# Xanathar's Warlock Celestial



## Xeviat (Oct 5, 2017)

Easy short rest healing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Matthan (Oct 5, 2017)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] you may have missed it, but they did a video for the Shadow Sorcerer too.  

https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/915604776443797505

*edit* I feel dumb because I didn't check the forums.  There's a long thread about it that would probably make a great news post for the front page.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 5, 2017)

Matthan said:


> @_*Morrus*_ you may have missed it, but they did a video for the Shadow Sorcerer too.
> 
> https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/915604776443797505



 [MENTION=6790777]JRedmond[/MENTION] beat me to it. You can find his thread here.


----------



## gyor (Oct 5, 2017)

One big difference between the Celestial Pact Warlock and the Cleric is that the warlock still uses arcane magic, and the Warlock really doesn't need to be religious, since in essence the pact is a business transaction, not a matter of faith.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 5, 2017)

I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.

That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 5, 2017)

I like the sinister bent to warlocks.  Nothing unexpected here, but I would have preferred a little more invoker (sure you can reskin a fiend pact warlock easily enough....) and a little less cleric light.  That being said, it could be interesting to see how the different pact types fare with this patron (any chance there will be a tiny celestial in one of the 2018 books?), and it should ease a lot of paladin-warlock multiclass concerns.

One more thought:

Warlock is pretty nice to add to a fiend if a ranged attack is warranted, and this does support adding it to celestials too, with the same logic:  I got a gift of more magic from my immediate supervisor instead of the big boss......


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 5, 2017)

Time to go for the triple whammy:  Protector Aasimar Celestial Warlock multiclassed with Favored Soul Sorcerer.  Who needs clerics anyway?


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 5, 2017)

I would have preferred a warlock that makes a pact with mathematical forces - something like a divine/knowledge theme that can use logic and formulas to work “magic”.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 5, 2017)

The only issue I can see with the celestial warlock is that many of the original spells from the warlock spell list are dark spells or spells with some weird or dangerous angle to them. 

You can rename and refluff, maybe even rework quite a few of them but it is an issue to bring up with the players. 

Also... wasn't this the one that had the exploding self-heal? I can't remember what the rework of this UA article looked like. I remember is being a decent class though.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Undying Light.




Right, but wasn't Undying light reworked and renamed Celestial?

Or are they completely different?


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 5, 2017)

Chaosmancer said:


> The only issue I can see with the celestial warlock is that many of the original spells from the warlock spell list are dark spells or spells with some weird or dangerous angle to them.
> 
> You can rename and refluff, maybe even rework quite a few of them but it is an issue to bring up with the players.
> 
> Also... wasn't this the one that had the exploding self-heal? I can't remember what the rework of this UA article looked like. I remember is being a decent class though.




https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/June5UA_RevisedClassOptv1.pdf

The exploding self-heal (Searing Vengeance) was moved to level 14, Healing Light (the healing dice pool) was moved to level 1, and Radiant Soul (+CHA mod to fire and radiant spells) was moved to level 6. The temporary HP for you and your party stays at level 10 (renamed Celestial Resilience).  Makes more sense, really.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Oct 5, 2017)

Irda Ranger said:


> I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.
> 
> That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".




Just because they're good, doesn't mean they can't be dangerous or a douche.

I've always thought of Angels as a "not your friend" type of character.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Oct 5, 2017)

Irda Ranger said:


> I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.
> 
> That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".



You've mistakenly spilled real world religion into D&D, which in regards to the known D&D cosmology just doesn't work.
The outlook is different, celestials are not angels of Christianity, deities are often not selfless beings caring for a particular race ever.
Celestials are manifestations of law and or good, some but not all beholden to a deity, which may not be a God with a particular race of worshippers.
Its best to not mix real and fantasy religion.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2017)

Curmudjinn said:


> You've mistakenly spilled real world religion into D&D, which in regards to the known D&D cosmology just doesn't work.
> The outlook is different, celestials are not angels of Christianity, deities are often not selfless beings caring for a particular race ever.
> Celestials are manifestations of law and or good, some but not all beholden to a deity, which may not be a God with a particular race of worshippers.
> Its best to not mix real and fantasy religion.




The whole D&D celestial association with healing and radiant energy is pretty much Judeo-Christian influenced.


----------



## Iry (Oct 5, 2017)

Celestials can be every bit as demanding and dangerous as the more evil pacts. On average, they are probably going to involve less damnation of the soul, but the trade off would include greater demands to behave yourself while you are alive (which is where most of your adventuring happens, anyway).

One player in my game is actually an evil Celestial Pact Warlock - He was contacted by a celestial entity moments before he was about to sign his soul over to a devil, and was offered a better deal. One that involves him travelling around and performing good deeds -- something he finds positively irritating. The character keeps a list of all his good deeds, and uses them as leverage to bargain for more power with his celestial.

It's quite hilarious.


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 5, 2017)

Mearls mentioned Ki-Rin as a potential Patron.  So you can make a deal with a shiny gold horse that lives in clouds or tall mountains.  That can control weather and cast healing spells out the wazoo.  The monster description even states "If the ki-rin has taken creatures into its service, its lair doubles as a sacred site wherein the ki-rin not only rests, but also teaches of holy mysteries."  They're not gods, but are celestial beings.  Having Warlocks as servants makes sense to me.


----------



## mdusty (Oct 5, 2017)

Irda Ranger said:


> I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.
> 
> That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".




But, now that we have this celestial warlock, I'm thinking maybe not all celestials are all goody goody after all.  Maybe in the worlds were a celestial warlock can be a thing, some of the celestials are a lot like the angels on the show Supernatural. Overzealous, condescending, power grabbing, fractious, a holes who believe in 'the good of Heaven above all else'.  I can absolutely see the archangels having celestial warlocks to carry out their own personal agendas in the mortal world.  That's how I will probably run it in my games, unless the Guide has a better explanation as to why.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2017)

I believe  [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] posted in another thread how Jacob wrestling an angel and being blessed was served as the basis for a Celestial warlock pact in his game.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 5, 2017)

It does feel like celestial warlock doubles down on "warlock is an agent of the patron", rather than "some smuck who just made a deal and is free to do whatever he/she wants."

