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

[Cergorach]

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?

Because if the Warlock player wanted to play a Cleric, they would have done so...

Many people view the 'pact' as something already paid for power, like selling your soul to a devil or whatever entity they made a pact with. Warlock does not mean cultist or priest, it can be, but it isn't by definition. Heck some people find actual godly interaction as a Cleric already problematic, seeing a Cleric as a cog in a giant God machine, that would never have direct interaction with the God unless something extremely special of very high level. It all depends on player expectations.

Imagine a Wizard being bound by their teacher and having to do things for that teacher while they have no agency over that. Or a Fighter or Thief having their ability curbed by some guild? These could be awesome stories IF everyone is on the same page.

My Warlock had stories that the Great Old One he made a pact with was constantly trying to enter the world through 'portals' like actual portals, like a door, a window, a toilet seat, etc. But the Warlock constantly gently pushing the Great Old One back through that portal, with the soft words "You don't belong here...". That's something I thought up for my character, my most recent DM did something with that (back)story, but they were walking a thin line between doing something cool and something that I wouldn't like. Something like destroying my (back)story or demanding I do xyz OR ELSE...

 

[Remathilis]

Many people view the 'pact' as something already paid for power, like selling your soul to a devil or whatever entity they made a pact with. Warlock does not mean cultist or priest, it can be, but it isn't by definition. Heck some people find actual godly interaction as a Cleric already problematic, seeing a Cleric as a cog in a giant God machine, that would never have direct interaction with the God unless something extremely special of very high level. It all depends on player expectations

Id argue that most classic warlock style patrons are antagonistic with their antihero contractors. Spawn is made a servant of Malbolge,, but realizing he's been lied to, uses his own hellfire to stop him. John Constantine is always pissing off the Devil, and when Mephisto gave Johnny Blaze the spirit of vengeance, he didn't: apparently add a clause to take it back when he went rogue. Hell, the Herald of Galactus routinely tells big purple to stuff it and never loses their surfboard. To be perfectly honest, I view warlock/patron antagonism to be the default storyline, right down to Faustus in a way.

As an aside, I don't like how overly active deities are in most D&D settings (Dragonlance and pre-5e Forgotten Realms the biggest offenders). I prefer deities that are removed, aloof, or who work though omens, prophets and agents. I love Eberron and Ravenloft for having deities who existence is even debatable, but I will settle for how SCAG had out the Faerun deities in timeout (so much so, the Dead Three have to be mortals to stir the pot) rather than the weird mixture of Old Testament Yahweh (omnipresent, omnipotent and vengeful) and Greek myth (where deities constantly get involved in mortal affairs and seek retribution for the slightest infraction).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Id argue that most classic warlock style patrons are antagonistic with their antihero contractors. Spawn is made a servant of Malbolge,, but realizing he's been lied to, uses his own hellfire to stop him. John Constantine is always pissing off the Devil, and when Mephisto gave Johnny Blaze the spirit of vengeance, he didn't: apparently add a clause to take it back when he went rogue. Hell, the Herald of Galactus routinely tells big purple to stuff it and never loses their surfboard. To be perfectly honest, I view warlock/patron antagonism to be the default storyline, right down to Faustus in a way.

As an aside, I don't like how overly active deities are in most D&D settings (Dragonlance and pre-5e Forgotten Realms the biggest offenders). I prefer deities that are removed, aloof, or who work though omens, prophets and agents. I love Eberron and Ravenloft for having deities who existence is even debatable, but I will settle for how SCAG had out the Faerun deities in timeout (so much so, the Dead Three have to be mortals to stir the pot) rather than the weird mixture of Old Testament Yahweh (omnipresent, omnipotent and vengeful) and Greek myth (where deities constantly get involved in mortal affairs and seek retribution for the slightest infraction).

Please note that in all your examples, the character's patron is an active part of the campaign that appears and interacts with the character regularly. Mephisto, the Devil, Galactica, Malbolge...none of them are ignored nonentities in those stories. Read my comments above and you'll see that's what I'm asking for.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

This all seems needlessly argumentative.

If a player chooses a warlock, they are sending a signal. It's a signal that they might want to build a story around their patron. What is that story? How involved should it be? Is the patron an ally or an enemy? The only way you can know for certain is to talk to your player.

Yes, talk to your player. Then help them get what they want, within the constraints of your campaign.

 

[Remathilis]

This all seems needlessly argumentative.

If a player chooses a warlock, they are sending a signal. It's a signal that they might want to build a story around their patron. What is that story? How involved should it be? Is the patron an ally or an enemy? The only way you can know for certain is to talk to your player.

Yes, talk to your player. Then help them get what they want, within the constraints of your campaign.

I think that's the obvious way to handle it. My concern is when the DM and the player have different interpretations of what that relationship entails. I prefer the game rules do not hand the DM a cudgel for those times there has been a.. failure, to communicate.

 

[Scribe]

This all seems needlessly argumentative.

If a player chooses a warlock, they are sending a signal. It's a signal that they might want to build a story around their patron. What is that story? How involved should it be? Is the patron an ally or an enemy? The only way you can know for certain is to talk to your player.

Yes, talk to your player. Then help them get what they want, within the constraints of your campaign.

Bingo.

For a system like 5e, figure it out, there is no mechanics anyway.

 

[Necropolitan]

I think that's the obvious way to handle it. My concern is when the DM and the player have different interpretations of what that relationship entails. I prefer the game rules do not hand the DM a cudgel for those times there has been a.. failure, to communicate.

The DM already has the cudgel of "Is the DM."

 

[Tonguez]

I think that's the obvious way to handle it. My concern is when the DM and the player have different interpretations of what that relationship entails. I prefer the game rules do not hand the DM a cudgel for those times there has been a.. failure, to communicate.

which is why I like the Ravenloft style Dark Gifts - the player gets to choose what they are comfortable with 'sacrificing' - be it an ever present crow watching from the corner, bloodshot eyeballs or the chance of losing control for the sake of story.

 

[GobHag]

The DM already has the cudgel of "Is the DM."

So why give then another?

 

[Necropolitan]

So why give then another?

It's not.

DMs have more power because they're the ones running the game. Their house, their rules.

If someone doesn't like that then they can find a DM who doesn't expect them to engage with the basic premise of the character they're playing as.