| mcdmd |
The use of the word "patron" as a witch's focus is, to a certain extent, an unfortunate choice on our part.
Unlike clerics, witches don't have a "boss" that they have to associate with. A witch's patron is more akin to a student's area of study or college major, or a scholar's subject of specialization than it is an actual "patron" (using the real-world definition of the word).
You'll note that all the patrons are not actually people or things but ideas and concepts. We don't have a patron named "Gozreh," for example—we have things like "anmials" and "elements" and "water."
James,
This seems oddly contradictory to the witch flavour text:
Some gain power through study, some through devotion, others through blood, but the witch gains power from her communion with the unknown. Generally feared and misunderstood, the witch draws her magic from a pact made with an otherworldly power. Communing with that source, using her familiar as a conduit, the witch gains not only a host of spells, but a number of strange abilities known as hexes. As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware. Some are even afraid of that source, fearful of what it might be or where its true purposes lie.
Here are two other important quotes:
This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces.
By forging strange bonds with unnameable beings, witches gain the service of a mystical adviser, a familiar to both serve her and reveal to her secrets unknown to most mortals.
So witches do "study" because their familiar teaches them magic, but their familiar is granted power through the patron, correct?
What is the "pact" made with this otherworldly source? How is it a pact if the witch is not bound to any rules?
Why is the otherworldly power interested in such a pact if they aren't conscious/sentient?
Is a witch's familiar aware of why it exists, and where its mysterious knowledge comes from? Does it just exist for its purpose and accept that?
Also, the final quote says "beings." Does that not imply some level of sentience, or am I being too pedantic with the wording?
Thanks for your response.