And as for the "celestials should be friendly with the party" debate, well that depends on the party.  Many a murderhobo party deserves celestial wrath.


----------



## Bitbrain (Oct 5, 2017)

mdusty said:


> . . . I can absolutely see the archangels having celestial warlocks to carry out their own personal agendas in the mortal world.  That's how I will probably run it in my games, unless the Guide has a better explanation as to why.




Sort of like the archangel Michael in the anime Rage of Bahamut: Genesis.
In 5e terms, He's basically the LG celestial patron for Jeane d'Arc's Devotion Paladin/Pact of the Blade Celestial Warlock.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 5, 2017)

I think it's a cool idea and a nice counterpart to the fiend. Instead of being the servant of a god (cleric) you make a deal with an archangel or coatl or powerful unicorn. 

Plus, from a game perspective, it's another alternative to the cleric class. In 5e, the bard and druid can replace the cleric easily, and the faboured soul sorcerer can also fill in (if that option is permitted), but all of those are full casters. 
The warlock is a nice way to play an effective, functional healer without having to worry about knowling endless lists of spells. Easier for newer players or people who aren't fans of managing spell lists.


----------



## Juomari Veren (Oct 5, 2017)

Irda Ranger said:


> I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.
> 
> That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".




Perhaps it would help to think about it in the context of a zealous force of good. Imagine a celestial being warring against evil and needing someone to dedicate themselves, heart and soul, to the cause. Instead of a cleric, who works for their god with the understanding that they're being treated somewhat mutually and intending to spread the faith, a Celestial Warlock is someone who dedicates themselves to the forces of good at any cost - someone who doesn't care if their acts of divine providence don't accrue more followers, but aim to serve the purpose of their master.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 5, 2017)

I could see an Asura as a potential patron for this pact.  While the Asuras haven't been brought into 5e yet, they are chaotic angels of the more wrathful variety with fiery wings and eagle talons.  D&D Asuras are actually more based off of the Zoarastrian Ahuras (they were first introduced in Al Quadim and then later Planescape) rather than the Hindu Asuras (which are traditionally fiendish).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2017)

I really like it and I have a character who might jump on that train. A scourge aasimar fighter with some spare charisma...


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 5, 2017)

Plausible deniability is also a good reason for the celestial warlock.  Most D&D worlds have loose pantheons, who don't seem to be fighting each other all the time, so there must be some set of rules or agreements that prevent that.  If the Big Bad can claim that he doesn't control the warlock, then so can the Big Good.

Under that scenario, the cleric isn't the complication (the cleric is obviously the official representative, so no plausible deniability), but you can fire and forget a paladin just like a warlock (Bob was really mad at those demons and I took his oath of vengeance against them, but what Bob does is on Bob).  I hope there is a little guidance on why a celestial would chose a warlock instead of a paladin.


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 5, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really like it and I have a character who might jump on that train. A scourge aasimar fighter with some spare charisma...




Oooh.  Pact of the Blade should be getting an upgrade in Xanathar's too.  I'm guessing the re-worked invocations Eldritch Smite and Improved Pact Weapon will be in the book.  And Grasp of Hadar will allow you to pull enemies into your Scourge aura.  Maybe Sentinel to keep them there?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2017)

Chaosmancer said:


> The only issue I can see with the celestial warlock is that many of the original spells from the warlock spell list are dark spells or spells with some weird or dangerous angle to them.



This bothered me as well when I was toying with making a celestial pact PC. This and the fact there isn't really a suitable creature for a celestial chainlock. Pseudodragon at a pinch, or maybe a reskinned sprite.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 5, 2017)

pukunui said:


> This bothered me as well when I was toying with making a celestial pact PC. This and the fact there isn't really a suitable creature for a celestial chainlock. Pseudodragon at a pinch, or maybe a reskinned sprite.




I think you will have to go to Tome of Beasts or the DMs Guild for a tiny celestial (and use the optional DM rule from Volo's that you can make any tiny monster a familiar) for the near future, although I too hope that WotC just creates and assigns one to the chainlock.  I think the devs will need to put in a lot of thought into an official tiny celestial.  If the tiny celestial kept the healing and or any other utility ability (common traits among celestials), a wizard would get almost as much value from the noncombat familiar as the chainlock would from the combat one.  

Of course, if they want to make a couple of different low level celestials, let me be the first to ask for Conjure Celestial Choir (like conjure minor elementals) which would make a fine addition to the cleric's spell list (and if level 5 or less) a nice pact spell for the celestial warlock.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2017)

Jonathan Alvear said:


> Oooh.  Pact of the Blade should be getting an upgrade in Xanathar's too.  I'm guessing the re-worked invocations Eldritch Smite and Improved Pact Weapon will be in the book.  And Grasp of Hadar will allow you to pull enemies into your Scourge aura.  Maybe Sentinel to keep them there?




I usually plan on the fly. I really rolled well. In front of the dm. So I just wanted to not powergame and took aasimar fighter with high stats all around but no use of high wis and cha besides good skills. The DM just mentioned that he is sorry that we have no spellcasters in the group. And so I looked around what would fit.
I took protection fighting style... because I want to defend my group... but my inner radiance will burn my friends as well as my enemies. I am not sure if sentinel will fit that character, bit it may be. Str 20 some day or better charisma or resilient wisdom are equally high on the list.


