D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

Yes. It absolutely 100% was. So much so that someone on wotc's payroll would have featured making it clear if lonely Isle were shooting their video today
This one from Crawford is especially telling given that he was so excited to get it out there when the question was an entirely unrelated one about changing patrons
I know that there was more than one interview with Crawford where he gushed about how cool the intended story of a warlock giving their patron a double fisted🖕🖕 salute that the patron can't do anything about as a design intent
Crawfords BS rulings and lore statements can take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm not obligated to follow his ridiculous statements. The warlock has section that is literally called Sworn and Beholden that talks about his obligations to his patron. Paladins have Oathbreaker that is enacted at the DM's discretion.

It's not gone just because Crawford spouted some words in an interview somewhere.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No they don’t. The there is no game mechanics attached to the patron. If a warlock decides that they don’t have a patron and their powers are the result of magitech experimentation, as one of my players did, the effect is absolutely nothing.
Only because you allowed it as DM. The class lore requires a patron and pact, not some magical accident. That was your choice for your game, but don't mistake that as what is happening or should happen at tables other than your own.
 

Only because you allowed it as DM. The class lore requires a patron and pact,
No it doesn’t. What part of “there are no rules” do you find so difficult to understand?

The DM cannot take away player powers, they cannot prevent the player levelling up in a class. If a player says “my warlock has no patron” there is absolutely nothing in the rules the DM can do about it apart from refuse to play with that person.
 

No it doesn’t. What part of “there are no rules” do you find so difficult to understand?

The DM cannot take away player powers, they cannot prevent the player levelling up in a class. If a player says “my warlock has no patron” there is absolutely nothing in the rules the DM can do about it apart from refuse to play with that player.
Lore is every bit as strong as rules. Stronger sometimes. That's what you are finding hard to understand apparently. If you want to re-write the warlock, good for you. I'm sure it's fun for you guys. Don't project your preferences on how the game should be, onto other tables, though.

And yes there is something the DM can do about it. He can say, "There are no warlocks in my game that don't have patrons." The DM sets the setting and the setting limitations. The PHB says to discuss with the DM setting stuff before making your character, because it can impact what you can make.

It's also a bit of hyperbole there saying that there's nothing the DM can do short of refusing to play with the player. Just telling the player that warlocks require patrons is enough. The player can then decide to have a patron or play a different class. No need to stop playing with one another.
 

Crawfords BS rulings and lore statements can take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm not obligated to follow his ridiculous statements. The warlock has section that is literally called Sworn and Beholden that talks about his obligations to his patron. Paladins have Oathbreaker that is enacted at the DM's discretion.

It's not gone just because Crawford spouted some words in an interview somewhere.
Only one of those tweets was from Crawford and you caught the post between noticing that the forum needs x changed to twitter to show the tweet. Normally Crawfords god awful hot takes are easily ignored yes, but in this case the rules and associated are written that way too.
Right. And by picking warlock the player decided to have a patron he is obligated to. That was his choice to make.
The Archfiend
The Great Old One
The Archfey
Etc
NONE of the warlock patrons are small fry, all of them are up there among those with high deific ranks in lore and description. The rogue equivalent would be if their subclasses were named things like Harper's Lord's Alliance House Deneith House Cannith and so forth.
 

It's a failure of design (IMO) with little to no input from the designers with regards to clerics, paladins and warlocks.

However, the DM is the master of the world, that much is explicit. You could determine there's an additional cost for that power as opposed to just say being a fighter.

Now you could be heavy handed or collaborative.
You could also cobble together ideas from Dungeon World and the like.
 

I appreciate all the replies and discourse, thank you! Just finished running a morning game, nice to come back to see everyone's thoughts on the matter :)

