I was using "Faustian Bargain" in the broad sense of "pact for power that ultimately costs the mortal a great deal"; and of course there's no hard reason a Celestial can't do the same thing, but it lacks the innate connotation of "literal deal with a devil", "Cthulu cultist", or "tricked out of something precious by faeries" the other three have.
i've done what i could to set the field but still you come at this with "no reason they can't do the same, but" and "lacks this and that." you're right, of course: celestial isn't there to add nuance. it's there because some people, when confronted with flavors and toppings and cones still ask for vanilla plain in a cup.
That’s an incredibly reductive take on the issue; it would be more accurate to say it’s there so people have the choice of vanilla alongside chocolate and strawberry. “Toppings” in any sense that’s particularly applicable to Warlock are neither inclusive nor exclusive to any of the options.
no offense to those who can find nuance in vanilla, known by some as the finest of the flavors: i count myself among you. but, there's irony in celebrating a hassle-free faustian-free option in a class fueled by (rather than plagued by) faustian bargains. choosing to put your faith in a patron that has your best interests in mind is good-side religion. faust made his deal at the height of his power but wishing for more. what's more warlock than wanting more and risking much to get it? and i think that shakes loose what's been bothering me: the suggestion that there's a pact without sacrifice/risk just sits wrong. like hamlet but the ghost is replaced by an angel and everyone makes good decisions.
i still think the upper / lower planes dichotomy was a major reason for the pick. a choice made easier by genie being too extra (bottled respite), fathomless being too narrow (water), undying being too narrow (undead), and undead being too extra (evil) for a PHB class going forward.
I find the belief that Celestial Warlock is "vanilla," "hassle-free" or otherwise lacking in flavor/depth/conflict to be, frankly, a failure of imagination on the part of its detractors. The planar dichotomy between fiends and celestials offers more storytelling opportunities, not less.
The celestial could have saved someone and imbued them with its power to act on its behalf, but the mortal is now on borrowed time (cf Wynne from Dragon Age.)
Out of necessity, the celestial is sponsoring a highly capable antihero that Doesn't Play By The Rules But Gets Results (cf Moon Knight.)
Out of necessity, the celestial pacts with the only mortal in the area that can help it achieve its goals, regardless of competence (cf Schmendrick.)
The celestial granted healing powers to someone evil in the hopes that they will eventually redeem them/make them less evil (cf Sesshomaru.)
The celestial granted its power to someone evil and failed to redeem them, and since they're not a cleric they can't simply revoke them. (cf any Evil Healer character.)
The celestial is nominally Good, but its concept of morality is highly inflexible and lacking in nuance or patience (cf Anders/Justice from DA.)
These are just a few examples of character concepts that could work well as Celeslocks that have ready-made conflicts for the GM to build on.
I personally think of the Celestial Warlock as the pseudo- paladin-warlock hybrid option, which had been rather popular in 4e, and does fit the theme of the subclass. It also explains why the Celestial option has something akin to lay-on-hands in my mind - the similarities are deliberate.
Its kind of like how the Eldritch Knight is a fighter-wizard hybrid subclass option, or Arcane cleric is kind of like a cleric-wizard hybrid option.
no offense to those who can find nuance in vanilla, known by some as the finest of the flavors: i count myself among you. but, there's irony in celebrating a hassle-free faustian-free option in a class fueled by (rather than plagued by) faustian bargains.
The idea that a celestial patron is hassle-free is dubious. Honestly, the lowest-hassle patron for a typical D&D game is probably a demon (not a devil), because:
You're planning on killing and looting? 👍
You're planning on stopping an evil plot? Well, it's not my evil plot and they didn't pay me, so 👍
You're planning on being a general agent of chaos (as is standard for PCs)? 👍
I find the belief that Celestial Warlock is "vanilla," "hassle-free" or otherwise lacking in flavor/depth/conflict to be, frankly, a failure of imagination on the part of its detractors. The planar dichotomy between fiends and celestials offers more storytelling opportunities, not less.
The celestial could have saved someone and imbued them with its power to act on its behalf, but the mortal is now on borrowed time (cf Wynne from Dragon Age.)
Out of necessity, the celestial is sponsoring a highly capable antihero that Doesn't Play By The Rules But Gets Results (cf Moon Knight.)
Out of necessity, the celestial pacts with the only mortal in the area that can help it achieve its goals, regardless of competence (cf Schmendrick.)
The celestial granted healing powers to someone evil in the hopes that they will eventually redeem them/make them less evil (cf Sesshomaru.)
