I don't believe "every dirt farmer and street urchin has memorized the PHB and MM" has ever been official, so there is no reason to believe that anyone knows any "cosmic secrets." Also, patrons pick warlocks for charisma, not wisdom or intelligence, so it is unlikely that the warlock can detect a lie of omission or could identify the truth out of scores of wizardly tomes on arcane deals that probably split hairs on all manner of things.
I'm not saying it would be common knowledge for the masses, but in the specialized world of spellcasters, such information would be knowable arcana. It might take a roll, but it wouldn't be something that could be kept a secret, especially from warlocks who would look into such things.
Your second question is more interesting. I think of the pain as basically being money (thus the bank reference), although it is possible that it is a tasty snack for the GOO's, art for the fey, and a source of power for fiends.
That leads to a question, which I have not really thought of until now, did the warlock thing arise independently among these groups, or did one group invent it and the others appropriate it? Given the large amount of uniformity of it, appropriation does seem likely. If some GOO invented it as a way to get pain M&M's, an early warlock might have fallen into the clutches of a fiend or archfey who decided that he/she/it could get something he/she/it wanted out of the deal and replicated the warlock template.
In my mind it's more independent than that. John Doe contacts an archfey and makes a deal to do X, Y and Z in exchange for some power. Nancy Drew contacts Belial and makes a deal with him for abilities that let her be a better detective in exchange for A, B, and C. Jane Doe, annoyed at her husband John's constant pranks, contacts Cthulhu and promises to bring about the end of the world in exchange for power to get back at John.
D&D just needs to make the warlock base class uniform, so all three get the same basic abilities.
I'm not saying it would be common knowledge for the masses, but in the specialized world of spellcasters, such information would be knowable arcana. It might take a roll, but it wouldn't be something that could be kept a secret, especially from warlocks who would look into such things.
In my mind it's more independent than that. John Doe contacts an archfey and makes a deal to do X, Y and Z in exchange for some power. Nancy Drew contacts Belial and makes a deal with him for abilities that let her be a better detective in exchange for A, B, and C. Jane Doe, annoyed at her husband John's constant pranks, contacts Cthulhu and promises to bring about the end of the world in exchange for power to get back at John.
D&D just needs to make the warlock base class uniform, so all three get the same basic abilities.
If you read the whole first paragraph, you would see that I dispute that a would-be warlock would bother or be capable of finding out that information.
From the would-be warlock's perspective, I'm sure it feels all very "independent" and special, but unless Cthulhu, Belial, and the nameless archfey only have one warlock (and have never had warlock before), it doesn't pass the sniff test. To all three of them, the warlock is not that important. Do you spend 5 minutes appreciating each and every nail before hammering it into something?
Plus, you know Belial has some overworked barbed devil doing all the work with the warlock anyway. What is the point of having an infernal bureaucracy under you if you have to do everything yourself?
A. The patron is a mentor, teaching you how to break the rules of magic, etc
2. The patron got what it wants from you already, and every great deed you do, every kill, every victory, feeds little bits of power to your patron which is just gravy.
3. You made the deal and are working against your own patron now, possibly you even stole your power in the first place. They cannot take it away, it is yours and that just aint how magic works, but they are your greatest enemy now.
But the biggest thing to remember is thst the player only has their character. What they want from the class is simply more important. So talk to them about it.
