I know all that, but this isn't a table with an actual DM that can work on the fly and talk to their players to weave everything together as it goes. This is a video game that was completed and handed over to players, and so trying to make a major NPC that only possibly exists in any playthrough, and make that NPC personally important to the character as well is something I don't believe Larian would do.
The game would not have a warlock NPC that exists only for one playthrough but it can have warlock NPCs or enemies you encounter as you play through the game...not necessarily tied to you being a warlock or anything like that...just characters you can find at certain locations or encounter during certain missions.
I'm not talking about Warlocks, I'm talking about their patrons specifically. And even more specifically, the patron of the custom player character.
warlock patrons CAN'T be major NPCs because they'll only ever exist for warlock characters.
It's amazing how some D&D players believe every table plays using their house rules! This is total nonsense. The patron can be as big an NPC are the DM wants them to be. And some of the potential warlock patrons named in the official D&D rules actually appear in person in official D&D adventures.
I know all that, but this isn't a table with an actual DM that can work on the fly and talk to their players to weave everything together as it goes. This is a video game that was completed and handed over to players, and so trying to make a major NPC that only possibly exists in any playthrough, and make that NPC personally important to the character as well is something I don't believe Larian would do.
They don't need to "only exist in that playthrough". Mizra exists irrespective of if she is the PCs patron, so does Auntie Ethel, so does Raphael, so does Zariel.
Mizora exists because she's Wyll's patron, and he exists regardless of if the custom character does. And you're arguing that one of those characters would be the custom character's patrons? I don't think that'll be the case for a second, but it's at least a better argument.