The celestial granted its power to someone evil and failed to redeem them, and since they're not a cleric they can't simply revoke them. (cf any Evil Healer character.)
The celestial is nominally Good, but its concept of morality is highly inflexible and lacking in nuance or patience (cf Anders/Justice from DA.)
These are just a few examples of character concepts that could work well as Celeslocks that have ready-made conflicts for the GM to build on.
without going back too far, perhaps i have stretched "having options for those new players to choose from" to mean newbie friendly. similarly, "core features but doesn’t want to risk the hang-ups classically associated" might not actually have meant reduced risk/cost. but i'm not the only one if moon knight is an example of good (rather than strongly neutral except within the bounds of protecting / avenging innocents) (i haven't seen the show). notably, all these examples lacked a cost. or am i inserting a trope of cost/risk/subservience that all warlocks must endure? is that not universal?
or rather, if there's a cost in those examples then then it's the patron paying. i feel like that's confusing gods and celestials. obviously, any table can play the way they like (and many opt for good and evil without the blood war separating demons and devils), why not celestials as a discrete packet of divine energy sent down to do a thing. great. but more officially, what's the word on celestials? are they gods, servants of gods, or just on the same team in general like devils and evil gods?
(having said that, i think i'd be interested in seeing a Sesshomaru campaign go well)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
1) Celeslocks don't have to be Good, any more than Fiendlocks have to be Evil. The alignment of the patron and the alignment of the Warlock don't have to match up at all - again, we have a very clear and officially-sanctioned example of that with Wyll and Mizorah. And that is ultimately one of the biggest differences between Warlocks and Clerics in practice, there is no One-Step Rule to worry about.
2) The other big difference is that no matter how powerful the patrons are, they're not gods. Celestials in particular, the examples they give are things like angels, sphinxes, unicorns and ki-rin. These are creatures that might be trying to do good but completely lack the resources of having an entire clergy that can act on their behalf, so they're going to form pacts with mortals in some cases, and some of those entities are going to be flawed in various ways, on both sides. That is a source of storytelling hooks.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
Technically yes on both points, but those are both still strong influences on the perception of how to build a Cleric, both just by player assumptions and by the general tone of how the classes are written. Not trying to dictate a “right” way to play, but those archetypes/themes/tropes are pretty well established in the game and general fantasy lore already.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
You're right that there isn't a hard one-step rule anymore, but per the PHB, a cleric's ability to cast spells comes from devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes. Abandoning that devotion and disregarding those wishes is likely not the best way to retain your powers in most official settings. Celestial Warlocks and Divine Soul Sorcerers don't have the same expectations.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
Technically yes on both points, but those are both still strong influences on the perception of how to build a Cleric, both just by player assumptions and by the general tone of how the classes are written. Not trying to dictate a “right” way to play, but those archetypes/themes/tropes are pretty well established in the game and general fantasy lore already.
Its not "technically" on either.
Take Asmodeus for example. He can grant people cleric powers as a god. He's listed as a potential Patron in the core book. He won't care about having a Chaotic Good cleric if it fits his larger agenda to do so. Sometimes, he ends up giving out divine blessings to Good-aligned people just because of a contract he had with an ancestor. (Example - the Brimstone Angels series) There's entire stories built around this.
He's a god and the most iconic of Fiend Patrons. And he's not the only god - others are found listed under other patrons. Tharizdun, the Chained God, is named right under Great Old One, for instance. It literally
So, when people try to claim that "warlocks can't have patrons as gods!" its kinda important to flat out say "WRONG" because there's very clear characters where that's not true.
Meanwhile... lets take a minotaur cleric for example. They worship a demon lord, who is definitively NOT a god. This is an important consideration to keep in mind, because the further you stray from the Lawful Good pantheons and considerations, the more the stereotypes break down, mostly because for the most part? There aren't a lot of planar powers often listed that aren't gods for the LG corner, but we see archdevils, archfey lords, demon lords, elemental kings and more that can both serve as a Patron and often serve in place of a cleric's god.
These are kinda important to keep in mind because these are the stuff that literal, actual stories are made of. If you want to stick to cliches, more power to you, but when people start trying to claim that the cliches are hard rules? Less so.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
Technically yes on both points, but those are both still strong influences on the perception of how to build a Cleric, both just by player assumptions and by the general tone of how the classes are written. Not trying to dictate a “right” way to play, but those archetypes/themes/tropes are pretty well established in the game and general fantasy lore already.