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 5, 2017)

MechaTarrasque said:


> Plausible deniability is also a good reason for the celestial warlock.  Most D&D worlds have loose pantheons, who don't seem to be fighting each other all the time, so there must be some set of rules or agreements that prevent that.  If the Big Bad can claim that he doesn't control the warlock, then so can the Big Good.
> 
> Under that scenario, the cleric isn't the complication (the cleric is obviously the official representative, so no plausible deniability), but you can fire and forget a paladin just like a warlock (Bob was really mad at those demons and I took his oath of vengeance against them, but what Bob does is on Bob).  I hope there is a little guidance on why a celestial would chose a warlock instead of a paladin.




Paladins tend to be physically strong, front line kind of people.  Not always the best choice for every situation.  There's enough variation among Warlocks between Pacts, invocations, and spell choices to provide Celestial Patrons with a wide variety of potential servants.


----------



## phantomK9 (Oct 5, 2017)

mdusty said:


> But, now that we have this celestial warlock, I'm thinking maybe not all celestials are all goody goody after all.  Maybe in the worlds were a celestial warlock can be a thing, some of the celestials are a lot like the angels on the show Supernatural. Overzealous, condescending, power grabbing, fractious, a holes who believe in 'the good of Heaven above all else'.  I can absolutely see the archangels having celestial warlocks to carry out their own personal agendas in the mortal world.  That's how I will probably run it in my games, unless the Guide has a better explanation as to why.




I think it was Dean Winchester who said:


> Angels. They're kind of like demons, but more powerful and _WAY_ bigger dicks.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2017)

Is anyone else reminded of the Enlightened Spirit warlock prc from 3.5's _Complete Mage_? I had a player take it for their warlock in a 3.5 game once. It was cool.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Oct 5, 2017)

Greg K said:


> The whole D&D celestial association with healing and radiant energy is pretty much Judeo-Christian influenced.




Many things in D&D are influenced by historical folklore and religion, but it isn't those things. It's its own thing and modifies existing real world information into fantasy all of the time, but we shouldn't fall over if they don't match up.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 5, 2017)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I think you will have to go to Tome of Beasts or the DMs Guild for a tiny celestial (and use the optional DM rule from Volo's that you can make any tiny monster a familiar) for the near future, although I too hope that WotC just creates and assigns one to the chainlock.  I think the devs will need to put in a lot of thought into an official tiny celestial.  If the tiny celestial kept the healing and or any other utility ability (common traits among celestials), a wizard would get almost as much value from the noncombat familiar as the chainlock would from the combat one.
> 
> Of course, if they want to make a couple of different low level celestials, let me be the first to ask for Conjure Celestial Choir (like conjure minor elementals) which would make a fine addition to the cleric's spell list (and if level 5 or less) a nice pact spell for the celestial warlock.



They could bring back the Lantern Archon or the Coure Eladrin.  In the case of the Coure Eladrin, they're sort of like Sprites or Pixies, and Lantern Archons are sort of like Will O'the Wisp, but brought to match the power levels of the other familiars.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 5, 2017)

I think an interesting twist is an evil or at least morally dubious warlock, who has imprisoned some celestial being and harvest power from it. The Ultimate cover, a celestial warlock who runs a cult of the Light.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Oct 5, 2017)

Another thought is an evil or shady neutral character who's empowered by a celestial for the sake of a greater good – either for a particular mission that the Higher Planes need dirty hands for or because mortals don't see fully the picture at play. Think of it as the obverse of those good characters making pacts with demons to do good deeds before being dragged off to hell.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 5, 2017)

grimslade said:


> I think an interesting twist is an evil or at least morally dubious warlock, who has imprisoned some celestial being and harvest power from it. The Ultimate cover, a celestial warlock who runs a cult of the Light.




All the same options people came up with for non-evil Fiend pacts equally apply to non-good Celestial pacts. The "patron" can be a captive being drained by a cult that holds it prisoner. The Warlock can be a cosmic thief, secretly siphoning off a small portion of power from an unknowing patron, in line with the "Warlocks as hackers" description Mearls used. The Warlock can be the inheritor of a pact that the patron can't void, despite the new holder not suiting their tastes. Or maybe it's the patron itself who's abnormal, with an alignment at odds to its innate nature due to past circumstances.

Really, the open ended and non-mechanical nature of the Warlock and patron relationship leaves players free to design whatever backstory they please for it. The more creative the better, IMO.


----------



## Xaelvaen (Oct 5, 2017)

Kurotowa said:


> All the same options people came up with for non-evil Fiend pacts equally apply to non-good Celestial pacts. The "patron" can be a captive being drained by a cult that holds it prisoner. The Warlock can be a cosmic thief, secretly siphoning off a small portion of power from an unknowing patron, in line with the "Warlocks as hackers" description Mearls used. The Warlock can be the inheritor of a pact that the patron can't void, despite the new holder not suiting their tastes. Or maybe it's the patron itself who's abnormal, with an alignment at odds to its innate nature due to past circumstances.
> 
> Really, the open ended and non-mechanical nature of the Warlock and patron relationship leaves players free to design whatever backstory they please for it. The more creative the better, IMO.




This is exactly why I love having unique warlocks in the games I run.  My players have come with some serious twists and unique flavor to give their warlocks, and very few of them actually evil.  I'm actually quite looking forward to a balanced celestial-themed patron.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 5, 2017)

Something that occurred to me is that for FR, a Spellfire wielder could just be Warlock.


----------



## gyor (Oct 5, 2017)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Something that occurred to me is that for FR, a Spellfire wielder could just be Warlock.




 I see Spellfire more as a Sorceror,  Spellfire is innate not the result of a pact. 

 If I was going going to do Celestial Pact,  I'd go full on biblical,  scary ass angel,  like it wanted to wipe out a village for blasphemy or something,  like it's a good creature,  but it's idea of good is more cosmic and alien to the character and terrorifying. 

 Or an Aasimar whose pact is with their Guardian Angel (in fact I see a majority of Celestial Pact Warlocks being Aasimar,  simply because of the ease of access).

