D&D 5E Should Warlock Patrons be able to revoke a Warlock's powers if the Patron is displeased?

tglassy · May 23, 2017

I always viewed it that the Patron was teaching secrets in exchange for...whatever it is the Patron wants in exchange. Their soul, their servitude, a slice of pie, whatever. In fact, what I usually do when DMing is explain that the Patron will trade power (a level in Warlock) for a favor, usually asked for up front. In order to gain that level, they have to do something for the Patron. In fact, I'd probably start making it so they are told "Here is your new power (level up to level 5! Yay!). If you want another, I require....a tunafish sandwich! With extra mayo!"

So, before they can level up again, sometime in the next few sessions, they have to find a way to get a tunafish sandwich with extra mayo, or they can't level up as a Warlock. But oh no, the only producer of Mayo has just gone out of business! What is he going to do!

You get the idea. If they can't, or won't, do whatever it is the Patron asked, they can't level up as a Warlock. They still get whatever they learned. They just have to pick a different class, now.

tardigrade · May 23, 2017

Mephista said:
Now, 4e especially had a thing where you could go out and uncover ancient pacts in old ruins and research magic that way. In fact, it was a major thing for uncovering the ruins of the old tiefling empire.

As someone who missed 4e entirely, would you (or anyone) mind expanding on this a bit?

Mephista · May 24, 2017

tardigrade said:
As someone who missed 4e entirely, would you (or anyone) mind expanding on this a bit?

Sure. 4e had a new default setting. The Points of Light, which informed a lot of the mechanics of the game. Or, perhaps, it was custom designed to fit the mechanics? Either way, it all started with the corrupt empire of Bael Turath. Humans who had given into hedonism and conquest, desired to become even stronger. So, they turned to the nine hells, and, made a large Pact as well as a number of smaller ones. This became known as the Pact Infernal, and physically changed the humans of Bael Turath into tieflings.

Now, this empire basically poured almost all its resources into developing warlock magic, and they had hell forges, libraries filled with secrets of the Infernal realm, pillars and artifacts enscribed with hellish runes and magic to study. Eventually, however, they ran into the expanding empire of the dragonborn. Dragons and devils did not get along, and so, they fought and both empires fell into ruin.

Fast forward to "modern" time where the game starts. Tieflings were natural infernal warlocks simply because the royalty of Bael Turath had pacts that passed down warlock hood through the royal tiefling bloodlines. Literally born to the magic. Many of these warlocks (or humans interested in becoming powerful warlocks) often searched out the ancient ruins of Bael Turath so they could find the old secrets of the greatest warlocks of ancient times. It was basically the same thing as wizards diving into ruins to learn new spells long forgotten.

Warlocks, in order to use their magic in 4e, basically had two requirements - you needed a pact to act as a channel for eldritch energies (you literally channeld the power of Hell, the Fey Wilds, etc), and knowledge on how to form that through magic words and gestures. You didn't need the patron around, just ink on metaphorical paper. Patrons often did help out with spell teaching, but it wasn't as much a thing as delving for arcane secrets on one's own.

SmokeyCriminal · May 24, 2017

Another approach for a DM is to put everything concerning the Warlocks Patron solely in the hands of the Player.

If your curious about what the Patron would think concerning the Warlocks actions, just say "Hey, so what does your Patron thing about your Warlocks actions being in direct conflict with him? Are the Warlocks action even actually in conflict with the patron?"

If the Player says the Warlocks actions are indeed pissing off the Patron, and you want to know what the Patron is going to do about it, just ask the Player "Hey, so your Patron is pissed at your Warlock. are they going to do anything about it? Can they take their powers away, stop teaching them, or send goons?"

If the Player doesn't know, hasn't thought about it, or doesn't seem to care. Just
remind them that they picked the Warlock and the Patron is their baggage, so they're responsible for unpackaging it. If they ask for suggestions, give them some. If not, just listen, maybe just take notes and ask questions.

FormerlyHemlock · May 24, 2017

Elderbrain said:
As written, I don't see any (game-mechanical) consequences for a Warlock accepting powers froma Patron and then using said powers in a manner that opposes the desires of his/her Patron, i.e. a Warlock with the Fiend Pact from an Arch-Devil using his powers to fight the Devil's own forces. Can a Patron revoke the powers it's granted to a Warlock? Should a Patron be able to do this? In previous editions, deities could strip a Cleric of some or all of his spells if the Cleric made his god mad - aren't Warlocks basically the Arcane equivalent of Clerics? Of course, in 5th Edition Clerics don't seem to be subject to this rule anymore, either...