Yes 5e goes wayyy out of its way to ensure that PCs don't actually need anything
~34:30 https://twitter.co,.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/850183402808463365
the earlier post19 warlock specific tweets
The ramifications of that design choice to ensure players don't need anything from the GM's world come up with the warlock/paladin/cleric classes, a few times in the TN/alignment thread, & it even extends to the god awful designed - rest mechanics.
agreed 100%. Unfortunately someone was so excited to push their Sam & Dean Winchester/Crowley or Constantine/lucifer fanfic that they moved the needle wayyyyyyyy beyond the point where the player had any reason to care & the GM was effectively unable to have the power granting entity/force push back after having a stern look ignored
That bold bit is where RAW and it's associated fluff matters to an absolutely critical degree. With 5e, the Overton-window equivalent shifted so far that should the GM have anything in that world they supposedly master push back when a player takes actions as if their PC doesn't care or the player themselves simply responds to a stern look from the powers that be by simply calling the GM's "master of worlds" bluff by completely ignoring it. At that point the GM can either ignore it & continue as is or pull one of
Opposite to the Monty Haul Game Master who heaps rewards by the truckful upon their players, the Killer Game-Master has set themself up as a hostile entity playing against them. To this person, it hasn't been a good day until the players have …
Being the Game Master of a Tabletop RPG campaign is a difficult business: Regardless of whatever exciting Story Arcs you've planned and worked out in advance, there's no guarantee that your human cohorts will proceed according to plan. After all …
tvtropes.org
Simply declaring the GM to be a master of worlds has no value when discussing areas of the game where the rules lore & fluff were designed to ensure the GM lacks enough authority to keep metaphorical soft power stern looks credible All of those are choices that poison the social contract & doom a campaign.
I don't believe "every dirt farmer and street urchin has memorized the PHB and MM" has ever been official, so there is no reason to believe that anyone knows any "cosmic secrets." Also, patrons pick warlocks for charisma, not wisdom or intelligence, so it is unlikely that the warlock can detect a lie of omission or could identify the truth out of scores of wizardly tomes on arcane deals that probably split hairs on all manner of things.
Your second question is more interesting. I think of the pain as basically being money (thus the bank reference), although it is possible that it is a tasty snack for the GOO's, art for the fey, and a source of power for fiends.
That leads to a question, which I have not really thought of until now, did the warlock thing arise independently among these groups, or did one group invent it and the others appropriate it? Given the large amount of uniformity of it, appropriation does seem likely. If some GOO invented it as a way to get pain M&M's, an early warlock might have fallen into the clutches of a fiend or archfey who decided that he/she/it could get something he/she/it wanted out of the deal and replicated the warlock template.
Or mortals did it, and invocations show just how non uniform it is, with an implication that the number of variations has grown over time and continues to grow.
Gods gave divine magic and arcane magic. Prescribed and orderly. Rational and controlled.
Then some guy, almost certainly named Jack, came along and figured out that you can actually just shove raw power into things and get similar power but in different shapes, and Jack talked the first patron into it.
I probably should've specified that this whole dilemma only came about because one of my players was quite disappointed with Warlocks' lack of patron interaction during a short campaign we had; so after talking it out with them, I ended up making this thread in an effort to gain insights from the folk here
That's certainly different! If your player asks for more interaction, of course a good DM starts looking forward to making it happen
The challenge is how to balance such interaction so that it feels compelling for action but not restricting or annoying. A secondary challenge is not to let it create too much spotlight on the same PC compared to others.
The DM of the campaign I am currently playing in, is actually facing a similar problem right now! We have a Warlock of the Fathomless (?) and the DM is a bit puzzled at how to create warlock-patron interactions that aren't too goofy.
If you read the whole first paragraph, you would see that I dispute that a would-be warlock would bother or be capable of finding out that information.
Perhaps, but it would be known before final pact agreement, since you can't have secrets be part of a pact. The pact is binding in both directions and only includes that which is formally agreed upon.
From the would-be warlock's perspective, I'm sure it feels all very "independent" and special, but unless Cthulhu, Belial, and the nameless archfey only have one warlock (and have never had warlock before), it doesn't pass the sniff test. To all three of them, the warlock is not that important. Do you spend 5 minutes appreciating each and every nail before hammering it into something?
No, but I do spend that much time or more before purchasing a tool(getting a warlock). I want to see which brands are best, and why a particular tool is good for the job I have in mind, and then compare that information to pricing before buying(make a pact with the store) the right tool for the job.