Its not "technically" on either.
Take Asmodeus for example. He can grant people cleric powers as a god. He's listed as a potential Patron in the core book. He won't care about having a Chaotic Good cleric if it fits his larger agenda to do so. Sometimes, he ends up giving out divine blessings to Good-aligned people just because of a contract he had with an ancestor. (Example - the Brimstone Angels series) There's entire stories built around this.
He's a god and the most iconic of Fiend Patrons. And he's not the only god - others are found listed under other patrons. Tharizdun, the Chained God, is named right under Great Old One, for instance. It literally
So, when people try to claim that "warlocks can't have patrons as gods!" its kinda important to flat out say "WRONG" because there's very clear characters where that's not true.
Meanwhile... lets take a minotaur cleric for example. They worship a demon lord, who is definitively NOT a god. This is an important consideration to keep in mind, because the further you stray from the Lawful Good pantheons and considerations, the more the stereotypes break down, mostly because for the most part? There aren't a lot of planar powers often listed that aren't gods for the LG corner, but we see archdevils, archfey lords, demon lords, elemental kings and more that can both serve as a Patron and often serve in place of a cleric's god.
These are kinda important to keep in mind because these are the stuff that literal, actual stories are made of. If you want to stick to cliches, more power to you, but when people start trying to claim that the cliches are hard rules? Less so.
You will note that I very specifically said I was not claiming anything as hard rules, but the descriptions of Clerics and Warlocks clearly steer both classes in particular directions, even if RAW does not codify any hard limits. And the first technically was more aimed at more basic beings like angels qualifying as the deity stand-in for a Cleric in any case; gods being patrons hasn't seriously been a question since we got the Celestial class at the latest.
Take Asmodeus for example. He can grant people cleric powers as a god. He's listed as a potential Patron in the core book. He won't care about having a Chaotic Good cleric if it fits his larger agenda to do so. Sometimes, he ends up giving out divine blessings to Good-aligned people just because of a contract he had with an ancestor.
As a short-term ploy, fine. But there is no way that a cleric who is advancing Asmodeus agenda, and showing enough devotion to him to keep routinely getting spells, would stay Chaotic Good for long.
I find the belief that Celestial Warlock is "vanilla," "hassle-free" or otherwise lacking in flavor/depth/conflict to be, frankly, a failure of imagination on the part of its detractors. The planar dichotomy between fiends and celestials offers more storytelling opportunities, not less.
The celestial could have saved someone and imbued them with its power to act on its behalf, but the mortal is now on borrowed time (cf Wynne from Dragon Age.)
Out of necessity, the celestial is sponsoring a highly capable antihero that Doesn't Play By The Rules But Gets Results (cf Moon Knight.)
Out of necessity, the celestial pacts with the only mortal in the area that can help it achieve its goals, regardless of competence (cf Schmendrick.)
The celestial granted healing powers to someone evil in the hopes that they will eventually redeem them/make them less evil (cf Sesshomaru.)
The celestial granted its power to someone evil and failed to redeem them, and since they're not a cleric they can't simply revoke them. (cf any Evil Healer character.)
The celestial is nominally Good, but its concept of morality is highly inflexible and lacking in nuance or patience (cf Anders/Justice from DA.)
These are just a few examples of character concepts that could work well as Celeslocks that have ready-made conflicts for the GM to build on.
without going back too far, perhaps i have stretched "having options for those new players to choose from" to mean newbie friendly. similarly, "core features but doesn’t want to risk the hang-ups classically associated" might not actually have meant reduced risk/cost. but i'm not the only one if moon knight is an example of good (rather than strongly neutral except within the bounds of protecting / avenging innocents) (i haven't seen the show). notably, all these examples lacked a cost. or am i inserting a trope of cost/risk/subservience that all warlocks must endure? is that not universal?
or rather, if there's a cost in those examples then then it's the patron paying. i feel like that's confusing gods and celestials. obviously, any table can play the way they like (and many opt for good and evil without the blood war separating demons and devils), why not celestials as a discrete packet of divine energy sent down to do a thing. great. but more officially, what's the word on celestials? are they gods, servants of gods, or just on the same team in general like devils and evil gods?
(having said that, i think i'd be interested in seeing a Sesshomaru campaign go well)
I think we agree.
I don't actually think "cost"(in most definitions) has to be part of being a warlock. Sure Foust is a common example but it's not the only one. The focus is on the pact wich may or may not be a cost.
