It just depends on how badly they cross thier patron/diety. I've only i it a few times. Had a high cleric that started calling his god down like he was his lackey. Got cut off for awhile. Usually I'll start with a rebuke. Had a cleric once that was told not to try casting anything but healing spells . Had an evil cleric that started transforming into a monster that more closely resembled his inner being. He was a hard case and ended up being carried off to hell because he thought he didnt have to be a team player. I had a PC that made a deal with a god break the deal for the best of reasons and was struck deal but then taken to heaven. (That character is a saint in the pantheon now) My thought is if you play a character whose magic comes from divine or other sources there is always a price. And a bigger price for crossing their patron. Of course it depends on the power. Some are more flexible than others.
D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?
jmartkdr2
Hero
If a player is going that far, I'd assume one of two things is happening:
1. The character has drifted away from their original motivations, to the point where the current class no longer makes sense. (ie the Vengeance paladin no longer wants revenge, having learned that vengeance only perpetuates the cycle of violence and pain) This is (broadly) good roleplaying, and therefore shouldn't be punishing to the player. Most likely this will result in a patron / subclass switch, although it could mean a class switch. (ie the vengeance paladin swears a new oath, or if no oath fits can become a cleric or fighter or whatever works for that character.)
2. The player never really cared about their own backstory and/or isn't engaging with the setting as though the pc thinks it's real. This is an out-of-game problem and requires an out-of-game solution.
Yaarel
He Mage
Yeah, the offense is either a character situation, in which the character concept evolves, thus punishing the character becomes inappropriate.
Or the offense is a player situation, in which punishing the character is pointless.
The game is better off focusing on the relationship conflict between the character and patron, making a fun story. Or: making sure players are moreorless on the same page with regard to expectations about the game.
Or the offense is a player situation, in which punishing the character is pointless.
The game is better off focusing on the relationship conflict between the character and patron, making a fun story. Or: making sure players are moreorless on the same page with regard to expectations about the game.
jmartkdr2
Hero
Nothing wrong with a player wanting the mechanics of the class and not wanting to rp a complicated relationship with their patron. It can be distant and plot-irrelevant.
But the player and dm should definitely have a talk about it before the character is introduced to the game.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I think it means "deliberately and severely." Like, this wasn't an accident, this wasn't the result of a compulsion or curse, this wasn't a single action...this was a deliberate decision by the player to have their character consistently act in defiance of their character's religion.
In my experience, this usually means one of two things is happening: either the player is trying to tell a "fall from grace" story arc about their character, or that player is no longer interested in playing a religious character. In either case, the DM should chat with the player between gaming sessions, find out what the player wants to accomplish, and then work out a way to make it happen in the story.
The "fall and redemption" arc is a well-established trope in fantasy. Lots of storytelling potential, so lean into it!
If it's more of an "I don't want to play this character anymore" situation, like maybe the player regrets their choice of cleric Domain or paladin Vow, this can be a pretty cool way to let them change their subclass.
Last edited:
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
Warlocks don't lose anything, but could be hunted by agents of their Patron. They were granted Pact Magic by their Patron, but it's a hack into the Weave - they don't get their ongoing magic from the Patron and if they become enemies of their Patron, the Patron can't take the magic away.
Clerics are different in different settings I play. In some worlds, Gods are created by worship, so if the Cleric no longer worships their God, their powers start coming from their new source of faith or philosophy. In other settings, Clerics are granted their magic by powerful entities, and if they stop being faithful to them, they lose their magic in the sense of a Paladin breaking their oath, and have to take up a new Divine Domain that might reflect their new mindset, or might lose their magic entirely until they atone. Still other worlds might be a mixture of both.
Clerics are different in different settings I play. In some worlds, Gods are created by worship, so if the Cleric no longer worships their God, their powers start coming from their new source of faith or philosophy. In other settings, Clerics are granted their magic by powerful entities, and if they stop being faithful to them, they lose their magic in the sense of a Paladin breaking their oath, and have to take up a new Divine Domain that might reflect their new mindset, or might lose their magic entirely until they atone. Still other worlds might be a mixture of both.