 Really out there idea,  the Celestial Pact is with the party Favoured Soul who draws on their divine spark to make the pact.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Oct 6, 2017)

I could also see a celestial making a pact with a warlock due to feeling that a given diety's cleric's aren't accomplishing the diety's goals quickly enough. Like the Special Forces deciding to send in Rambo while the ambassadors slowly eke out minor policy concessions.


----------



## Warpiglet (Oct 6, 2017)

Gandalf.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 6, 2017)

Because I'm often thinking of new campaign settings, this could fit in quite well with a setting that I was thinking about where the gods have disappeared and so the angels have picked up the slack to counter the fiends which already had a good foothold in the world.

Rather than clerics, I could make the celestial warlock patron take up that role. Paladins could still exist with an angel as a patron of the order (I prefer my paladins to be champions of the gods). Clerics I was thinking of including until I read this thread and was reminded of this warlock pact, it might be more interesting not to have clerics and instead have these warlocks as the champions of the angels.

As for what happened to the gods, I'll keep that as a mystery of the setting. Perhaps the fiends and celestials know what happened but aren't telling, perhaps they are just as much in the dark as the rest of the world.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 6, 2017)

See I always had this idea for a Warlock that his patron was not real it was just his imagination and therefore he was his own Patron but he did not know that he was his own Patron because he would hear the voices in his head and see the Patron in his dreams and visions. Hey you could have some fun stuff with that as a player and DM


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 6, 2017)

So, a Good Witch, sort of. 

It's OK, but I actually like the danger of playing a character that makes a deal with the devil, still! 

In all though, it's quite a good addition, but there are a couple of things: 

Firstly, some of the Warlocks abilities and developments are a bit undefined/undeveloped still. For example, we could do with a more specific Familiar type for Great Old One Pacts of the Chain, or more guidelines with regards to how to earn more spells or rituals in the Pact of the Tomb, or what levels to give out magical weapons to fuse with Pact of the Blade. There is an awful lot of DM fiat involved with how effective a Warlock can be currently. A bit more definition, not to mention more options in Invocations, etc. 

Secondly, and this is a weird one to me admittedly, but I actually wonder whether the fundamental way in which a Warlock works magic through Pacts is more to do with Intelligence (investigating forbidden tombs, negotiating effective get-out clauses, etc) than it is with Charisma (which implies the link to the Patreon is simply based upon charm). We already have a Charisma based caster with the Sorcerer (two classes if you also count the Bard), yet only the Wizard is based on Intelligence. I personally don't like playing unintelligent characters regardless, so the INT score is high on my Warlocks anyway, but I do think that the switch could be made quite easily and justifiably. Does anyone else agree at all?


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 6, 2017)

TrippyHippy said:


> So, a Good Witch, sort of.
> 
> It's OK, but I actually like the danger of playing a character that makes a deal with the devil, still!
> 
> ...



Yep. I think that there could easily be a change from Cha to Int. I'd imagine it as something like an occultist who seeks out forbidden knowledge.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 6, 2017)

Curmudjinn said:


> Many things in D&D are influenced by historical folklore and religion, but it isn't those things. It's its own thing and modifies existing real world information into fantasy all of the time, but we shouldn't fall over if they don't match up.




I agree. However, I also have a strong dislike in WOTC D&D for celestial = radiant and healing as well, for favored soul, angelic-like with angel wings.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 6, 2017)

TrippyHippy said:


> So, a Good Witch, sort of.
> 
> It's OK, but I actually like the danger of playing a character that makes a deal with the devil, still!
> 
> ...




In general, swapping casting stats does no harm, so if the DM is good with it, it is good.  

Once the mystic and artificer are "official" instead of being UA/DMs Guild, we will have three official int casters (plus eldritch knight and arcane spell thief), and if a DM is good with UA, then there are three already.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 7, 2017)

Irda Ranger said:


> I don't like it, thematically. I don't see the need for "balance". It's clear from the original concept of the Warlock that the Warlock "bargains" with the dangerous, fey, mostly chaotic, outsiders for power, and their sanity and soul is in danger because of this.
> 
> That doesn't work with celestials at all, who (again, thematically) should be looking out for your soul and directing you towards holiness. I feel like a celestial would never strike bargains directly; he's on a Mission From God, and if someone came to them for power his response should be "Go to Church!".



Agreed. I don't feel like every warlock has to be GRIMDARKSCARY, but I have always felt one of the core differences between warlocks and clerics was that warlocks had the option to turn against their patrons. You make your bargain, get your power, and then if you want to use that power to destroy your patron's servants and wreck its plans, you're free to do so. Your patron can't withdraw the grant; the power is bought and paid for, it's yours. (But watch out for the fine print.)

That doesn't seem like how celestials roll. Celestials care how their power gets used. They aren't going to sell you Divine Smiting Power and then watch you slaughter innocents with it. Celestials lend their power to the deserving, they don't sell it to the highest bidder.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 7, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> That doesn't seem like how celestials roll. Celestials care how their power gets used. They aren't going to sell you Divine Smiting Power and then watch you slaughter innocents with it. Celestials lend their power to the deserving, they don't sell it to the highest bidder.




Don't think of it as a lending that can be revoked, think of it as a blessing bestowed upon the worthy with no take backs. Yes, the celestial is going to be much more careful in selecting a champion than a Fiend who has a more transactional view and doesn't overly care how the power is used, but that just helps explain why Celestial pacts are less common than Fiend pacts.

So nothing prevents a Warlock with a Celestial pact from undergoing a traumatic experience that causes an alignment change. Similarly, nothing prevents someone _really clever_ from conning a celestial into a pact under false pretenses. Heck, if that's the route you're going, better a celestial than a fiend. The fiend will demand a price no matter what, but a celestial might hand over power as a free gift if you convince them you're of a like mind with them.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 7, 2017)

In the purview of the "whys" of a celestial warlock, don't forget that it is a pact being made. A deal, and deals have two sides. 

