@Someone_Evil They're not identical, but they're incredibly similar. Especially the part where they just kind of give you spells. Really the difference boils down to worshipping a god being super impersonal, while forming a pact with a celestial is a lot more personal, especially when they can ring you from anywhere in the cosmos to ask for a sandwich.
@RevenantBacon See, I want the warlock rules for how exactly your patron demands a sandwich, and what happens if you don't give it to them. That sounds like the fun part.
@MarkWells while there's no mechanical answer to either I think of it as you just kinda hear the god(des) in your head a la telepathy and if you refuse then boom you lose your power as you've violated the terms of your pact
If they did, we'd have the 3e paladin problem where this is only an issue if the DM decides to back you into a corner with it.
@MikeQ Having taken a minute to think about that, I think what's missing is a step in gameplay where you codify that interpretation somehow so that the other players can interact with it. Like, "write down three conditions of your pact, and three punishments that your patron can impose on you."
@Himitsu_no_Yami The warlock I was introduced to (in 3.5e) says, of pacts, that warlocks are "trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power," or "born of a supernatural bloodline", benefiting from an ancestor's such pact. 4th edition says "Warlocks channel arcane might wrested from primeval entities."
> You could be a libram-toting scholar captivated by ominous lore, a foot-loose wanderer searching for elusive ultimate truths, **a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil**, or even a black-clad mercenary who uses sinister trappings to discourage prying strangers and unwanted attention. On the other hand, you could be a true diabolist using your gifts to tyrannize the weak—some warlocks unfortunately are exactly that. > **The pacts are complete. The rites have concluded.** The signs are drawn in blood, and the seals are broken. Your destiny beckons.
Exactly! That's backward. The concept should be binding on all players. If my concept is that my warlock patron demands, say, blood sacrifice, then the DM should be told to impose consequences if the blood sacrifice is not offered.
@MarkWells Eh, maybe? Only if the group is okay with that sort of complication. I was thinking more like, if the player wants their warlock to be a cultist who worships their patron, I wouldn't refuse even though "worship" is usually a cleric thing.
Also, for folks who are saying that there ought to be a distinction between the way a cleric gets their power and the way a warlock gets their power: What about the paladin, as relates to the cleric?
@Himitsu_no_Yami Right, see, that's an explanation that works. The existence of eldritch blast, and other warlock magic, proves that warlock patrons are not gods. They're a metaphysically different class of beings.
Maybe this interpretation. It's not seen as something from gods so Clerics don't get it as they constantly interact with the public on behalf of the god whereas Warlocks are the ones who do things for gods outside the public view so they get it as it's a more effective tool and there's no reason to not give it to them
Also, you could argue that celestial Warlock patrons are NOT gods. See "The beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are mighty inhabitants of other planes of existence—not gods, but almost godlike in their power." and "Your patron is a powerful being of the Upper Planes. You have bound yourself to an ancient empyrean, solar, ki-rin, unicorn, or other entity that resides in the planes of everlasting bliss."
Right, proper gods get to have Clerics and have to follow god rules like not giving their followers eldritch blast. Other beings have to make sketchy deals with mortals, subject to a different set of rules.
And I think what I'm still missing is why an ancient empyrean or solar is making sketchy deals at all. They seem like they should be above that.
Sketchy deals are an option but that doesn't have to cover all cases. Much like paladins, there could be gods involved. Maybe the patron is some intermediary or avatar.
Of course, DM has final say, so if the DM is really a stickler about their game's lore, then they can impose whatever arbitrary distinctions they want
Please don't buy the new edition of Big Eyes Small Mouth, it's supporting a long history of shady and abusive business practices (Twitter thread). The new publisher is not new management, just a way to escape the liability of the old publisher.
(And yanno, just generally if you want a game about a cultural touchstone, try looking for games written by people from that culture. Like Tokyo NOVA or Golden Sky Stories or Sword World or...)
@BESW well also it sounds like you could just end up without what you are buying, on top of the morality aspect of how he apparently treats his buisness associates
certainly not where I want to throw my money
also I love the excuse "it was company liability not his" he was the company guys
the company was a mask he put on and it's fooling you if you say that :/
Strange 5e-dnd question I don't think will fit in Stack: Is there a spell that targets X type of thing (humanoid, or creature, "creature on the ground", etc...) that transforms that thing into no longer being X?