I selected 4 of the possible options because it is really a case by case basis...and different classes function differently. What will happen to a Warlock is not the same as what could happen to a Cleric (or Paladin).
I don't actually use Warlocks in my setting/homebrew games. The reason, primarily, is that since the class' introduction, there seems to be a real lack of comprehension what a "Pact" is.
"Here's your powers in exchange for some story/fluff X that will never actually come into play. And when you're 10th or 12th level and you and all of your 10th-12th level buddies come to kill me, I'm just out of luck and have to kick myself that I should never have given you those magic secrets and know-how and [potentially, depending on how you fluff it] raw energy to use."
I mean, has anyone ever heard of Rumplestilskin? That's a pact. Make sure you "read the fine print" of a Faustian contract with a devil. That's a pact.
"Here. Take all this power and I'll tell you how to use it however you want. Nah, I don't hold any actual mechanical power over you. [Your DM doesn't have any right to remove your powers]." That is NOT a pact.
Line #1 in the fine print of any Warlock-style class pact/contract would be "If you raise a finger against me, for any reason, or play any part of a plot against me, the pact is void. I summarily rescind my favors and remove my knowledge that I have, graciously and in my most generous spirit, allowed you to partake." (i.e. You will immediately lose all powers.)
Or maybe bury it as the 5th or 15th thing in the fine print. Along with other things like "You will conduct no less than one task for me as appointed by a) myself; or b) an official recognized agent of mine; betwixt each solstice and equinox." Asking you to do stuff, and either failing or being thwarted, could result in a visit from one of the patron's agents for a "reminder" or some "discipline"...up to and including "IF you don't get this other thing done instead, we're going to have to revise what powers you have access to until it's done." or some such.
Now, the OP does stipulate it's a "grave" transgression. For that, for clerics, it's actually a bit easier. PResuming the cleric is of a high enough level that they are being survailed by the agents of the deity, if not the deity themselves, (I'd say a minimum of 5th or 7th level, wherein angels/archons/whatnot will be making "reports" to the deity about your actions -and may attempt to intervene with you directly, depending on how good you've been up to the transgression, the nature of the transgression, and whatever other narrative thigns the PC and DM have going on- I am going to presume, that's going to be a gradual removal of spells, from the higher levels to the lower. But that would probably be more of a "warning you're on the wrong path/making mistakes" kind of thing before the taps are fully turned off. Or begin with the channels -POOF! You can't effect undead til you atone...and you're not going to be able to replace spells you use...so be wise with what you've got.
Same for Paladins. A "grave" transgression would probably BEGIN with the removal of Smiting at all. Then siphon off spell power.
There is the option -as we've recently seen in Vox Machina- of just a flat out deity "turns their back" to the cleric and you get bupkus -no spells, no channels, no meditations, nada- HOPEFULLY, until you've suitably atoned...but again, depending on the transgression, maybe for good.
The god of the hunt is unlikely to hold it too much against you if you slay some extra deer...or, say, a tribe of fiendish goblins that is doing wanton harm to the forest. The goddess of life, on the other hand, that has a direct 'Do no harm to others, but in self defense" tenet/dogma/taboo, is going to be more than "miffed" when you use your own hands/spells/HER power to wipe out those demon-goblin young.
I can hear the wails now, "What?! So I'm just supposed to be some healbot, wimpering behind the barbarian and knight?! That sucks!" Well, then maybe choosing the goddess of life, with the established teachings and priorities (that would absolutely be shared with the player in a session zero/before play begins), so that you'd have access to higher levels heal spells and Raise Dead, wasn't really the way you should have gone.
And, no, I am not of the mind "just get a different god" as a viable option (for clerics or paladins)...other than the case of going directly to the former deity's direct nemesis. Otherwise, like minded/aligned entities are going to know/think, "You couldn't maintain your faith in/properly serve (your former god). Why would I trust you will serve me any better, let alone grant you any of MY actual divine power?"
