Paladin / Warlock Faith conflict query

[Ath-kethin]

I handle it either of two ways:

1. let the player figure it out (I'm a fan of John Constantine style swindlers, using the powers of two entities and trying to talk their way out of it if the two learn about each other)

or

2. Simply not using the optional multiclassing rules.

 

[Eltab]

OK, how do you resolve the potential faith conflict for multiclassing warlock & paladin?

To start with, you re-read the 5e section on Paladins: you are no longer bound to a certain alignment or a certain code of conduct.
Paladins have more options (one of which sounds suspiciously like the 4e Avenger class: serial killer with a Divine OK) as to how they behave.

But to a larger extent, that is the PC's problem, not the DM's problem, to find an answer. Persons who come up with inventive, in-the-game-world, and fun-to-listen-to explanations should be rewarded over and above persons who say simply "because this class features synergy is awesome and I want to do this trick too".

 

[CapnZapp]

OK, how do you resolve the potential faith conflict for multiclassing warlock & paladin?

Choose a patron that supports the combination.

Fey lords and ladies, such as Oberon, for example. Or entities described both as gods and demon lords.

 

[Riley37]

"As the saying goes, you cannot serve two masters."

I recognize that saying from one specific real-world religion. The one you were raised in, perhaps? Do all the gods in all D&D settings follow the teachings of that particular religion?

The range of answers to this question, follows from the range of religious beliefs of the forum participants. Those who were raised in a religion and don't actively practice it, still tend to hold deep assumptions based on its teachings.

Wonder Woman has gifts from six deities: "Demeter, great strength; Athena, wisdom and courage; Artemis, a hunter's heart and a communion with animals; Aphrodite, beauty and a loving heart; Hestia, sisterhood with fire; Hermes, speed and the power of flight." If Wonder Woman isn't welcome at your table or in your setting, then that's your choice. I'll find her a seat at mine.

As a player, I find that Oath of Ancients and Archfey Patron go together just fine.

 

[schnee]

Stopping these sorts of character ideas is such a loss.

There are so many role play and plot opportunities a character like that gives you.

Being torn between two masters, conflicts within themselves that can end us in awesome story hooks.

It's too much to ask people to give up that sort of comforting rigidity though... oh well, your game.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

In my campaign, I would allow any multi classing, however the player needs to provide a good back story to why this is happening (from my experience they are clever people and can usually justify this). Doing it just for meta gaming reasons I do not like (a one level dip then change to get the savings throws for instance) does not justify it and I would not allow it, however so far players have always been able to find in game reasons in the character concept to do this.

 

[Mallus]

A faithful follower of a deity, who receives powers from said deity, wouldn't then go on the side bartering with a patron for power. Why would they? Their god provides!

This is true if you make a certain set of theological assumptions. If you make different ones, then it gets kinda false.

For example, imagine a polytheistic religion where an individual may worship more than one deity. A persil might have one kind of relationship with one entity (paladin) and another kind altogether with a different entity (warlock).

There's only a potential conflict here if you deliberately author one (or the DM does).

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Mechanically there is nothing in the rules against it. Also, 5E is basically setting neutral, no matter how much they use the Realms as a default. That means any specific setting could have official mechanics that do not allow something that the core rules allow. One of the key rules of D&D is specific overrides general, so if WotC ever publishes official 5E rules for Eberron or Dark Sun or whatever, there will be specific rules in them that will contradict and overrule various core rules. This would also include a DM's homebrew world

In my homebrew world, I run paladins a little more strictly than 5E, but much less strict than 1E or 2E did. I run it as a Holy Warrior class and each of the nine alignments is a sub-class of the base class and the deity, philosophy, oath, etc must match the alignment of the character. I also do not let a character to multi-class as arcane/arcane or divine/divine, since in my world that causes a conflict in the flows of energy, but a multi-class of divine/arcane is fine, since those are two different types of energy.

 

[cbwjm]

In 5e, there is no conflict. As long as picking up those warlock levels don't cause you to break your oath (which would be entirely based on roleplaying, not when you take levels in warlock) you can easily combine the two, some subclasses of the two classes even seem to be made for each other.

That being said, there might be issues depending on the setting. It might be that in certain settings the paladin swears their oath to a god becoming a devotion paladin of Helm or a conquest paladin of Asmodeus which might lead to conflict or perhaps they literally can't pick up warlock levels because joining a paladin order marks their soul in such a way that it is impossible to make a pact. None of this is assumed in the base game though, it would be a setting specific consideration only which ultimately means, talk to your DM.

Personally, I like the idea of the following two multiclass combos (haven't actually run either of them myself).

Oath of the Ancients Paladin/Fey pact Warlock. Both of them sworn to either an arch fey or to one of the elven gods.
Oath of Conquest/Fiend pact. I can see this guy following one of the lords of the 9. Perhaps they are ultimately beholden to Asmodeus but also serve on of the other lords as a warlock.

 

[neogod22]

This is true if you make a certain set of theological assumptions. If you make different ones, then it gets kinda false.

For example, imagine a polytheistic religion where an individual may worship more than one deity. A persil might have one kind of relationship with one entity (paladin) and another kind altogether with a different entity (warlock).

There's only a potential conflict here if you deliberately author one (or the DM does).

The argument against this is, humans are free to worship one or all the gods, and most of the peoples do pay reverence to all of the ones important to them, but they aren't priests and paladins. The difference is that to be a cleric or paladin, they give their faith and devotion to one god only, and in return, that god grants its blessings. Gods gain their power through worship. They want all the worshipers they can get to increase their status in the pantheon and increase their influence on the world. When they have less worshipers, they weaken, and when they have none, they can't influence the world at all. Because this the way their power and influence work, they will not be willing to share it. (Story theory)