I recently did an adventure where I saved a high ranking Celestial, I was playing a bard "wheel and dealer" socialite and got a really good deal ...almost any wish. So I could have multi-classed Celestial warlock and it would have been an interesting story. The pact could have been made and no continued costs. Even if I rejected its ideals (though he may have tried to subvert me in the future) the power would have been already given out.
Similarly Asmodeus might have made a one time deal in disguise to trick a good person into causing a great calamity. Once the calamity happens he won't care what the person does with the power But he might try for a second "deal" later if the person get in the way of another plan.
Basically focus on the cause (pact) rather than costs because it's really more about relationships/goals than prices. Some pacts might be trades based on each level for more deals but some might be the whole classes worth of power that just needs to be progressive learning. Either is interesting in its own right.
Indeed, a Celestial Pact could be a reward for something that happened in the campaign or even in the PC's backstory.
I think what people are wanting out of Celestial but having trouble vocalizing, isn't that the pact itself has to have an overt Faustian cost, but that there should be a source of internal conflict between the character and patron to help the character be interesting. With the other three that's very easy as we have buckets of fictional/mythological examples of fiends, cosmic horrors and fey creatures being harmful to mortals, but too many people think of Celestials only as benevolent flawless angels who just want the best for us. Because of that, they think there's no internal conflict, which is why I posted examples of popular culture characters who could be expressed as Celestial Warlocks and that have plenty of internal conflict.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
no offense to those who can find nuance in vanilla, known by some as the finest of the flavors: i count myself among you. but, there's irony in celebrating a hassle-free faustian-free option in a class fueled by (rather than plagued by) faustian bargains. choosing to put your faith in a patron that has your best interests in mind is good-side religion. faust made his deal at the height of his power but wishing for more. what's more warlock than wanting more and risking much to get it? and i think that shakes loose what's been bothering me: the suggestion that there's a pact without sacrifice/risk just sits wrong. like hamlet but the ghost is replaced by an angel and everyone makes good decisions.
i still think the upper / lower planes dichotomy was a major reason for the pick. a choice made easier by genie being too extra (bottled respite), fathomless being too narrow (water), undying being too narrow (undead), and undead being too extra (evil) for a PHB class going forward.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I find the belief that Celestial Warlock is "vanilla," "hassle-free" or otherwise lacking in flavor/depth/conflict to be, frankly, a failure of imagination on the part of its detractors. The planar dichotomy between fiends and celestials offers more storytelling opportunities, not less.
These are just a few examples of character concepts that could work well as Celeslocks that have ready-made conflicts for the GM to build on.
I personally think of the Celestial Warlock as the pseudo- paladin-warlock hybrid option, which had been rather popular in 4e, and does fit the theme of the subclass. It also explains why the Celestial option has something akin to lay-on-hands in my mind - the similarities are deliberate.
Its kind of like how the Eldritch Knight is a fighter-wizard hybrid subclass option, or Arcane cleric is kind of like a cleric-wizard hybrid option.
The idea that a celestial patron is hassle-free is dubious. Honestly, the lowest-hassle patron for a typical D&D game is probably a demon (not a devil), because:
without going back too far, perhaps i have stretched "having options for those new players to choose from" to mean newbie friendly. similarly, "core features but doesn’t want to risk the hang-ups classically associated" might not actually have meant reduced risk/cost. but i'm not the only one if moon knight is an example of good (rather than strongly neutral except within the bounds of protecting / avenging innocents) (i haven't seen the show). notably, all these examples lacked a cost. or am i inserting a trope of cost/risk/subservience that all warlocks must endure? is that not universal?
or rather, if there's a cost in those examples then then it's the patron paying. i feel like that's confusing gods and celestials. obviously, any table can play the way they like (and many opt for good and evil without the blood war separating demons and devils), why not celestials as a discrete packet of divine energy sent down to do a thing. great. but more officially, what's the word on celestials? are they gods, servants of gods, or just on the same team in general like devils and evil gods?
(having said that, i think i'd be interested in seeing a Sesshomaru campaign go well)
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
1) Celeslocks don't have to be Good, any more than Fiendlocks have to be Evil. The alignment of the patron and the alignment of the Warlock don't have to match up at all - again, we have a very clear and officially-sanctioned example of that with Wyll and Mizorah. And that is ultimately one of the biggest differences between Warlocks and Clerics in practice, there is no One-Step Rule to worry about.