Evil deities, of course, (not to mention Warlock patrons of various ilk) will be thrilled to scoop you up, though. ...and that, of course, can make for quite the wild ride in a campaign that would permit such a thing (I tend to be a "no Evil PCs" table...but I could see circumstances/narrative reasons that could make for a great twist and good/better story for the player/table).
So, yeah, it's a very complex question. The "gravity" of what a 'grave transgression" is not constant. Nor the reactions of deities vs. patrons vs. deities/patrons of these types and alignments vs. deities/patrons of those types and alignments vs. class X vs. class Y...
Lots for a DM to consider...and, of course, hopefully, make the call that will present the most fun and challenge for their table...
But a Pact, gods dash it all, needs to be an actual Pact. Not just some DM/player meaningless agreement (or, worse, just unilateral player-generated fluff) that is forgotten/ignored, cuz all we really want is blasty/spammable magic powers with no consequences and the flimsiest story to justify it.
I don't actually use Warlocks in my setting/homebrew games. The reason, primarily, is that since the class' introduction, there seems to be a real lack of comprehension what a "Pact" is.
"Here's your powers in exchange for some story/fluff X that will never actually come into play. And when you're 10th or 12th level and you and all of your 10th-12th level buddies come to kill me, I'm just out of luck and have to kick myself that I should never have given you those magic secrets and know-how and [potentially, depending on how you fluff it] raw energy to use."
I mean, has anyone ever heard of Rumplestilskin? That's a pact. Make sure you "read the fine print" of a Faustian contract with a devil. That's a pact.
"Here. Take all this power and I'll tell you how to use it however you want. Nah, I don't hold any actual mechanical power over you. [Your DM doesn't have any right to remove your powers]." That is NOT a pact.
Line #1 in the fine print of any Warlock-style class pact/contract would be "If you raise a finger against me, for any reason, or play any part of a plot against me, the pact is void. I summarily rescind my favors and remove my knowledge that I have, graciously and in my most generous spirit, allowed you to partake." (i.e. You will immediately lose all powers.)
Or maybe bury it as the 5th or 15th thing in the fine print. Along with other things like "You will conduct no less than one task for me as appointed by a) myself; or b) an official recognized agent of mine; betwixt each solstice and equinox." Asking you to do stuff, and either failing or being thwarted, could result in a visit from one of the patron's agents for a "reminder" or some "discipline"...up to and including "IF you don't get this other thing done instead, we're going to have to revise what powers you have access to until it's done." or some such.
Now, the OP does stipulate it's a "grave" transgression. For that, for clerics, it's actually a bit easier. PResuming the cleric is of a high enough level that they are being survailed by the agents of the deity, if not the deity themselves, (I'd say a minimum of 5th or 7th level, wherein angels/archons/whatnot will be making "reports" to the deity about your actions -and may attempt to intervene with you directly, depending on how good you've been up to the transgression, the nature of the transgression, and whatever other narrative thigns the PC and DM have going on- I am going to presume, that's going to be a gradual removal of spells, from the higher levels to the lower. But that would probably be more of a "warning you're on the wrong path/making mistakes" kind of thing before the taps are fully turned off. Or begin with the channels -POOF! You can't effect undead til you atone...and you're not going to be able to replace spells you use...so be wise with what you've got.
Same for Paladins. A "grave" transgression would probably BEGIN with the removal of Smiting at all. Then siphon off spell power.
There is the option -as we've recently seen in Vox Machina- of just a flat out deity "turns their back" to the cleric and you get bupkus -no spells, no channels, no meditations, nada- HOPEFULLY, until you've suitably atoned...but again, depending on the transgression, maybe for good.
The god of the hunt is unlikely to hold it too much against you if you slay some extra deer...or, say, a tribe of fiendish goblins that is doing wanton harm to the forest. The goddess of life, on the other hand, that has a direct 'Do no harm to others, but in self defense" tenet/dogma/taboo, is going to be more than "miffed" when you use your own hands/spells/HER power to wipe out those demon-goblin young.