The descriptive text on warlock pacts is deficient in two major respects:

(1) It doesn't really define what the warlock's obligations are to the patron; and
(2) It doesn't really specify what the cost/benefit is to the patron of making the pact.

This makes it essentially impossible to say anything about the subject except "ask your DM." For some patrons, perhaps there are no obligations. (Perhaps every time the magic of the Great Old Ones is invoked, reality frays a little bit more, and Cthulhu stirs in his sleep.) For others, maybe creating warlocks is so simple and cheap that it's simply not worth the bother to track down those who renege. Who really knows?

Ask your DM.

schnee · May 26, 2017

Personally, I wouldn't house rule in any sort of mechanic like that, unless the player wants it as part of the character concept.

Then, I'd sit down with them and write a few sentences to define it.

I'd also use the 'theme' of the patron, and when they start violating the pact, have supernatural things start happening that portend ill things to come.

So, if it's a blood god, have a large rat walk up to the feet of the Warlock, vomit blood all over the ground, then die. The character does it again? The next time they cast a spell, their nose bleeds. Etcetera. Escalate it over time. Give them plenty of colorful, flavorful imagery that befits the sort of horror that class is playing with.

merwins · May 26, 2017

The common thread to me is that everyone wants the rules to tell them how to do things. Those are mechanical issues.

The WHY of things is a story issue. I could see a book giving you IDEAS. But direction? Nah.

That's where roleplaying comes in. I had this same problem when I was GMing a warlock. Why would the fiend patron just GIVE power away? Even if he had the character's soul after death?

The answer was obvious: Because the fiend could corrupt ANYTHING the character tried to do. It's smarter, wiser, and more connected than the character. A summoned familiar became a direct tool for the warlock, and also a conduit for the patron. Spies everywhere. Missions instigated by the patron, disguised as good works. "Save the baby (turns out to be Hitler)." That kind of thing.

"Hey Joe, you want some more power? What for? Recover the MacGuffin from that ruin? Oh, no problem. Hey, Bob (a more evil minion), Joe Warlock over here is gonna recover a MacGuffin and return it to Sam. You should ambush Sam after a week or so. Way easier than actually wandering into the ruin to get it ourselves."

The Crimson Binome · May 26, 2017

mervinci said:
The common thread to me is that everyone wants the rules to tell them how to do things. Those are mechanical issues.

The WHY of things is a story issue. I could see a book giving you IDEAS. But direction? Nah.

The point of an RPG system is that it tells you the mechanical representation for a narrative concept. If it only gave you one or the other, then the book would be useless. Game mechanics are meaningless if we don't know the narrative that they're trying to describe.

steeldragons · May 27, 2017

Absolutely. Hands down. No question.

Schmoe · May 27, 2017

The warlock patrons are sufficiently generic that they could feasibly support any behavior by the warlock. I just don't see the conflict inherent in a warlock picking, for example, a fiendish patron, and then waltzing off and acting as a crusader for good. Its easy to rationalize some fiendish entity whose purposes are served by the warlock acting in that manner - whether it's to thwart the plans of another fiendish rival, or some longer term plan that the warlock is unwittingly enabling, or something else entirely.

That being said, if I felt a character was acting dramatically against the wishes of a particular patron, I might introduce another patron and, in essence, have the two patrons "compete" for the warlock's soul. Imagine a warlock with a Far Realms patron who is acting as a protector of the natural order. It might be fun to introduce a fey patron in opposition to the current patron, and make the warlock choose one or the other by his or her choice of actions. It's the kind of story arc that can show real character growth and change and can be very rewarding.

Before you do something like that, though, you need to make sure you have player buy-in. There's really nothing in the PHB that prevents a player from playing a warlock with any patron in any way he or she chooses, so you should expect some pushback if you introduce restrictions after the player has already made the character. Either make it clear up front that you expect the patron to influence the character's behavior, or discuss a conflict like this with the player before introducing it. Surprise restrictions beyond the RAW are never fun.