I could see a character contact an Angelic being to bid for the health of their child, or the safety of their village. Celestial agrees, but they want something in return. They want the service of the character, to wield the power of the angels in this world against the forces of darkness. 

In this way the power and the adventuring are the payment the warlock is giving, which fits within the context of a celestial pact. Good people capable of fighting darkness aren't common, but desperate people who would be willing to serve in exchange for someone else's life or happiness, those are really common. 


Or, go the route of abstinence. The pact is that you have power as long as you don't do or do do some list of things. Perhaps part of your payment is to give charity to the poor in every city you enter, or spend every sixth day in prayer, or transport some holy relics from an ancient shrine to a more modern city where they can be put to better use. Much like people seek to cleanse their souls in this world, perhaps that is the payment the Celestial seeks in return for power.



Between the two I really like the idea of the Warlock not wanting their power. It's weird to consider, because generally warlocks deal with such dangerous things that we can't imagine them making contact except for the purposes of gaining power, but this kind of thing works really well.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2017)

I am wrestling with this quote with a mix of hope and perplexity. I am parsing its sentences as follows.



"
What we've established in the cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons, is that clerics are tied to the divine beings − gods or concepts − and [clerics are] viewed [as] with the divine. So it [as a ‘concept’ of divine being] might be like the silver flame from Eberron.

The celestial [warlock] though is [viewed as with a celestial creature] − rather than [it] being a divine being, per se − it's a celestial being. So it could be something like an angel, a ki-rin, a unicorn, or anything else that's a powerful good aligned creature. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a God.

"

A ‘divine being’ can instead be an abstract ‘concept’ of divinity. Impersonal, rather than personal.



To be fair, the Players Handbook fails to ‘establish’ a link between the cleric class and any divine ‘concept’. It explicitly and persistently explains the cleric as a polytheistic idolator. Clerics worship a creature, typically a humanoid. Many examples, reinforce this. The lists of polytheistic gods that probably should have been in the Dungeon Masters Guide as part of the setting cosmology, are instead part of the Cleric class in the Players Handbook.

Note, the Paladin accesses the Divine as a ‘concept’, namely alignment, as an ethical ideal and behavior. The Druid is a bit mixed, but the class can understand Nature itself as a divine force of life and variety, thus an abstract divine ‘concept’ where the Druid encounters the divine via Nature.

That said, with regard to the Cleric, what the quote seems to emphasize is, the Cleric class ‘established’ the Cleric as being connected with the *divine*, a deity. The quote goes beyond the Players Handbook rules as written, and instead offers the possibility that this ‘deity’ might instead be impersonal rather than personal, thus more like the ‘concept’ of Silver Flame, in the sense of the concept that ‘God is Light’.

Other divine concepts might be ‘God is Love’, ‘God is compassionate actions’, so whenever someone experiences altruistic love in this material world, this experience itself is understood to be a direct encounter with the infinite Divine that manifests in this abstract way in the forms of any physical acts of kindness. Or so on. In this way, domains work well with monotheism − the divine might be ‘creator’ the creative principle, ‘light’, ‘healing’, ‘compassion’, warrior ‘protector’, and many other ways to express the divine.



By contrast, the Warlock has no contact with any sense of the Divine, but instead relates to actual heavenly creatures, whether they be an angel, kirin, spiritual guardian, perhaps a righteous ancestor, saint, or so on.



I want the Players Hanbook to include errata that explicitly offers examples of how the Cleric might access the divine as an abstract ‘concept’.



The default 5e setting imports many elements from other settings: mainly Forgotten Realms, but splicing it with Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape, and so on. 

I would love to see elements of Eberron also spliced into the default 5e setting. There are things Eberron did well that are worth emulating. The different kinds of religions help cultures and subcultures feel palpably different form each other. The animistic traditions, the macabre elven ancestor veneration. And monotheistic (or perhaps monistic) Silver Flame.

With regard to the Silver Flame, I love the abstraction. To be honest, I am less a fan of its hierarchical dictatorship model of its organization, where one ‘prophet’ has a monopoly on Truth (with a capital T) and tells everybody else what to do.

If importing Silver Flame into the 5e default setting, I would rather have the organizational structure be a Great Assembly − a Jedi Council − of sages, who arrive at Truth by votes and occasionally a consensus or two. The members of the Council view the divine from different perspectives, have different opinions, different things they want to accomplish, and different agendas. But each sage recognizes the infinite divine is also present among those other sages of the Council, who oneself disagrees with, and the holiness is more in the open-ended discussion about the divine, striving toward the infinite, rather than in happening to arrive at any particular ‘right’ answer, here or there. The Council − and really the entire community that the Council represents − is together the collective prophetic entity, rather than any particular person.

I want the Players Handbook to have the Cleric class description with errata to include examples of divine ‘concepts’, such as the Silver Flame. Eberron is a great place to start.

I want the ‘cosmology’ of D&D 5e to ‘establish’ divine ‘concepts’ as an abstract option for a kind of ‘divine beings’. Officially.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 8, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> I want the Players Hanbook to include errata that explicitly offers examples of how the Cleric might access the divine as an abstract ‘concept’.
> 
> I want the Players Handbook to have the Cleric class description with errata to include examples of divine ‘concepts’, such as the Silver Flame. Eberron is a great place to start...I want the ‘cosmology’ of D&D 5e to ‘establish’ divine ‘concepts’ as an abstract option for a kind of ‘divine beings’. Officially.




You will never get errata for the PHB of that nature in 5e. You might get an expansion book which adds that concept as an optional rule, or a setting book which includes it, but they're definitely never going to errata the 5e PHB for something like that. I mean, they've expressly said changes like that are not going to be done through errata for the entire run of this edition. 