I can hear the wails now, "What?! So I'm just supposed to be some healbot, wimpering behind the barbarian and knight?! That sucks!" Well, then maybe choosing the goddess of life, with the established teachings and priorities (that would absolutely be shared with the player in a session zero/before play begins), so that you'd have access to higher levels heal spells and Raise Dead, wasn't really the way you should have gone.
And, no, I am not of the mind "just get a different god" as a viable option (for clerics or paladins)...other than the case of going directly to the former deity's direct nemesis. Otherwise, like minded/aligned entities are going to know/think, "You couldn't maintain your faith in/properly serve (your former god). Why would I trust you will serve me any better, let alone grant you any of MY actual divine power?"
Evil deities, of course, (not to mention Warlock patrons of various ilk) will be thrilled to scoop you up, though. ...and that, of course, can make for quite the wild ride in a campaign that would permit such a thing (I tend to be a "no Evil PCs" table...but I could see circumstances/narrative reasons that could make for a great twist and good/better story for the player/table).
So, yeah, it's a very complex question. The "gravity" of what a 'grave transgression" is not constant. Nor the reactions of deities vs. patrons vs. deities/patrons of these types and alignments vs. deities/patrons of those types and alignments vs. class X vs. class Y...
Lots for a DM to consider...and, of course, hopefully, make the call that will present the most fun and challenge for their table...
But a Pact, gods dash it all, needs to be an actual Pact. Not just some DM/player meaningless agreement (or, worse, just unilateral player-generated fluff) that is forgotten/ignored, cuz all we really want is blasty/spammable magic powers with no consequences and the flimsiest story to justify it.
I voted other as well as NPCs come after them and they get a different patron.
Other because it's something that I work out with the players out of game. I won't take away character's powers unless that's something they want to do. I default to cleric/paladins being fueled by faith rather than a bless, and that warlocks gain their power when the deal is struck rather than an ongoing thing.
I voted new patron and NPCs coming after them, because that's what happened most recently in my game. Our warlock decided to betray the patron (who is one of the big baddies of the campaign, so it not a surprise) and found a new patron who, while not strictly speaking good, at least has their interests aligned with the PCs.
Other because it's something that I work out with the players out of game. I won't take away character's powers unless that's something they want to do. I default to cleric/paladins being fueled by faith rather than a bless, and that warlocks gain their power when the deal is struck rather than an ongoing thing.
I voted new patron and NPCs coming after them, because that's what happened most recently in my game. Our warlock decided to betray the patron (who is one of the big baddies of the campaign, so it not a surprise) and found a new patron who, while not strictly speaking good, at least has their interests aligned with the PCs.
Vaalingrade
Legend
What do you do when your pet hamster gravely offends you? It it possible for your pet to 'gravely offend' you if it's not a cat doing it on purpose? By that token, I don't think it's possible to 'gravely offend' a god as their cleric.
Oofta
Legend
I'm pretty lenient when it comes to the mechanical implementation of a PC. All I ask is that you talk to me and we'll work something out.
That doesn't mean there won't be repercussions. Let's say you're a warlock of the great old one. As the campaign goes on, you realize that you really don't want to support their goals at all. So I would prefer that you give me a heads up, but if you decide to completely reject your patron then you're going to be cut off from the source of your power.
So the question becomes, what to do about it. If the GOO is aware of the PC, they get cut off which is what would happen in my game because of the nature of the patrons I allow. If the GOO is unaware, then there's a risk of being noticed. You really don't want Cthulhu noticing you. I don't allow that kind of patron because it has potential repercussions outside of the player. I mean, I may get annoyed and swat a mosquito. I may also decide that I've had enough of these mosquitoes and destroy their habitat. In terms of a GOO that could mean anything from driving he warlock batshit insane to a far spread catastrophe that I just don't want to deal with.
So in my games that would mean either you come in with a new PC, we work out some kind of rebuild, get back in good graces somehow or you find a new patron. Whatever makes sense to the player. You aren't going to be permanently nerfed no matter what. But until it's resolved you don't have a source of power because a warlock's powers are not their own.
Similar Threads
