Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 9738395" data-attributes="member: 5948">Yeah, I'd definitely want to allow that type of storyline to play out. It's too dramatic and iconic, and I'd hate to close that storytelling door.The question is how it works.  If the templar turns against their patron and the patron finds out ... then what?  Is it possible for the sorcerer-king to withdraw their favour from the templar, and strip him of his templar abilities?  Given the nature of templarhood as written in all the lore, it should seem to be so, and rnouncing the service of one's evil arch-defiler monarch while still happily tapping into their power to Eldritch Blast people seems to undermine the redemption message more than a bit.  But if a patron CAN cut off their warlock, how does the game continue with one PC so comprehensively hamstrung?  And if they can't, what meaning does the pact have in the first place?  Pacts bind BOTH parties.Sorceror-kings are very powerful but much less so than gods in most D&D settings.  They're not even slightly omnicient, so it's quite possible a careful turncoat templar could avoid discovery for a long time.  But eventually it's going to come to a head, through a dramatic plot nexus, or through a botched Deception roll.  If it were me DMing, I'd probably allow the PC to re-spec into some other class or find another patron, after a dramatically appropriate (but not too frustratingly long) period of time spent powerless and given they can make plot developments happen.  I have several players who'd be able to handle that gracefully and well, but not all would.  Dealing with a depowered PC is very awkward in-game, and is exactly the reason that clerics etc don't by RAW lose their powers by sinning against their god any more.</blockquote>

Verification