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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Carrying a link to entities like The Archfey might be a total non-issue in a railroad chain of modules/hardcover adventure where PCs are pretty much welded to the module boundaries. That quickly starts to change & "well if you're the type of gm who.." is no longer applicable as things move more towards sandbox play though. That shift occurs because the nature of a sandbox means that the PC is carrying that link and can make use of it in ways that are simply not possible while chained to a series of potentially connected modules

True, in a module or adventure path or something these connections might only become relevant by accident and might require the GM more work adjusting if it happens. (That could also be required if the module pertains to a deity a religious organization the Cleric or Paladin might be related to.)

But at least the game isn't designed in a way this could cause a balance issue. The mechanical effects of having a particular patron or deity still apply, and you just have to live with the character's background being not that important for the story. Just the same as if they'd play a Barbarian, Fighter or Wizard, regardless of what tribes, military units or magic apprenticeships they were involved in that might have lead to them to this class. A bit of a missed opportunity, sure, but that's the disadvantage of running a purchasable adventure instead of homebrewing.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Eh... I think it was better at giving cover to the impulses a DM may already have rather than implant the desire in the first place. Regardless of which came first though, I think it was there mostly because Gary didn't believe in giving an inch to players without extracting a foot in return and the fact that human fighters biggest hidden feature was its lack of drawbacks says a lot about the expectations.

 

[Maxperson]

And you wonder why I take the view I take on your posts.

Yep. The tunnel vision again. I said, "The DM can of course change the rules about how it's done if he was that kind of person." Which clearly indicates that I don't agree with being "that sort of person." I also said the DM should work with the player.

Your tunnel vision causes you to assume that I would be "that sort of DM," when all I'm pointing out is that it could be done. Don't assume.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep. The tunnel vision again. I said, "The DM can of course change the rules about how it's done if he was that kind of person." Which clearly indicates that I don't agree with being "that sort of person." Your tunnel vision causes you to assume that I would do that, when all I'm pointing out is that it could be done. Don't assume.

That you keep bringing up how much the books empower the GM to be a jerk "if [they are] that kind of person" does not bespeak of such a thing. Instead, it makes it sound like you are extremely keen to ensure that the rules stay that way--keen to ensure that the rules always make abundantly clear that jerks are to be supported as much as possible.

Likewise, the "absolute power" thing. Or how many times you've specifically and pointedly talked about how much power GMs have, about how much they can throw their weight around. It's always the first thing you speak up in defense of. Consistently. Not hard to see that as enshrining the "the GM is empowered to be a jerk whenever they like" thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That you keep bringing up how much the books empower the GM to be a jerk "if [they are] that kind of person" does not bespeak of such a thing. Instead, it makes it sound like you are extremely keen to ensure that the rules stay that way--keen to ensure that the rules always make abundantly clear that jerks are to be supported as much as possible.

Because that freedom is very useful in many ways to non-jerk GMs to do non-jerk things, whereas no amount of rules restrictions will make a jerk GM a non-jerk GM.

 

[Maxperson]

That you keep bringing up how much the books empower the GM to be a jerk "if [they are] that kind of person" does not bespeak of such a thing. Instead, it makes it sound like you are extremely keen to ensure that the rules stay that way--keen to ensure that the rules always make abundantly clear that jerks are to be supported as much as possible.

Likewise, the "absolute power" thing. Or how many times you've specifically and pointedly talked about how much power GMs have, about how much they can throw their weight around. It's always the first thing you speak up in defense of. Consistently. Not hard to see that as enshrining the "the GM is empowered to be a jerk whenever they like" thing.

Yep, and for very good reason. You can't legislate jerks away from being jerks. The rules, when used by not jerks, are better for being the way that they are written. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz. The overwhelming majority of DMs use the D&D rules to make the game better for everyone, because it's a social game and they want the players to have a lot of fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep, and for very good reason. You can't legislate jerks away from being jerks. The rules, when used by not jerks, are better for being the way that they are written. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz. The overwhelming majority of DMs use the D&D rules to make the game better for everyone, because it's a social game and they want the players to have a lot of fun.

So we should thus roll out the red carpet and bend over backwards to help them be jerks, rather than lift a finger to do better?

No. Rules are not the horrible boogeyman you make them out to be, and absolutely can make a HUGE difference in both player and GM behavior. We can, should, and must demand better from designers. It is literally the future of the hobby at stake.

 

[Maxperson]

So we should thus roll out the red carpet and bend over backwards to help them be jerks, rather than lift a finger to do better?

There is no better. At least not from a stopping jerks from being jerks standpoint. Write me a rule that if I were a jerk I couldn't just ignore. If you can do that, I'll concede the point.

Rules are not the horrible boogeyman you make them out to be, and absolutely can make a HUGE difference in both player and GM behavior. We can, should, and must demand better from designers. It is literally the future of the hobby at stake.

I never said rules were some horrible boogeyman. I said the way D&D is written provides tools that are a great help to DMs in making the game very fun and exciting for the players. Removal of those tools can only harm the game, not help it since anything you change it to in order to prevent jerks from being jerks is doomed to fail.

 

[Distracted DM]

It's been in the game for 23 years and three editions! That's almost half the game's existence!

But Warlocks, as they are now, are a 5e construct.

I've had other warlock players but til now they basically just played them as, and I categorized them in my head as, "different-mechanics sorcerers" (which funny enough is how the 3e class was pitched).. just because I didn't know what to make of them.

I have noted, repeatedly, that I'm talking about 5e's version of a warlock- which is different from the 3e version which was that some distant ancestor made a bad deal and your entire bloodline was cursed with evil power, go have fun trying to resist the foul power within you, there's no patron, that was all said and done generations ago. 4e's said "you made a pact for power with X entity, you got the power, now go have fun blasting." No further patron interaction mentioned.

5e's version specifically calls out an ongoing relationship: "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

This entire promised dynamic, the class fantasy pitched to the player, provides no further guidance or mechanical backing for the DM; which is why I came here for help, because one of my players wants to have that warlock-patron relationship and up 'til now all of my warlock players have just wanted the warlock to basically be a different-rules-sorcerer.
But everyone has their own axe to grind, and it's now become another thread about DMs wanting to strangle players with rules.

Thank you for the reading and viewing recommendations. I'm familiar with most of them, though not all. I would not have considered Forbidden Planet as a source of inspiration for this but I could now see that since you've presented it from this angle

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I have noted, repeatedly, that I'm talking about 5e's version of a warlock- which is different from the 3e version which was that some distant ancestor

Mechanically, sure. Lorewise, it's loose enough to include the 3.5 version. The warlock in NWN2 is entirely compatible lorewise with 5e warlocks.

5e's version specifically calls out an ongoing relationship: "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

And if you read through the rest of the text, there is plenty of stuff that contradicts that and/or presents alternatives: "the Great Old One might be indifferent to your existence", "you might call on numerous such beings as you pursue goals aligned with theirs" etc. As pointed out previously, 5e is the "loosey-goosey edition". A warlock might be that, or they might be something else. The word "might" is used a lot. You have picked up on one line of text and taken it as defining the whole class, ignoring the reams of other text.