2) The other big difference is that no matter how powerful the patrons are, they're not gods. Celestials in particular, the examples they give are things like angels, sphinxes, unicorns and ki-rin. These are creatures that might be trying to do good but completely lack the resources of having an entire clergy that can act on their behalf, so they're going to form pacts with mortals in some cases, and some of those entities are going to be flawed in various ways, on both sides. That is a source of storytelling hooks.
One step rule was in 3.x (and maybe before, don't remember), wasn't in 4e and its not in 5e.
Patrons don't have to be gods, but they can be. Likewise, a cleric can be blessed by a planar power (such as an archdevil or angel) and not need a god.
Technically yes on both points, but those are both still strong influences on the perception of how to build a Cleric, both just by player assumptions and by the general tone of how the classes are written. Not trying to dictate a “right” way to play, but those archetypes/themes/tropes are pretty well established in the game and general fantasy lore already.
You're right that there isn't a hard one-step rule anymore, but per the PHB, a cleric's ability to cast spells comes from devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes. Abandoning that devotion and disregarding those wishes is likely not the best way to retain your powers in most official settings. Celestial Warlocks and Divine Soul Sorcerers don't have the same expectations.
Its not "technically" on either.
Take Asmodeus for example. He can grant people cleric powers as a god. He's listed as a potential Patron in the core book. He won't care about having a Chaotic Good cleric if it fits his larger agenda to do so. Sometimes, he ends up giving out divine blessings to Good-aligned people just because of a contract he had with an ancestor. (Example - the Brimstone Angels series) There's entire stories built around this.
He's a god and the most iconic of Fiend Patrons. And he's not the only god - others are found listed under other patrons. Tharizdun, the Chained God, is named right under Great Old One, for instance. It literally
So, when people try to claim that "warlocks can't have patrons as gods!" its kinda important to flat out say "WRONG" because there's very clear characters where that's not true.
Meanwhile... lets take a minotaur cleric for example. They worship a demon lord, who is definitively NOT a god. This is an important consideration to keep in mind, because the further you stray from the Lawful Good pantheons and considerations, the more the stereotypes break down, mostly because for the most part? There aren't a lot of planar powers often listed that aren't gods for the LG corner, but we see archdevils, archfey lords, demon lords, elemental kings and more that can both serve as a Patron and often serve in place of a cleric's god.
These are kinda important to keep in mind because these are the stuff that literal, actual stories are made of. If you want to stick to cliches, more power to you, but when people start trying to claim that the cliches are hard rules? Less so.
You will note that I very specifically said I was not claiming anything as hard rules, but the descriptions of Clerics and Warlocks clearly steer both classes in particular directions, even if RAW does not codify any hard limits. And the first technically was more aimed at more basic beings like angels qualifying as the deity stand-in for a Cleric in any case; gods being patrons hasn't seriously been a question since we got the Celestial class at the latest.
As a short-term ploy, fine. But there is no way that a cleric who is advancing Asmodeus agenda, and showing enough devotion to him to keep routinely getting spells, would stay Chaotic Good for long.
I think we agree.
I don't actually think "cost"(in most definitions) has to be part of being a warlock. Sure Foust is a common example but it's not the only one. The focus is on the pact wich may or may not be a cost.
I recently did an adventure where I saved a high ranking Celestial, I was playing a bard "wheel and dealer" socialite and got a really good deal ...almost any wish. So I could have multi-classed Celestial warlock and it would have been an interesting story. The pact could have been made and no continued costs. Even if I rejected its ideals (though he may have tried to subvert me in the future) the power would have been already given out.
Similarly Asmodeus might have made a one time deal in disguise to trick a good person into causing a great calamity. Once the calamity happens he won't care what the person does with the power But he might try for a second "deal" later if the person get in the way of another plan.
Basically focus on the cause (pact) rather than costs because it's really more about relationships/goals than prices. Some pacts might be trades based on each level for more deals but some might be the whole classes worth of power that just needs to be progressive learning. Either is interesting in its own right.
Indeed, a Celestial Pact could be a reward for something that happened in the campaign or even in the PC's backstory.
I think what people are wanting out of Celestial but having trouble vocalizing, isn't that the pact itself has to have an overt Faustian cost, but that there should be a source of internal conflict between the character and patron to help the character be interesting. With the other three that's very easy as we have buckets of fictional/mythological examples of fiends, cosmic horrors and fey creatures being harmful to mortals, but too many people think of Celestials only as benevolent flawless angels who just want the best for us. Because of that, they think there's no internal conflict, which is why I posted examples of popular culture characters who could be expressed as Celestial Warlocks and that have plenty of internal conflict.