Warlock Pacts

[Aaron Patridge]

I haven't read every bit of feedback from the devs, so I'm hoping one (or more) of you have and can answer this question:

Can warlocks choose the otherworldly being with which they create a pact? I'm not into the traditional pact with a demon because it seems to lock my character into being foolish and power-hungry or to be enduring a crisis that necessitates a foolish action. Also, to be honest, I am bored by demons. They're almost always just innately evil in a way that isn't believable even in a fictional entity (like the Christian's devil though their myth at least has him cast out as a jealous head angel before he becomes just a silly bad-because-he's-bad character) or interesting and they're usually drawn to be grotesque but don't manage it because their weird bodies are built in a way that should make them shambling, slow, clumsy, and prone to infection due to openly bleeding or exposed tissue. They're alien beings from a different plane of existence, but then I want the rules of that plane to make sense for the beings in it and I want the rules of our plane of existence to still hold sway while we're in it. . . so IMHO demons suck.

However, getting to make a pact with an otherworldly fae or playing a character who makes a pact with an old god who feeds on his insanity (thus making him sane) in exchange for power (a real Tom Sawyer's white-washed fence bargain) would be great. I could go on and on and I'm not that picky, but I'd love for there to be some other option than a demon and hopefully one that is a lot different like the fae.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Kaos:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

If your DM is garbage. OR if you just don't care about RP and want to skip it.

I really take no offense to the second. But to just skip on this in a game that is at least partly RP focused and have a character who has essentially sold his soul but never deals with it in even a tangential way? Its just bad DMing.

I mean it really depends on how you look at it.
For a patron the power you draw is like a drop in a bucket of an endless ocean.
If he can get a foothold on the prime material, being able to see and hear what is happening. Maybe even moving his pawn into a situation where he/she becomes a powerful and influential figure, through no coercion because it is what the pawn wanted.
That one word can be the word needed to send the world into war for a thousand years.

If you want you can call it lazy.
I would call it... the patron gets free wifi on the prime material plane

It's lazy. Bad DMing. Fiends don't operate that way largely. You want a Far Realms creature who barely realizes you exist? That makes sense.

[Aaron Patridge]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

Originally posted by Vel'Rathis:

Any GM worth their salt doesn't give black and white pact choices, you don't ask players to murder someone as a pact requirement, you ask them to do small inconsequential things that only later do they realise had a consequence. Butterfly effect stuff, because the player blew out a candle in a temple the priest had to climb a rickety ladder to relight it an ultimately fell to his death, as a result there was no one in town to heal the first plague victim and therefore many more died. Devils are supra-intelligent manipulators, they should be played as such. A warlock who isnt super paranoid and agonising over the things his pact patron has asked him to do isnt playing it right.

And a DM who never provides consequence or amplifies that tension isn't playing it right.

First, I'd like to remind anyone else reading this that they are arguing about a pact struggle between a good (or even neutral) aligned warlock who takes a pact with a fiend (or other evil-aligned otherworldly being). We've already discussed that there are a lot of other different kinds of pacts available that could be played in very different ways than this.

We've also discussed that I agree that the other-worldly beings have strong themes associated with them: Demons tempt, trick, and corrupt. Old ones threaten or disrupt sanity and/or reality. Fae trick or deceive (often out of being an alien culture with magically binding rituals rather than out of malicious intent). While you can dodge these themes or manipulate them, you can't abandon them and I think, in most cases, it is better to engage them - especially in tabletop. After all, a player can pick any otherworldly being they want so presumably they want the pact struggle associated with the patron they choose.

Having said that, I disagree with some of the shade being thrown around. There isn't such a thing as a perfect DM. There is only the right DM for the right group.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

I was more referring to your party members who see you throwing around dark magic/eldritch blasts daily maybe having an opinion. Pretty sure you aren't keeping that under wraps.

With the exception of Eldritch Blast, most of the Warlock spells are taken from the same list as Wizards and Sorcerers. And any Warlock can gain access to Eldritch Blast, even Feypact ones. So it's not an automatic blowing of their cover, just something that they might want to keep an eye on.

I don't think that's engaging with the class honestly. If you party up with a warlock and have any idea what one is (say, you're the wizard) you're going to be VERY interested in finding out what their patron is and very suspicious until you are convinced you know it.

As for not role playing, It's your turn to be called out on it.

I... read the entire rest of your post and never saw any instance where you said I wasn't roleplaying or that what I do would be bad RP. If you meant to make a point, and this isn't shade, I really do not see it. I don't think you did.

I never suggested that the consequences for their actions would never be shown. Rather that it would be a slow burn for those consequences to manifest themselves.

And if you read my prior posts I said the same. But the argument taking place was more about a fiendish patron exacting no obvious price during the course of a campaign (basically, skipping RP related to the warlocks pact and patron for an entire campaign).

[Boink]

Allowing non-evil PCs to make pacts with LE/CE Outsiders was a terrible idea, just because people wanted power-gaming tieflings with none of the role playing.

