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

[Greg K]

For Demons and Devils, I take my inspirations from The Devil's Platform episode of Kolchak: The Nightstalker, movies like The Omen, and similar tv shows and movies- if you displease the patron, you get transformed into a normal animal (including the mind so you have no human memories) or are slain. Either way, the character is removed from the game. However, since the fiend is going to want something done to further its evil plans and I don't allow evil PCs, no Fiend Pact warlock PCs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Instead of a patron revoking a PC warlock's boon by cutting off their power, I'd instead have the patron attempt to revoke the PC warlock's boon with extreme prejudice. In other words, I'd have the patron's goons come to try to kill the warlock. That way, you get to have an adventure.

It worked for Spawn, right?

Right, and Spawn works as a story because his power can't be revoked once granted. Heck, old man/medieval spawn is hundreds of years old! Been fighting his "master" for hundreds of years. Can't tell that story if you just take away their power when they turn against their patron.

Because the warlock isnt a servant! they made a pact, a bargain. That Pact surely is meant to benefit the patron, but it won't always, and unless the specific Pact deal (ie player concept) involves direct servitude, it shouldn't mean the warlock is any kind of servant.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's the big question. What, exactly, is the deal? They don't really go into that anywhere.

I believe part of the reason they don't go into that is so that each warlock can (with DM aid and approval) craft an appropriate pact.

I always ask players to describe these things. If you made a pact for your powers (i.e. warlock), what was the pact? If you get your powers from your faith/deity (i.e. cleric, druid, etc.), what must you do to worship her or to fulfill the tenets of your faith? If your power is innate (i.e. sorcerer), what is it about you that (super)naturally gives you those powers.

Those things are part of the basic background work for such characters.

 

[MechaPilot]

Is it fun to do so?

That is key. Whatever you decide on the issue, your decision should be used to make the game more enjoyable (ideally, for everyone) and not to just strip characters of their powers.

 

[mellored]

What ad_hoc and eveyone else said. Your job as a DM is to make the story fun. Taking away powers is not usually fun.

Though I could see a character who constantly did then good things, and came up with wierd justifications about why it was evil in order to keep his power. And what's more evil gaining someone’s trust only to betray them? Hence betraying the demon is an evil act.

 

[Ketser]

In the end it comes down how warlocks work in your setting and/or warlock-patron relationship. Personally i hate the idea of warlocks access to magic being too strongly tied to patrons, too many people tend to treat them as sort of arcane cleric, but this shouldn't be the class power. Warlocks should be able to turn their powers against their patrons, cheat knowledge out of them or deal with the consencuences how they got the magic they now have. These are far more fitting themes for the class, than just being a weird pseudo-cleric (not that some warlocks shouldnt be able to actually worship their patrons).

No, a far better, far fitting thing is to the pissed (or perhaps amused) patron to start messing or toying with their former servant/apprentice/whatever. Either to get them back into their service, punish them or just play with them.

 

[Arial Black]

The fluff part has been addressed already.

The crunch part has been mentioned: there is no such disadvantage in the class mechanics and adding one is screwing with the class.

The potential problem is the same as that seen by the players of many clerics over the years; the DM basically dictating what actions the player can/cannot choose for his own PC. It's taking agency away from the player, the cardinal sin of RPGs.

DMs have many other legitimate responses to warlocks who 'misbehave' from the patron's POV; taking their game mechanics away from them, or threatening to if the player doesn't do what the DM thinks they should do, goes against the very nature of our hobby.

 

[Greg K]

taking their game mechanics away from them, or threatening to if the player doesn't do what the DM thinks they should do, goes against the very nature of our hobby.

It is not as universal as you try to make it sound. In many circles, what you state is true. Yet, in many other circles, it is considered a perfectly acceptable consequence to take away mechanics if it fits the in-game situation.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I strongly disagree that it's wrong or unbalanced for warlocks to suffer some sort of consequence for in-game rationale. It's no different for the warlock to "fall from damnation" than it is for a cleric to displease his god, a paladin to suffer for breaking their vows...or ANY OTHER character to suffer consequences for failing to live up to expectations or requirements imposed by their backgrounds or affiliations. That said, there's hundreds of different ways that a DM could choose to rule on how displeasing a Patron works even within the same setting. Some possibilities:

* Patron rescinds their power, causing the Warlocks spells to become inoperable.
* Patron rescinds their power, but Warlock may forge a different pact with a different patron
* The Warlock's magic is taught rather than granted; warlock suffers no immediate penalties, but cannot advance further in the warlock class until getting back in patron's good graces or finding another patron
* Patron doesn't actually have the slightest clue that the Warlock is acting against their interests
* Patron is too alien to impose a penalty that makes any sense to the Warlock (e.g. seemingly unrelated things happen)
* Patron can't act directly or immediately against the warlock, but may chose a suitable torment for the Warlock's soul after their eventual demise
* Patron imposes some penalty or curse upon the Warlock for as long the Warlock displeases them.
* Patron sends more loyal minions to "repossess" the Warlock's power.

 

[Li Shenron]

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...

It's a very good question, and I strongly believe that the game itself does not dictate every DM to handle this in one official way by the RAW.

This is my typical way of handling the issue:

Warlock: the details of the pact are up to the player herself, so there are no obligations towards the patron unless the player has decided that there should be. That's because the nature of the pact can be very variable. In fact, when presenting the Warlock class, I pretty much always say that the original class concept was in the "Faust-ian pact" between a mortal and a fiend, for example selling her soul in exchange for great powers; to the fiend it's irrelevant what the warlock does with her powers (and in fact I always quote this case as an example of how a character can be good-aligned while being a Fiend Warlock at the same time), because the patron still gets her part of the deal fulfilled when the character dies.

Cleric: unlike a Warlock who is motivated by the benefits of the pact, a Cleric is motivated by the ethics/morals/religion itself. This is very different, and a Cleric who betrays her ethos essentially betrays herself. It should be the Cleric herself to feel guilty if not living up to her own religion and be motivated to atone as soon as possible, if you want to have a consistently well-roleplayed Cleric. In the rare case the Cleric voluntarily strays away from the chosen ethos, I would let her lose her divine powers. But if such case happened, then I would probably suggest for the Cleric to instead switch to a different religion, and have her powers adapted. I think this way of handling the issue for Clerics works fine both when you narrate the Cleric's power to emanate directly from her deity (i.e. the traditional narrative) or when you narrate it as emanating from the Cleric's inner faith (in which case, a Cleric who consciously breaks her own vows stops believing in herself, but can possibly start believing in a new self).

Druid: essentially I treat Druids more similarly to Wizards than Clerics, despite the fact that they have a religious narrative, so the "losing your power if not keeping up with your faith" is not much of an issue at all.