Nor should they. It was not an "error" to write it the way they wrote it, it was a choice they made. There is nothing to "correct" for having accidentally left something out. It's just something they could add for some campaigns, which can easily be done without any errata. But the default just does not function the way you want it to function. We have the default - it's four years now, and you're not getting a different default.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2017)

The Players Handbook already has errata. This clarification about what kinds of options a player has with regard to the divine, is important.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 8, 2017)

Not sure it is. Leave it up to the individual table to make that decision. Some tables might require gods to gain access, others might allow gods and abstract concepts, some might just have divine magic as a different type of magic learned like wizardry. Players of dnd tend to be pretty creative, I'd be surprised if every table is restricting itself to what's in the book.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 8, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> The Players Handbook already has errata. This clarification about what kinds of options a player has with regard to the divine, is important.




It does not have errata of the nature you're talking about. It has errata on minor errors in grammar and text, clarifications on minor wording where intent didn't come through perfect, and not on conceptual changes like the kind you want. 

Really Yaarel, there is literally zero percent chance you get this kind of thing in errata. They didn't make an error or leave something out or say something which needs clarification so their intent comes through.  The default game really doesn't include this option for players right now. It's a fine addition, and I think you will find it in an expansion or setting book of some kind at some point, but it's never going to be retroactively added to the PHB for errata. They's said outright they absolutely will never do that with errata for this edition.

And to be fair to the concept - I don't think there are a lot of people pining away for this either. Most D&D players don't seem to care if their PC worships a deity versus an abstract concept, or if they do they just do that without permission from the PHB because it doesn't really impact anything much in the DMs control. It hasn't really come up in threads with people complaining about it, or in surveys, or in sage advice questions, or Facebook comments, or Reddit comments, or really anywhere people talk about these things.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 8, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> I want the ‘cosmology’ of D&D 5e to ‘establish’ divine ‘concepts’ as an abstract option for a kind of ‘divine beings’. Officially.




The DMG, pages 12-13 does this.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 8, 2017)

I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated. Most of the player base probably gets it implicitly from the domains so it would be a change for little in terms or clarification and use. 

It would be similiar to an errata saying "You are not limited to these dwarvish names for your character, this is just a sample list". Most everyone understands that to be the case so the errata wouldn't really change anything.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 8, 2017)

Azzy said:


> The DMG, pages 12-13 does this.



I thought I'd read that in 5e but I thought maybe I was getting my editions crossed.


----------



## dalisprime (Oct 9, 2017)

Y'all yaberrin' bout them gods and such and meanwhile Arcane Archer preview was posted on YouTube... Get that darn pickin admin to post a front page article about that!


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 9, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> To be fair, the Players Handbook fails to ‘establish’ a link between the cleric class and any divine ‘concept’.



 Not really. The PHB explicitly suggests some concepts, philosophies, and non-god divine forces as potential deities for a cleric to pick.


> It explicitly and persistently explains the cleric as a polytheistic idolator. Clerics worship a creature, typically a humanoid.



 I've not seen this spelled out explicitly anywhere. 
Are you sure that you're not misreading suggested examples as the only options? Or misreading "deity" as a D&D mechanical term requiring a FR-style 'god'?



> Many examples, reinforce this. The lists of polytheistic gods that probably should have been in the Dungeon Masters Guide as part of the setting cosmology, are instead part of the Cleric class in the Players Handbook.



 So are the lists of divine forces, philosophies etc. They're probably in the PHB because picking a deity is part of Player Character generation (particularly for a cleric). If the only list of deities in the PHB was the default FR gods, than that would have excluded most of the other types of deities. 



> That said, with regard to the Cleric, what the quote seems to emphasize is, the Cleric class ‘established’ the Cleric as being connected with the *divine*, a deity. The quote goes beyond the Players Handbook rules as written, and instead offers the possibility that this ‘deity’ might instead be impersonal rather than personal, thus more like the ‘concept’ of Silver Flame, in the sense of the concept that ‘God is Light’.



 That is already established in the PHB: The Silver Flame, and other impersonal deities are mentioned a couple of times in the text as well as in the list of clerical deities.
Its worth pointing out that the Silver Flame isn't that close to the 'God is Light' concept I believe though. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any listed deities along those lines, but creating new deities like 'god is light' and 'god is compassionate actions' should be pretty simple. They sound similar to the alignment-philosophy deities.



> By contrast, the Warlock has no contact with any sense of the Divine, but instead relates to actual heavenly creatures, whether they be an angel, kirin, spiritual guardian, perhaps a righteous ancestor, saint, or so on.



 I think that the Silver Flame has actually been mentioned as a potential source for the Undying Light Warlock as well.



> With regard to the Silver Flame, I love the abstraction. To be honest, I am less a fan of its hierarchical dictatorship model of its organization, where one ‘prophet’ has a monopoly on Truth (with a capital T) and tells everybody else what to do.



 I quite like the very Eberronian concept that the Silver Flame as a deity is very distinct from the Church of the Silver Flame and the Nation of Thrane. Many outside the Church follow the deity, and some inside the Church don't.
The way that the Silver Flame interacts with the "gods" of the setting is also interesting: acknowledging them but providing a more material alternative to the gods.



> I want the Players Hanbook to include errata that explicitly offers examples of how the Cleric might access the divine as an abstract ‘concept’.
> 
> I want the Players Handbook to have the Cleric class description with errata to include examples of divine ‘concepts’, such as the Silver Flame. Eberron is a great place to start.
> 
> I want the ‘cosmology’ of D&D 5e to ‘establish’ divine ‘concepts’ as an abstract option for a kind of ‘divine beings’. Officially.



 It already does most of that. No Errata needed.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 9, 2017)

dalisprime said:


> Y'all yaberrin' bout them gods and such and meanwhile Arcane Archer preview was posted on YouTube... Get that darn pickin admin to post a front page article about that!




Heh, the Arcane Archer video was from friday. Here's the post about it.