Pact with an outsider? You should be glowing like a Xmas tree when someone pops a https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Detect%20Evil%20and%20Good#content unless you're using specific masking methods.

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

https://dnd5e.info/beyond-1st-level/alignment/


Edit: this goes for the current meta trend of every non-druid caster type taking a couple of levels of Hexblade Warlock because it's so badly designed. Hop right in, make a permanent pact, hop right out just for those sweet class abilities.

It's completely nonsensical / broken. At the very least taking Warlock levels should require them to either be the highest level or within 1-2 levels of the other class: you can't pause a pact and expect a Patron to be all "Ok, right, sure - have the class abilities as a freebie, forget it after that, nothing serious about pacts, ho-hum, could you possibly be a tiny bit evil some time in the future if it's not too much bother, please?"

Oh, and Hexblades' Spectre ability should be an instant evil alignment move if used. You're defiling the spirit of an intelligent humanoid to make an undead servant? Yeaaah... that's preeeety much evil.

~

This has nothing to do with BG3 as a game, however. But expect smurfs to start complaining the game balance is off as they Multi-class into the meta.

[Aaron Patridge]

Class balance? Who wants that? We'd all have to suck as much as bards.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Boink:

Allowing non-evil PCs to make pacts with LE/CE Outsiders was a terrible idea, just because people wanted power-gaming tieflings with none of the role playing.

I have to disagree with that. The Faustian bargain, the deal with a devil that corrupts you or bites you is a classic story.

Pact with an outsider? You should be glowing like a Xmas tree when someone pops a https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Detect%20Evil%20and%20Good#content unless you're using specific masking methods.

That isn't what that spell does. Your own link describes detecting certain creature types, consecration, and desecration of locations. Thats it.

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

https://dnd5e.info/beyond-1st-level/alignment/

This part is true. I can agree with that much of what you said. But I can boil it down to this.

Fiends have traits. Old ones have traits. Fey have traits. Celestials have traits. Some of those traits are personality based, they vary. But because of the nature of the lore some are set in stone fabric of their plane traits. It is not negotiable how they'll behave in some contexts it is predetermined. Like those Lawful Evil big bads roping you into bargains to dominate and corrupt you.

**They are characters. A good DM will roleplay those characters. And some of what those characters are just isn't up for negotiation if you stick to the setting proper.**

How your player reacts to those characters influencing, pushing, forcing, whatevering them is up to the player. But the NPC character should be played to type.

This all goes out the window if you house rule away pact consequences, home brew lore so you can make any being behave any way, and just decide you don't want to RP something that would almost be essential by the rules and setting because you don't want to... but once you enter that part of the conversation there's no conversation to be had.

[Boink]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

This all goes out the window if you house rule away pact consequences, home brew lore so you can make any being behave any way, and just decide you don't want to RP something that would almost be essential by the rules and setting because you don't want to... but once you enter that part of the conversation there's no conversation to be had.

The 'fluff' on Hexblade Patrons is incredibly sparse.

However, raising an unwilling intelligent creature's spirit as an enslaved undead (even if temporary) is an inherently evil act. No ifs, no buts. You use the ability? You're RPing an evil character, no argument.


And yes, I understand how detect good/evil works, the point is: for a Pact, I'd include some flavor text like: "Although you cannot pin-point it, there is a trace of something ineffable in this location, but you cannot determine where it is coming from". You're making Pacts with Evil Outsiders, not shopping for the best min/max stats for your smurf Warlock.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Boink:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

This all goes out the window if you house rule away pact consequences, home brew lore so you can make any being behave any way, and just decide you don't want to RP something that would almost be essential by the rules and setting because you don't want to... but once you enter that part of the conversation there's no conversation to be had.

The 'fluff' on Hexblade Patrons is incredibly sparse.

However, raising an unwilling intelligent creature's spirit as an enslaved undead (even if temporary) is an inherently evil act. No ifs, no buts. You use the ability? You're RPing an evil character, no argument.


And yes, I understand how detect good/evil works, the point is: for a Pact, I'd include some flavor text like: "Although you cannot pin-point it, there is a trace of something ineffable in this location, but you cannot determine where it is coming from". You're making Pacts with Evil Outsiders, not shopping for the best min/max stats for your smurf Warlock.

Just as I don't care about their house rules I have to say I don't think yours are relevant.

The Hexblade pact isnt one I've dealt with. Let me go read...

So... no less so than the Old Ones or Fiends really, it's just that these are tapping into mythologies more known IRL. Plenty of good ideas for how to flesh out a hexblade pact with consequences so far. You even presented one yourself. Maybe you'd let them justify fighting fire with fire (evil with enslaved evil) but if they enslave neutral or good beings in that way it starts to impact them.

This seems less like there being no RP potential and light fluff in the Hexblade - all the patrons are pretty loosely described really - and more like you just don't like the Hexblade because it's strong and so people use it to powergame.

[Boink]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

This seems less like there being no RP potential and light fluff in the Hexblade - all the patrons are pretty loosely described really - and more like you just don't like the Hexblade because it's strong and so people use it to powergame.