I’m not a fan of actually taking away a player’s class features unless that’s something the player has specifically discussed with me as something they’re interested in exploring. So personally, I wouldn’t have a patron actually take away a warlock’s power, unless there was another new source of power lined up. So if a player wants their warlock to do the Spawn or Ghost Rider thing of using their patron’s powers against their patron, I would have the patron initially be slow to catch on, and move the story in a direction towards a new source of power becoming available to the warlock at around the same time the conflict comes to a head and the patron is on the verge of withholding their power. But, that’s personal preference, and given that you’ve expressed preference for being able to take away a cleric or paladin’s class features if they turn against their deity or violate their oath, you could treat a warlock displeasing their patron the same way.
I'm not a fan of taking away class features either- I've never found it necessary! But the framework, the guidelines, the consequences are built in. For example I was running for some relatively new players, one of the PCs was an oath of devotion paladin; they helped a party member steal a magic cloak by lying to the owner. "Don't lie or cheat." That night they had a dream-visitation from their deity, a thematic scene where they were reminded of their oath.
The player asked if they could switch up deity and oath to Ancients after that 😂 (answer was yes, I let players change things up in the first few levels as they're still getting a feel for the character/game/party needs n' dynamic)

I find it helps to think of Warlock patrons as, well, patrons. You know, wealthy nobles who would pay artists to fund their art. It’s not really a business relationship - the patron doesn’t technically have any say over what the artist makes, they’re just kind of donating to enable the artist to keep doing what they do, because the patron likes what the artist does. That said, there is an understanding that continued patronage is not guaranteed, if the patron no longer likes what the artist is doing with the money the patron gives them. There is an incentive for the artist to focus on the kind of art they know their patron likes, and if their patron ever offers a suggestion of something they’d like to see from the artist, there’s an incentive to give that request special consideration.

Now, consider a similar relationship, but instead of an artist it’s a warlock, and instead of money it’s magical powers. Rather than a warlock having a contract with specific terms they must fulfill, a patron donates power to a warlock because they expect the warlock will do things with that magic that will serve the patron’s interests. The warlock isn’t technically obligated to do anything specific, but knowing that their magic is a gift from their patron, they are incentivized to keep their patron happy with the arrangement. And if their patron ever makes a specific request of the warlock, the warlock should give it special consideration.

On the mechanical side of things, the warlock gets their abilities from leveling up, just like any other class does. Consider this as representing the warlock’s skill with the power their patron granted them increasing, much like an artist’s skill increases as they regularly practice their art. As long as the power keeps flowing, the warlock is free to operate more or less independently. But, if the patron doesn’t like what the warlock is doing, that power is not guaranteed to keep flowing. For example, a devil patron may love it when their warlock uses their power to kill demons, but be less keen on them using it to kill devils. An Archfey may be all too happy to supply a warlock with power in hopes of simply stirring up some shenanigans, but become displeased if that power is turned towards maintaining order within a rigidly structured society. A great old one’s motives may be entirely inscrutable to their warlock, though using it may slowly drive the warlock to madness.

Yeah the art patron thing is an excellent comparison. I suppose warlocks require extra work on everyone's part to create and lay down some expectations; it kind of sucks that nothing was provided or suggested? Imagine if each warlock patron had something akin to a paladin oath- not an oath, but contract/pact examples. At least that'd be something to work off of, to riff on!

To whoever was saying "it should be totally in the warlocks hands," I'd be fine a warlock player coming up with some terms n' such because it'd be something, and I could curate it if necessary to be appropriate/fit things.

So yeah a lot of this comes down to basically sitting down with a warlock player at session 0 and hammering something out. A little web-searching has showed me that I'm not the first person to have these sorts of questions regarding the warlock, I'm sure some people out there have come up with some examples n' suggestions to inspire.
 


Has anyone else had this problem with warlocks?

No. I have never had a problem with Warlocks BECAUSE I don't require anything from them. In fact, I do not require any narrative from anyone including Clerics and Paladins, and I do not bestow mechanical punishments to a player who doesn't deliver an expected narrative.

If someone wants to play their PC against the narrative premises that they chose themselves, the punishment is already self-inflicted in a mediocre roleplay experience. Even if someone chooses to play a Paladin of Devotion and starts murdering innocent, I am not going "power-stripping" or forcing him to switch to Oathbreaker (such thing in my games happens because the player has chosen it). I will tell the player that they suck at roleplay though, and suggest they either improve their interpretation, or make changes to their PC.

In the Warlock case, the very earliest inspiration for the class was "pact with a devil", which in folklore goes like selling their soul in exchange for some sort of power. And if that is fine for the player, it is totally fine for me: the Warlock sells their soul to a powerful entity, gets the power to learn magic (by themselves), and doesn't owe the entity anything else, because the entity will get their part of the pact eventually (i.e. the soul).
 


Remove ads

Top