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.

 

[Tonguez]

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.

except Barbarians do have them - their powers only work when they are in an unfocussed emotional state of rage

monks focus on their internal Ki

Wizards have their books

Warlocks make a pact with a Patron to get their powers

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

In very simple terms: Because they know that that is a foot-in-the-door attack. Because players aren't stupid. They can quite easily see "This can and will be used to hurt you, badly" when it's dangled in front of them. So they vehemently speak out against it.

Why would I invite the GM to screw me over repeatedly?

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.

Because players know that this sort of thing gets flagrantly abused.

It's precisely the same reason as why 4e ditched the utterly idiotic "your deity is your ultra-rich parent who will cut you off if you ever do anything that mildly displeases them" mechanic 3e introduced to the game. Players see their class features as something they have earned by playing. Having a carte blanche for the GM to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, because they have absolute power over the patron and, thus, absolute power over the player character, is an extreme demand, and players aren't stupid enough to just roll over and submit.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

I mean, in terms of folklore, that's how Faustian bargains worked. You weren't on the hook forever and ever for every little tiny thing your capricious, vicious, manipulative, deceptive pact-maker wanted, getting screwed over if you ever dipped a toe out of line. Instead, you just...had the power, and the price didn't come due until you died and your soul got dragged off to Hell.

Given revivify, most players have a reasonable expectation of that not happening. They already made the sale. Why would that sale result in constant manipulation and harm from a capricious figure the GM can deploy to do whatever they want, whenever they want?

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?

So, which is it? Something you are simply integrating into the experience for a richer, more interesting roleplay interaction, or is the patron a light coating of irrelevant story over the GM's ability to endlessly screw over the Warlock player that the player cannot criticize?

If you want the answer to the question, you need to view it from the perspective of the person accepting such an enormous submission--and you need to consider how the player might not be super keen on such absolute submission of every class feature and characteristic of their character beyond their ability scores and hit points.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean, I think it's trivially obviously correct.

3e proved that GMs were ready, willing, and able to screw over players or their PCs at the drop of a hat. It's the other half of why the Paladin class was so controversial (the first half being the players who treated "you have an oath to be LG" as "anything you decide is worth doing must be LG, so no matter what you've elected to do, you doing it means it's LG", aka the Lawful Stupid Paladin.)

Players can very clearly see what they're being asked to pay: "You will surrender all possible class features if I ever feel any reason why that should happen, and you don't get to dispute that or say I'm wrong." Who would agree to that?

 

[Aldarc]

Let the record show that I don't think that Warlocks should have a patron. Instead, I think that the Warlock should regularly be making various short-term pacts with various lesser extradimensional beings (e.g., fey, demons, devils, angels, spirits, etc.) as part of their game play.