There should be a new video later today.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 9, 2017)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Not really. The PHB explicitly suggests some concepts, philosophies, and non-god divine forces as potential deities for a cleric to pick.




You claim the PH mentions how the Cleric class can instead pick a ‘concept’ or a ‘philosophy’?

Heh, are you telling the truth?

Please cite and quote the text that you have in mind.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 9, 2017)

As far as I know, there is no reference in the PH to a Cleric concept or philosophy.

For example, in the Cleric description, the Light Domain mentions ‘the Silver Flame’, which is something, but it refers to it as one of the ‘gods’. There is no indication in the text that this refers to the divine as an abstract ‘concept’.



Elsewhere, in the PH appendix about ‘gods’, it classifies gods as belonging to a pantheon. In its section about the Eberron setting, which differs from the default 5e setting, it says.  ‘Eberrons other religions are very different from the traditional D&D pantheons. The monotheistic church of the Silver Flame is devoted to fighting against evil in the world.’ Again, there is no explanation that this is a concept. Moreover, the appendix seems to marginalize the choice of Silver Flame as a nonstandard choice that has no place in ‘traditional’ D&D. In other words, allowing the Cleric class to choose a divine concept seems to be impossible in the default 5e setting, and to require the DM to homebrew in order to make this choice permissible.

More clarification would be helpful.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 9, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> You claim the PH mentions how the Cleric class can instead pick a ‘concept’ or a ‘philosophy’?
> 
> Heh, are you telling the truth?
> 
> Please cite and quote the text that you have in mind.



 The Cleric class description speaks of them gaining power from their deity.

There is a list of deities in the back of the PHB (one of the appendices I believe). These include abstract concepts and philosophies such as everyone having the divine within themselves, accepting the passing of one age and beginning of another, and the aforementioned bunch of dead snakes with the martyr complex.
Also mentions ancestor worship. There aren't any monotheistic gods in there AFAICT, but there is a pretty good range of other flavours of religion.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 9, 2017)

What is the purpose of needing it spelled out in the PHB? 

1) You can houserule it in your home game, and 
1) For Organized Play, nobody will care what you put on your character sheet under deity. It's not a rule that has any relevance for the Organized Play rules. In involves no more or less power for anyone, and is not a rule touched on by the specific Organized Play rules or called out in any other guidelines for Organized Play.

So I see no purpose in needing it in the PHB. Just do it. Nobody will care. It's OK to write it on your character sheet and play your PC as attached to a philosophy rather than a deity. If your DM won't allow it, it's because your DM wouldn't allow it with or without a mention in the PHB because it goes against their specific world. If they will allow it, they will allow it with or without mention in the PHB because it's acceptable in their specific world. There is no real need for any "official" mention on a topic like this. It doesn't help or hurt anything, but it also has no need. I don't see how this qualifies as "important". The game functions just fine with or without mentioning this issue in the rules, and doesn't work "better" with or without mention of it. It's purely a role playing issue - which you can role play without a rule about it.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 10, 2017)

I'm not really sure what we can gain from rehashing this debate [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION], nothing has really changed since the thread that was dedicated to this discussion.


----------



## gyor (Oct 10, 2017)

I'll point out that you can treat deities as symbolic of philophic ideas. 

 Like you worship Sune,  but your cleric really just sees her as a symbol of a hedonistic philosophy, an ideal of a philosophy,  instead of a manifest being. Or even a symbolic of a state of enlightment,  like the Cleric really doesn't believe in Sune as a individual or am actual Goddess, but as a state of hedonistic enlightment that can achieved, Sunehood. Just a wyrd thought.

 Even if taken literally, the Gods come with teachings and philosphies, they are more then celebrity fan clubs.


----------



## rabindranath72 (Oct 12, 2017)

Iry said:


> Celestials can be every bit as demanding and dangerous as the more evil pacts. On average, they are probably going to involve less damnation of the soul, but the trade off would include greater demands to behave yourself while you are alive (which is where most of your adventuring happens, anyway).
> 
> One player in my game is actually an evil Celestial Pact Warlock - He was contacted by a celestial entity moments before he was about to sign his soul over to a devil, and was offered a better deal. One that involves him travelling around and performing good deeds -- something he finds positively irritating. The character keeps a list of all his good deeds, and uses them as leverage to bargain for more power with his celestial.
> 
> It's quite hilarious.



That's brilliant. It reminds me of a player in my game who did something similar in a D&D 3.0 campaign; I used the variant "Learning New Spells" in the 3.0 DMG, which required sorcerers to strike a bargain with some entity. His patron was a Ki-Rin, and they didn't have the same alignment...with the results you can imagine


----------



## rabindranath72 (Oct 12, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> What is the purpose of needing it spelled out in the PHB?
> 
> 1) You can houserule it in your home game, and
> 1) For Organized Play, nobody will care what you put on your character sheet under deity. It's not a rule that has any relevance for the Organized Play rules. In involves no more or less power for anyone, and is not a rule touched on by the specific Organized Play rules or called out in any other guidelines for Organized Play.
> ...



Indeed. Look at the BECMI Cleric, which gets spells simply by adhering to alignments/beliefs.

In fact, if I am going to run the Known World with 5e, I'll have clerics to just that.


----------



## gyor (Oct 12, 2017)

I could see some very different characters being made depending upon patron. 

 A Celeslock making a deal with a unicorn might not be religious at all,  making a deal to protect a forest or free the unicorn from a trap. Kind of like kissing cousins to the Feylocks. 

 A Kirin maybe makes a pact because some local law or tradition states it must. 

 A Aasimon like a Solar or Deva deal would depend greatly upon the God they serve. 

 But my Favourite would be the Empyrean Titan,  because like the Aasimon it might be based upon God they serve,  or it could be more personal,  maybe they fell in love with the mortal,  maybe they lost a bet with the mortal. 

 And unlike other Celestials the Empyreans have free will and do not become fiends when they choose evil,  they stay Celestials. 

