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

[Bae'zel]

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here.

Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid?

Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else she'll take away all the Druid's magic?

Does the Wizard have to sweat about the possibility that everything they've studied and worked for could just disappear, not just their notes, but literally magic itself just abandoning them, without explanation?

I understand why you want roleplay hooks. I think it's good to have them, and I think players should be open to this. That said, I also think that it's reasonable for the Warlock to ask, "Why should I be subject to worries that I'll get to keep playing my character, that nobody else has to deal with?" It's not like the Warlock is stronger than anyone else. (Arguably, it's weaker in many ways; that's why 5.5e buffed it.) Yes, it's cool to leverage the story of transactional power to create richer, more interesting experiences. That needs to happen in a way that doesn't make Warlock players feel singled out for special harsh treatment.

Your intent--like the others in this thread--is almost surely not harmful. Or, at the very least, you want any such "harmful" things to be only harm perceived by the character, not harm felt by the player. But if we're going to be asking, "Why would players be so strongly against this?" we need to consider the player's perspective, and that perspective is likely to be one of wondering why they're getting singled out for special attention when the Warlock as a class doesn't offer much that is terribly impressive or extreme compared to any other class.

Part of the issue is the triviality or commonality of magic. It used to be rare and special, but the “DPS” of typical magic users isn’t all that special compared to other classes (until they get reality shattering powers at higher levels).

And in most default fantasy settings, it seems like most inhabitants don’t do a double take at seeing a purple-skinned tiefling warlock with fire hair strolling into town. “Ooh who’s your patron? Mine’s so and so” in casual conversation like the weather or your favorite sports team.

So yeah, in what seems like current mainstream D&D-like fantasy worlds, Warlocks aren’t really special anymore, so why give them extra RP baggage, right?

Which is why I don’t like “vanilla” fantasy settings. In my D&D campaigns, Warlocks are unique and have the potential to do greater things than fighters, or even Wizards.

edit: as a D&D GM, I try to bring in extra RP opportunities, in-world connections and boons/banes related to each PC's chosen class, whether "mundane" Fighters or "exotic" Sorcerors. Deities commune with Clerics, Thieves Guilds contact Rogues, Nature spirits ask favors of Druids etc. But that's just me because I see "Class" as more than a package of abilities to be taken for granted. Fighters don't have mystical patrons or require extra effort to maintain their abilities beyond training, but they have a reputation like famous athletes, for good or ill.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Is that what "the patron should matter to the campaign" means from your perspective? Because that's what I'm asking for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That would be cool too. How do you think that would work mechanically?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here.

Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid?

Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else she'll take away all the Druid's magic?

Does the Wizard have to sweat about the possibility that everything they've studied and worked for could just disappear, not just their notes, but literally magic itself just abandoning them, without explanation?

I understand why you want roleplay hooks. I think it's good to have them, and I think players should be open to this. That said, I also think that it's reasonable for the Warlock to ask, "Why should I be subject to worries that I'll get to keep playing my character, that nobody else has to deal with?" It's not like the Warlock is stronger than anyone else. (Arguably, it's weaker in many ways; that's why 5.5e buffed it.) Yes, it's cool to leverage the story of transactional power to create richer, more interesting experiences. That needs to happen in a way that doesn't make Warlock players feel singled out for special harsh treatment.

Your intent--like the others in this thread--is almost surely not harmful. Or, at the very least, you want any such "harmful" things to be only harm perceived by the character, not harm felt by the player. But if we're going to be asking, "Why would players be so strongly against this?" we need to consider the player's perspective, and that perspective is likely to be one of wondering why they're getting singled out for special attention when the Warlock as a class doesn't offer much that is terribly impressive or extreme compared to any other class.

They're getting "singled out" (and they're not, really, because this happens in classes like cleric and paladin too), because they chose to play a class that explicitly gets its supernatural powers from another being. They didn't have to. And furthermore, in my game fiction informs mechanics. You don't decide on cool rules you like and then make up a story about them, or don't bother with a story at all. You come up with a story for your PC and then use mechanics that support it. Work with your GM to do so. I'm right here.