No, the 6th level inherent ability is an evil act. There's no way to take 6 levels in Warlock Hexblade and use the ability without becoming evil.

Which is fine, if you want to RP an evil character, but the class itself is alignment locked but pretends it is not.

It's also a blatant rip-off of Moorcock's Elric of Melniboné series without the attention to detail.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Boink:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

This seems less like there being no RP potential and light fluff in the Hexblade - all the patrons are pretty loosely described really - and more like you just don't like the Hexblade because it's strong and so people use it to powergame.

No, the 6th level inherent ability is an evil act. There's no way to take 6 levels in Warlock Hexblade and use the ability without becoming evil.

Which is fine, if you want to RP an evil character, but the class itself is alignment locked but pretends it is not.

It's also a blatant rip-off of Moorcock's Elric of Melniboné series without the attention to detail.

Is it?

5e doesn't really say much about alignment shifts from what I'm googling. Are you projecting your own house rules about what shifts alignment onto the game or is it specified somewhere in the rules?

[Boink]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

Is it?

5e doesn't really say much about alignment shifts from what I'm googling. Are you projecting your own house rules about what shifts alignment onto the game or is it specified somewhere in the rules?

Sigh.

"I killed an innocent person, raised the corpse as a slave then used the slave to attack its own community and kill them"

"dO tHe rUlEZ StAtE tHaT iS eVuL?!?

No, it's obvious. Raising the Undead from unwilling host creatures (humanoids, specifically, so 99% intelligent / self-aware) and using them as slaves (however temporary) especially those with strong connections to the negative planes (spectres) and also getting them to fight for you is evil.

It doesn't require a RULE, it's basic ethics.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Boink:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

Is it?

5e doesn't really say much about alignment shifts from what I'm googling. Are you projecting your own house rules about what shifts alignment onto the game or is it specified somewhere in the rules?

Sigh.

"I killed an innocent person, raised the corpse as a slave then used the slave to attack its own community and kill them"

"dO tHe rUlEZ StAtE tHaT iS eVuL?!?

No, it's obvious.

You are fighting a straw man. That's not what the Hexblade HAS to do. It could be:

"I fought an evil man, then raised him as a specter to defend the rest of the innocents in the area from attackers."

You seem to just not like the pact rather than you having any real arguments about the rules as written. Besides, intent matters in ethics.

Simple question: If a paladin kills a man because he believes him to be a murderer fleeing justice then finds out he was misinformed later was he guilty of an evil act? If the definition of good and evil is purely about outcomes then yes, but I think most people would argue no.

[Boink]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

You are fighting a straw man. That's not what the Hexblade HAS to do. It could be:

"I fought an evil man, then raised him as a specter to defend the rest of the innocents in the area from attackers."

You seem to just not like the pact rather than you having any real arguments about the rules as written.

No, raising a spectre is inherently evil. You seem unable to grasp basic ethics here.

Your argument is akin to: "Sure, but I used that bioweapon against the bad guys, does that make me evil?!?"

Yes: using bioweapons is inherently evil / chaotic. Even the U.N. recognises that fact. Using undead negative plane creatures as tools falls under the same type of argument.

[Soft Lockpick]

Originally posted by Boink:

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

You are fighting a straw man. That's not what the Hexblade HAS to do. It could be:

"I fought an evil man, then raised him as a specter to defend the rest of the innocents in the area from attackers."

You seem to just not like the pact rather than you having any real arguments about the rules as written.

No, raising a spectre is inherently evil. You seem unable to grasp basic ethics here.

Got a page number for that?

Your argument is akin to: "Sure, but I used that bioweapon against the bad guys, does that make me evil?!?"

You're trying to conflate something that can spread uncontrollably and have long lasting consequences for countless innocents with a 24 hour binding that only directly impacts whoever you direct it to impact.

The reason bioweapons are off limits is the scale combined with a lack of control over the short AND long term consequences. Neither is an issue here.

I think you don't understand how ethics really works. Arguments could be made for ANY use of that ability. But counterarguments also exist for the positive uses of that ability. And since there isn't uncontrolled fallout, long lasting consequences in an area, etc the arguments are a lot better than those that would prevent you from engineering a disease that might mutate out of control.

[Boink]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

Originally posted by Boink:

No, raising a spectre is inherently evil. You seem unable to grasp basic ethics here.

Got a page number for that?

Your argument is akin to: "Sure, but I used that bioweapon against the bad guys, does that make me evil?!?"

You're trying to conflate something that can spread uncontrollably and have long lasting consequences for countless innocents with a 24 hour binding that only directly impacts whoever you direct it to impact.

The reason bioweapons are off limits is the scale combined with a lack of control over the short AND long term consequences. Neither is an issue here.

I think you don't understand how ethics really works.

Yeah, I do.

The rules also agree with me:

Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.

Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#AttackRolls


~

Bored now: Hexblades use necromatic energy frequently as a class skill: evil.