 My favourite is you could have a Cult of Celeslocks worshipping an evil Empyrean,  trying to free it from Carceri,  but acting like noble servants of the angels in public. This is my favourite.


----------



## gyor (Oct 12, 2017)

Here is an idea for such a Patron. 

 In better days she was called Princess Brightstar and danced with the Gods of Light and Love and learned from the Gods of Knowledge and Magic. 

 But the Empyrean known as Princess Brightstar was too open minded and niave,  and when a foolish mortal challenged to redeem Fierna and Beliel from evil,  she accepted the challenge. 

 Instead of redeeming them,  they seduced her into greater and greater acts of debauchery and perversion,  and when Brightstar's Godly parents found out,  they sent her to Carceri as punishment,  till she learned restraint at which point she could rejoin them. 

 Now Princess Debauchery as she calls herself in the current times,  sits on a throne of red ice,  chained it by golden unbreakable chains,  raging in frustrating at being denied all the pleasures she craves. 

 Princess Debauchery reaches out in the taboo dreams of mortals and offers power and pleasures beyond mortal keen if they worship and serve her,  offering them Celestial Pacts. 

 Princess Debauchery is still a Celestial for all the evil she and her servants have done,  so her evil is streaked with acts of occasional good,  and she is known as a generous patron to have,  and more forgiving them most evil patrons. 

 Still Princess Debauchery wishes to tear down the Gods of Good and take their place,  rewarding her servants with the souls of the good people as slaves for all eternity. 

 Princess Debauchery's skin looks like polished black marbles,  her hairs is dark purple with a metallic shimmer,  her body is covered in purple glowing stars. 

 She never wears clothes,  but her most intimate regions are covered by the golden chains that bind her. 

 Princess Debauchery's eyes are like two purple suns. 

 Ususual Princess Debauchery only makes pacts with her cultists. 

 But sometimes her ability to have her mood effect her local environment causes pacts to happen randomly in mortals whose dreams she has touched.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 12, 2017)

Iry said:


> Celestials can be every bit as demanding and dangerous as the more evil pacts. On average, they are probably going to involve less damnation of the soul, but the trade off would include greater demands to behave yourself while you are alive (which is where most of your adventuring happens, anyway).




Good idea... for the Fiend patron I have usually told the players that in fact they don't necessarily end up having to obey performing some evil duties, because for example their part of the bargain might have been just to sell their soul. This is actually the standard narrative of the original Warlock inspiration (Goethe's Faust) i.e. a not necessarily evil person who strikes a deal with a devil for a not necessarily evil purpose, paying the price of going to hell when they die.

But this clearly wouldn't work with a Celestial. I mean, who _wouldn't_ strike a deal with an angel when the price to pay is going to heaven when you die?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 13, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Good idea... for the Fiend patron I have usually told the players that in fact they don't necessarily end up having to obey performing some evil duties, because for example their part of the bargain might have been just to sell their soul. This is actually the standard narrative of the original Warlock inspiration (Goethe's Faust) i.e. a not necessarily evil person who strikes a deal with a devil for a not necessarily evil purpose, paying the price of going to hell when they die.
> 
> But this clearly wouldn't work with a Celestial. I mean, who _wouldn't_ strike a deal with an angel when the price to pay is going to heaven when you die?





'm reading the webnovel Pact by Wildblow and there was a line that relates to this.

"Why would anyone ever make a deal with a Demon if you could make a deal with an Angel instead?"

"There's probably a *really *good answer to that question."


If something is too good to be true, you might be in deep deep trouble


----------



## mpathy (Oct 14, 2017)

I have a fantastic char in my group.. A yuan ti pure-blood celestial warlock who want to get away from the city state Hlondeth and the evil snake god they pray too. So who heard the call? The Couatls - servants of the unknown, or better forgotten (you can find it in 3rd Ed books) opposite deity to Set. Looking forward to play with this torn character


----------



## Druidic Floki (Oct 18, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
> 
> Yes, the Undying Light Warlock was reworked as the Celestial (June, 2017 UA- revised class options).
> 
> ...





Wasn't Pact of the Undying one made with an undying force, like extremely old lichs, and those who have found a way to escape death?  Those still to me fit the mold of a 'Warlock' far more then 'celestials'.  I hate class banning, or class changing.  But a Celestial Warlock may be the first I ever do.


----------



## gyor (Oct 19, 2017)

Druidic Floki said:


> Wasn't Pact of the Undying one made with an undying force, like extremely old lichs, and those who have found a way to escape death?  Those still to me fit the mold of a 'Warlock' far more then 'celestials'.  I hate class banning, or class changing.  But a Celestial Warlock may be the first I ever do.




 I suggest a slight shift,  focus it more on Empyrean Titans, call it an Empyrean pact,  who have more moral latitude then other Celestials,  so it can be very dark. 

 Like 25% of Empyreans end up evil and trying to create an empire in the material plane or are trapped in Hell,  Carcri,  the Abyss,  so I can see Dark Cults to Empyrean wannabe Gods who will do anything to take the last step to gain Godhood. 

 Puff you have your dark feeling to Warlock again.

 And yes Undying Pact is a mix of patrons who were former mortals who became Undead or Immortal.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 19, 2017)

I don't have a problem with a pact not feeling dark, as is, the fey pact doesn't feel dark to me and could be made with fey from the Seelie or Unseelie courts. I actually quite like the addition of a celestial pact warlock as it's given me ideas for world building.


----------



## gyor (Oct 19, 2017)

The suggestion was to Drudic Floki,  who was thinking of changing or Banning the Subclass.


----------



## Odunayo (Apr 19, 2018)

I have always been having this idea for a Warlock that his patron was not real it was just his imagination and therefore he was his own Patron but he did not know that he was his own Patron because he would hear the voices in his head and see the Patron in his dreams and visions. Hey you could have some fun stuff with that as a player and DM


----------

