That's part of playing in a fictional world. But the idea that the GM is somehow more allowed or even required to mess with the cleric, paladin or warlock.PC is just the GM flexing.

Oh geez. Now we are going tobtalk about who's a real roleplayer?

I don't recall anyone saying they wanted to mess with a player or their PC. That's your conclusion, and IMO it is wrong.