 

[Remathilis]

Patron, like deities or other supernatural sugar-parents, work best when there is an explicit expectation between the player and the DM as to the level of micromanaging the entity will do. I don't feel this should be set by the rules. There is interesting stories of rebellious warlocks turning on evil patrons (Spawn, Ghost Rider, etc) and on corrupt clerics, false priests and defiled druids.

The old method was very prone to DM abuse (the infamous kobayashi maru that DMs would place paladins in for example) and to be honest, it feels better when the patron is more hands off. You know how many deities I saw show up to admonish naughty clerics and I just wanted to say to them "if you're so not busy that you can show up to yell at Joe for breaking his oath, how about you help us stop the cult summoning the evil demon lord that's going to thrash your creation?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is that what "the patron should matter to the campaign" means from your perspective? Because that's what I'm asking for.

No, it isn't automatically what it means to me.

But when I hear it being asked, I cannot deny, I fear the foot in the door. I have seen GMs (only two, but still) specifically and knowingly create situations where Paladins were doomed to fail in 3.x/PF1e. Where they had to choose between law and good and were thus guaranteed to fail no matter what. So this isn't some weird hypothetical for me. This is a thing I've seen happen. "Heeeeey, buddy, let's talk about your patron!" I know plenty of GMs out there genuinely do mean it solely to enrich the experience. But, especially if (unlike some of the replies I have gotten thus far) this is a kind of question only I as a warlock player get asked, not the Wizard or Fighter or Druid players, then yeah, that absolutely gets my Spidey senses tingling.

And I'm well aware that ordinary players aren't dumb. They don't need to be told "oh by the way, the person you signed a pact with could screw you badly" is a possibility here. It's kind of a nearly universal trope at this point. So when the GM starts asking leading, probing questions, it's not hard to think "ah, I'm being singled out for harmful consequences simply because I felt like playing a Warlock and not a Bard" rather than "oh cool, this is a great roleplay opportunity that will exclusively result in more interesting stories".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Patron, like deities or other supernatural sugar-parents, work best when there is an explicit expectation between the player and the DM as to the level of micromanaging the entity will do. I don't feel this should be set by the rules. There is interesting stories of rebellious warlocks turning on evil patrons (Spawn, Ghost Rider, etc) and on corrupt clerics, false priests and defiled druids.

The old method was very prone to DM abuse (the infamous kobayashi maru that DMs would place paladins in for example) and to be honest, it feels better when the patron is more hands off. You know how many deities I saw show up to admonish naughty clerics and I just wanted to say to them "if you're so not busy that you can show up to yell at Joe for breaking his oath, how about you help us stop the cult summoning the evil demon lord that's going to thrash your creation?"

I'm fine with negotiating the relationship between warlock and patron before the game. But whatever it is, I want that relationship to matter in the campaign. In the fiction. Not to just be an easily ignorance excuse for the PC's super powers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They're getting "singled out" (and they're not, really, because this happens in classes like cleric and paladin too), because they chose to play a class that explicitly gets its supernatural powers from another being. They didn't have to. And furthermore, in my game fiction informs mechanics. You don't decide on cool rules you like and then make up a story about them, or don't bother with a story at all. You come up with a story for your PC and then use mechanics that support it. Work with your GM to do so. I'm right here.

So it's "how dare you play this balanced or even underpowered class, better like your drubbings"?

Because this is now creating roleplay costs for not getting any benefit. Which seems to be exactly as bad as balancing great power by only having roleplay costs, just in the opposite direction.

As stated above in several places, I think it is very good to consider this stuff and make patrons part of the story, to include hooks and ideas and such. I draw the line at being punitive, and the problem is, the really really obvious and likely choice, especially nowadays due to BG3's Wyll, is punitive and harmful results foisted on one and only one player solely because they chose spicy flavor, creating massive harmful consequences merely because "warlock" was written on the sheet, while rarely to never doing this to anyone else. Not even divine characters, since those don't have the manipulation implied by the pact.

