D&D 5E Warlocks & Patrons

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You did not say in your first post, but it sounds like you are starting the characters at higher than 1st level? And if so, for his concept to work for me, he would need to start as a warlock before multi-classing into paladin.

 

[Icharbezol]

As a note, I'm at a loss to find anywhere in the PHB where it says anything about a warlock working against their patron at all. "Chafing under obligations" suggests to me that they would be performing what is asked of them by their patron. It is specifically stated that a warlock's magic is bestowed by their patron. "The warlock learns and grows on power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf" suggests that their powers rather dependent upon such. And it is mentioned that the warlock is in active communication with their patron.

I'm still sort of okay with what he wants to do (rail against his maker) just not how he wants to derive the powers and who specifically he wants to be his patron, I guess?

 

[Icharbezol]

You did not say in your first post, but it sounds like you are starting the characters at higher than 1st level? And if so, for his concept to work for me, he would need to start as a warlock before multi-classing into paladin.

Yep, to clarify, I am starting this portion of the campaign ("where you are now") at 4th level.

 

[iserith]

I'm struggling to see why this is of concern to the DM at all. I'd leave it to the player to figure it out and make it work.

 

[Icharbezol]

I'm struggling to see why this is of concern to the DM at all. I'd leave it to the player to figure it out and make it work.

Mainly because I'm not interested in running with his forgotten dead Goddess patron who he doesn't have to do anything for but still gets powers concept. I asked him to come up with something else as far as that aspect of the concept is concerned. But that's all he's interested in and I'm not big on that not coming with consequences.

 

[Mallus]

Mainly because I'm not interested in running with his forgotten dead Goddess patron who he doesn't have to do anything for but still gets powers concept. I asked him to come up with something else as far as that aspect of the concept is concerned. But that's all he's interested in and I'm not big on that not coming with consequences.

How's this for a consequence: the "forgotten dead goddess" isn't as forgotten (or even dead) as the PC believes. There are other active sects/followers who don't take kindly to his misuse of her "gifts" and seek to stop/kill/make-his-life-interesting-in-the-Chinese-proverb sense.

You get to honor the player's character concept and a ready-made set of enemies to trouble their PC with. That's win-win in my book!

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But that's all he's interested in and I'm not big on that not coming with consequences.

What consequences are the other PCs being asked to potentially deal with in exchange for their class features?

 

[TwoSix]

I do like the idea of the patron using him and being a BBEG in the campaign. But the player seems to just want the patron to explain his powers, with no relationship to the patron at all because when I suggest the patron might be angry with him for stealing her powers, he says "Nah, I'm not taking this combo to have a character flaw."

Ack. This is the real problem, right here. As a powergamer myself, there's nothing wrong with building your character around some cool abilities and then building the fluff out from it. But you should be willing to embrace the fluff! If the DM says "Well, your patron is going to send people after you for flaunting your transgressions," the only appropriate response is "Right on!" You WANT the DM to engage you in the story.

I'd be very wary of this player, myself.

 

[Jediking]

Mainly because I'm not interested in running with his forgotten dead Goddess patron who he doesn't have to do anything for but still gets powers concept. I asked him to come up with something else as far as that aspect of the concept is concerned. But that's all he's interested in and I'm not big on that not coming with consequences.

You can come up with a great explanation for why his Patron still gives him powers, but it sounds like the player doesn't care about his character's place in the setting. (Correct me if I'm wrong btw) He just wants to play his ideal character, with all of the powers and choices that from for a Paladin/Warlock multiclass, but you want to place that character in the setting. This isn't so much of a mechanical issue as an out of table one.

If you want to run an immersive game with a solid story while he wants to just play a character without being beholden to some flaws that are usually given to certain classes (Warlock, Vengeance), both of you are coming at it from different angles. If he really doesn't want to make his Patron a big deal, maybe you can just ignore it. If it's important to you for running your game, maybe he can try and at least make an effort. Talk to the rest of your group too. If they have issues with his level of immersion, or yours, then find a balance.

 

[Jediking]

What consequences are the other PCs being asked to potentially deal with in exchange for their class features?

I don't think it should really matter. Trying to single out one player for trying to have an optimized build by imposing boundaries is not fair, but having a consequence for certain classes is fine. Choosing between a Fighter and a Warlock might not matter in some campaigns or tables, but some people like to use the fluff. If you want to build up a world or a feel to a campaign, being a little strict with 'playing to type' (ala Clerics following their deities main principles) isn't the wrong thing IF you let your players know ahead of time. If everyone is on board, it can give a lot of plot hooks or consistency.

It sounds like the OP tried to let his players know by having a session zero-type and not having character ideas before creation, but this player is ignoring it. Maybe because he's excited to play this build and he has awesome ideas for combos and has been building it up in his head for a while, which is great. Excited players are good players. But there has to be a bit of a compromise, the player/character has to adjust a bit to the setting/DM, and the setting/DM can adjust a bit to the player/character.