D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Blue]

The player chooses their patron, from within a very board range of parameters.

The rules support this: "At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice:" (2014!PHB pg 107)

The player decides the nature and terms of the pact.

The rules negate this: "Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career." (2014!PHB pg 106)

The player cannot unilaterally decide this according the the PHB. They are one voice in the decision, not the only voice.

 

[Maxperson]

In my experience, DMs like to hide behind passive aggressive rules like losing your abilities if you roleplay wrong so they can shift the blame from "you're not playing the way I think you should be playing" to "You're not roleplaying the way the rulebook thinks you should be playing."

I literally haven't seen this behavior since I was in high school and playing 1e/2e. 3e had some paladin issues, because it didn't take much to lose your abilities, but that wasn't any kind of passive aggressive blame game.

You can thank AD&D and the fact that between alignment restrictions, codes of conduct and gear dependency, the only class the DM cannot intentionally cripple your character with is fighter.* Every other class had some way of either stripping you of your powers or stopping your advancement. Couple that with the "genre enforcement" rules in settings like Dark Sun, Dragonlance and Ravenloft, and you had the first 20 years of the game be designed around "DM may I?" As the default method of playing your character.

The vast majority of players never played AD&D, so that thinking isn't present in most players and DMs, and I'd argue even most older players and DMs these days.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So because some folks might not want to play a warlock, cleric, paladin, or druid as written, the classes should be eliminated for everyone? And that makes sense to you?

It makes exactly as much sense as eliminating the Warlock solely because folks are not champing at the bit to get screwed over. Meaning, no it doesn't make sense at all, which is precisely why I pointed it out. It shows how ridiculous the standard being set is.

Or we can understand that the classes are written like X, and if a player wants to play it like Y, he needs to get the DM's okay to do so. I think most DMs would work with the players to figure out something that fits the concept. At least almost all the DMs I've played with would do so.

I'm genuinely shocked to hear you say so, given how antagonistic you have been to the very idea of collaboration with players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The GM could put up a fight about it, but a good 5e GM is going to prioritize player desires over (entirely fungible) setting logic.

I guess there aren't very many good 5e GMs, then, given how many folks around here champion the idea that prioritizing player desires is literally the worst thing that ever happened to TTRPGs and directly responsible for nearly everything bad currently happening to D&D design...

If the player wants the thespianism of doing patron-warlock roleplay, great! If the player wants to be a warlock because casting spells and using a hexblade seems super cool, and wants their patron to be a ham sandwich, also great!

News to me, especially given the arguments presented in this thread!

 

[Maxperson]

It makes exactly as much sense as eliminating the Warlock solely because folks are not champing at the bit to get screwed over. Meaning, no it doesn't make sense at all, which is precisely why I pointed it out. It shows how ridiculous the standard being set is.

Nobody is doing that.

I'm genuinely shocked to hear you say so, given how antagonistic you have been to the very idea of collaboration with players.

You've always had a kind of tunnel vision where my posts are concerned. I've talked about how I work with my players loads of times in many different threads.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my experience, DMs like to hide behind passive aggressive rules like losing your abilities if you roleplay wrong so they can shift the blame from "you're not playing the way I think you should be playing" to "You're not roleplaying the way the rulebook thinks you should be playing."

In my experience the biggest problem with the classic Paladin rules was that they told uncertain and new DMs to do bad things. Not to shift the blame but encouraged them to do things they wouldn't have done at all.

I guess there aren't very many good 5e GMs, then, given how many folks around here champion the idea that prioritizing player desires is literally the worst thing that ever happened to TTRPGs and directly responsible for nearly everything bad currently happening to D&D design...

Round here the folks skew old; this was originally a 3.0 board after all. And the "It is YOUR world and the players are just visitors" viking hatted DMs are advocated in older editions. There are however a lot of bad 5e DMs - but that's because everyone starts as a beginner and because the 2014 DMG is simply bad at teaching new DMs.

 

[Distracted DM]

Aaaand the thread has turned into another Player vs GM Agency debate.

 

[TwoSix]

Aaaand the thread has turned into another Player vs GM Agency debate.

Most questions about RPGs, especially trad-leaning ones, are ultimately questions about the division of authority between GMs and players, and how much and how the rules exist to facilitate those questions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Aaaand the thread has turned into another Player vs GM Agency debate.

Turned into? I thought that that was the premise of the thread - that the warlock didn't just give all agency to the DM

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

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.

Who says that pacts can't have secrets? Either cite something or leave your head cannon out of this. I'm calling complete and total BS on this.