Let me put that another way. Do you ever threaten Warlocks with loss of power? Do you do so for light and transient reasons? If so, do you threaten clerics for similar reasons, e.g. divine whim may be adequate for them to lose their class abilities? If yes to all, then I wouldn't play in that game but I would at least respect its consistency. If no, you have exactly what I was talking about: punishing Warlock characters solely because of their class, not because of any desire to enrich the experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it isn't automatically what it means to me.

But when I hear it being asked, I cannot deny, I fear the foot in the door. I have seen GMs (only two, but still) specifically and knowingly create situations where Paladins were doomed to fail in 3.x/PF1e. Where they had to choose between law and good and were thus guaranteed to fail no matter what. So this isn't some weird hypothetical for me. This is a thing I've seen happen. "Heeeeey, buddy, let's talk about your patron!" I know plenty of GMs out there genuinely do mean it solely to enrich the experience. But, especially if (unlike some of the replies I have gotten thus far) this is a kind of question only I as a warlock player get asked, not the Wizard or Fighter or Druid players, then yeah, that absolutely gets my Spidey senses tingling.

And I'm well aware that ordinary players aren't dumb. They don't need to be told "oh by the way, the person you signed a pact with could screw you badly" is a possibility here. It's kind of a nearly universal trope at this point. So when the GM starts asking leading, probing questions, it's not hard to think "ah, I'm being singled out for harmful consequences simply because I felt like playing a Warlock and not a Bard" rather than "oh cool, this is a great roleplay opportunity that will exclusively result in more interesting stories".

Then I will tell you again I'm sorry you've had such a terrible experience in the hobby, because I simply will not assume the worst as you seem to.

And I generally don't threaten my warlock and cleric PCs, because they generally don't ignore their patron or God and go against their desires. Because they picked a class, without coercion, where they acquired power from another being consensually and want to spread that beings influence. They sought out that power and negotiated for it, or went through a process on purpose to get it, and the player knows that and plays their character accordingly. There's no need to threaten or micromanage them.

 

[Bae'zel]

Patron, like deities or other supernatural sugar-parents, work best when there is an explicit expectation between the player and the DM as to the level of micromanaging the entity will do. I don't feel this should be set by the rules. There is interesting stories of rebellious warlocks turning on evil patrons (Spawn, Ghost Rider, etc) and on corrupt clerics, false priests and defiled druids.

The old method was very prone to DM abuse (the infamous kobayashi maru that DMs would place paladins in for example) and to be honest, it feels better when the patron is more hands off. You know how many deities I saw show up to admonish naughty clerics and I just wanted to say to them "if you're so not busy that you can show up to yell at Joe for breaking his oath, how about you help us stop the cult summoning the evil demon lord that's going to thrash your creation?"

Oh yes, by default any background flavor about ANY class should be wholly irrelevant to in-game play. I too, have witnessed a-hole DMs who played "GOTCHA" to Paladins.

...but that won't stop me from mining a player's choices in character creation (background, species and class) for story hooks, drama, faction alliances (or rivalries) and divine interest in these big epic heroes. Because I'm not an a-hole to my players and want them to have fun and acknowledge that their choices in character creation have meaning.

Sure, I'll get players who could NOT care less about their choices during character creation. They just want to chuck dice and drink beer. Great! But I feel like they'll be missing out at my table. I've seen it happen: a player get a bit envious of the in-world ties another PC had to work with. A player who went all out to gain more favor with their deity or patron, and got rewards for doing so.

So yeah, I guess that it makes sense: by default, D&D designers should say to DMs: "no character trait (background, species or class) should impose any in-fiction or mechanical limitations, complications or dramatic hooks if the player doesn't want to". I personally would not want to play with people who refuse that, despite my assurances of good faith.

EDIT: I try to draw compelling hooks for ALL classes, not just Warlocks, unless the player is not interested at all, which would disappoint me and, to be frank, lose some interest in their character. To each their own etc...