Why would you think such a contract would require paperwork? All it takes is, "I'll give you this power, but you have to do X, Y and Z in return. Do you agree?" If yes, contract! Even demons and great old ones do that.
Great Old Ones are rarely aware that they even have warlocks drawing on their power. You are being far to legalistic in your interpretation of the word "pact". Which is my point - devils are basically lawyers with horns. But many of the other warlock patrons (including other fiends) are very different in nature, and some are far to chaotic to stick to an agreement even if one is made (think marriage - sometimes a partner cheats). And even devils classically only want your soul after death. What they do with the granted power in life is entirely up to the warlock. Playing a warlock is not an excuse to beat the player if they don't do what the DM tells them (neither is cleric or paladin).
A fey patron may be the warlock's fairy lover, and is unlikely to have any agenda - unless the warlock should want to love someone else. A GOO patron may be anything from a vast unknowable entity to the warlock's unborn parasitic twin. The power relationship may go either way - Prospero binds Ariel to his service, not the other way around. Elric and Stormbringer constantly struggle for dominance, and have a mutual dependence, not a contract.
So leave it to the players. Any attempt to rulefy a pact is going to fail to cover all possibilities, and the great thing about the warlocks is their variability.
And under no circumstances try to tell a player how they should be playing their character.
Great Old Ones are rarely aware that they even have warlocks drawing on their power. You are being far to legalistic in your interpretation of the word "pact". Which is my point - devils are basically lawyers with horns. But many of the other warlock patrons (including other fiends) are very different in nature, and some are far to chaotic to stick to an agreement even if one is made (think marriage - sometimes a partner cheats). And even devils classically only want your soul after death. What they do with the granted power in life is entirely up to the warlock. Playing a warlock is not an excuse to beat the player if they don't do what the DM tells them.
A pact is specifically a formal set forth agreement. And it's binding, so the demon can't break it, even though it probably wants to. And I think you're being pretty hyperbolic there. A patron showing up now and then with requests isn't even remotely close to "beating the player." It's a really poor metaphor.
A fey patron may make the pact on a whim, but that whim will be binding as it is a PACT. A formally binding agreement for power. The warlock may be required to plant flowers once a week, regardless of location or weather. Or some other stranger requirement(s) that the patron wanted done at the time.
An unborn parasitic twin isn't a great old one that existed before the world was made. And this is the one patron that might not ever make a demand on the warlock. Or it might.
Yes, the pact is binding in both directions. The patron is also bound.
One thing I've noticed, since I checked the 5.5e PHB, is that in 5.5e the warlock apparently makes a pact with an unknown entity and then finds out who he made the pact with at 3rd level. Apparently all warlocks are insane fools in 5.5e.
So leave it to the players. Any attempt to rulefy a pact is going to fail to cover all possibilities, and the great thing about the warlocks is their variability.
And under no circumstances try to tell a player how they should be playing their character.
The rules say otherwise. The DM does in fact have a say in how active the patron is. At least in 5e.
"Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career."
And then it goes on to list some things to discuss. What it does not say is that the player dictates to the DM how big a part the pact will play. This idea goes hand in hand with the single most important advice the PHB gives to the player. So important that it's virtually the first thing said. Check with the DM to see if his setting will affect your character creation(I'm paraphrasing). If the DM is going to have active patrons and you don't want one, pick something other than a warlock.
The patron is an NPC, and therefore run by the DM. But NPCs cannot remove PC powers, or stop them levelling, or in anyway interact with the meta. They can only act within the game world. And Cthulhu is not going to turn up in the game world to stomp a PC for being nice to little old ladies.
Have you ever read a dictionary? Words have more than one definition. And "formally set forth agreement" is not the only definition of the word "pact". And the D&D rules (deliberately) do not tell you which one applies - because it could be any of them.
And even "formally set forth agreements" can (and often are) be broken.
