How Involved Should The DM Be As A Warlock's Patron?

[Paul Farquhar]

I tend to consider the patron as secondary character controlled by the player (unless they decide to abuse it by having the patron show up in person). It's not like any other class has the DM sitting on their shoulder telling them what to do.

 

[5ekyu]

"Sworn and beholden"

"Like cleric..diety..."

"Master and apprentice..."

"Cost of occasional services performed..."

I tend as GM to try and keep the warlock patron relation central and important and it is understood by the player that this is an active entity, an ongoing bond, an important part of the campaign and spotlight on the character.

Want power without that? See Wizard or Sorc.

But, of course, any game, any table, any gm might choose otherwise and ignore those features.

And like all NPCs, not run by the player.

 

[Li Shenron]

As the title says, how involved should I be as the DM portraying a warlock's patron? I have a player starting a Celestial warlock in a new campaign. He is a younger player, with decent role-playing instincts, but none of my players have ever put a lot of thought or effort into a backstory. It's always like pulling teeth...

I have asked him a series of questions, probing for his expectations, and I have a starting point. Now, do I fill in the gaps (e.g. Patron's attitude, special terms of the contract, etc)? Or do I just go hands off? It just seems like a wasted opportunity to ignore. To me, a Patron is much more hands on than an aloof deity of a cleric...

Thoughts?

Why don't you ask your player upfront about how much (s)he wants you to be involved?

Some players may certainly respond well and be grateful to have RP opportunities and quests given, but other players may just hate it that you might end up pulling strings on their PC, if it starts to feel too much that the patron is forcing them to do this or not to do that, while other PCs are totally free.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I have, after decade of coaxing, unlocked the special Get Girlfriend to Play D&D feat.
Her character is a Tiefling Warlock (Fey Tome). She likes the idea of the Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair from Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, so I’ve gone with that idea. Going to make it so that mirrors are her connection to him. There’s an established character voice there but it does lend itself to more RP than simple delivery of goodies mechanics. I definitely will look into the geas idea, seems perfect for this Patron.

 

[Warpiglet]

As the title says, how involved should I be as the DM portraying a warlock's patron? I have a player starting a Celestial warlock in a new campaign. He is a younger player, with decent role-playing instincts, but none of my players have ever put a lot of thought or effort into a backstory. It's always like pulling teeth...

I have asked him a series of questions, probing for his expectations, and I have a starting point. Now, do I fill in the gaps (e.g. Patron's attitude, special terms of the contract, etc)? Or do I just go hands off? It just seems like a wasted opportunity to ignore. To me, a Patron is much more hands on than an aloof deity of a cleric...

Thoughts?

I like a mutual relationship.

I developed a fallen angel patron for my warlock (fiend pact). The character thinks it is simply an angel, but he is deceived. I play him as I wish and then the DM sort of adds things about visions or messages that enhance the roleplay experience.

What I would avoid is the need to control and punish. The player wants to play a character. Work together. I hate it when the DM tries to make a bunch of uncomfortable unfun demands or you "lose your powers."

I understand it when a Lawful Good cleric acts in a evil fashion consistently, but hate the punishment and control thing.

I wanted to play a deceived clergy-man who thinks he is holy but has been listening to a very smooth talking serpent. If the DM forces a different direction, he might as well tell me to play some other character.

I say collaboration...player and DM get excited about making the them MORE not different like actors playing off of eachother.

 

[Syntallah]

Thanks for all the input, gang, much appreciated.

To clarify, I never intended to be heavy handed with the player, I will very much gauge his intent and read the Table to see what is working and what is not. I was simply reading through Xanathar's (specifically, the Patron Attitudes and Special Terms tables), and was curious to know how other DMs have handled this topic...

 

[Hjorimir]

As the DM, I feel free to use the patron as little or as much as I want at any given time. At the end of the day, it's just another story hook. It could be a random NPC or one connected to one of the characters...and a warlock's patron is an interesting one by default. If a warlock player somehow feels "cheated" here, it's only because they don't understand the construct of the game.

It's like players that will do everything in their power to kill an opponent for fear of reprisal. Generally, they hate recurring villains, but it's a pointless thing to worry about. The DM is going to come up with an antagonist to keep adventures going, so does it really matter if it's a recurring villain? Somebody is going to be bad to your characters in a D&D campaign.

So, back on point, if the DM wants to create an NPC to compel/push the characters into a certain course of action, they will. It's okay - and interesting - if that NPC is the warlock's patron... or the cleric's god.... or the knight's liege lord... etc.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

I find generally players want a free hand, all the power but no responsibility. I am currently DMing a Celestial Warlock and once we established what the patron wanted for the granted power, the player has been left to play it as she sees fit, but on two occasions the Patron has given her a nudge in the course of actions. Seems to work well though the story will lead to a greater interaction down the track (as the Warlock becomes more powerful).

 

[Riley37]

On the other hand, if it's a great old one you really don't want them to notice you. Think "if they notice I'm siphoning power from them, it could trigger a minor apocalypse". Think more along the lines of you're getting power from Cthullu.

That's the typical GOO. The range which is available, within the RAW for GOO, includes other options. I DMed for a player who had not really thought much about his Patron. I decided that the Patron was a 17th-dimension intelligence, doing something parallel to a graduate student's research on fruit flies, trying to understand them better, by making direct contact with one of them. The short lives of creatures limited to only the first 3 dimensions was a fascinating topic for the Patron, who never fully understood what eating is all about, nor roads. (I mean, why not just use the 9th-dimension shortcut... oh, right, I guess you can't. So you combine bricks and wood to make roads? Are sheep and wheat involved? Why not ore?)

Intelligence way beyond ours, check. Techniques not available to most mortals, check. Bizarre, check. Hostile, not at all - though occasionally careless. (You realize how flammable ants are, when you examine them with a magnifying glass under bright sunlight.) Most importantly: fun for the DM, for the player, and for the other players overhearing the warlock-patron conversations.

My favorite scene happened when the PCs captured an NPC cultist of Tiamat. Tiamat granted the cultist another Warlock level and an Invocation suitable for escaping. The PC's patron, however, 'eavesdropped" on the conversation between Tiamat and cultist, woke up the PC, imparted the "intercepted" Invocation to the PC, and then the PC interrupted the Tiamat cultist's escape attempt. It took the PC a while to realize that "Entity 2389" was his Patron's way of referring to Tiamat, and that the cultist was a warlock (the cultist had not revealed any magic during or after the capture).

Obviously the real answer is what makes sense for your world and what you think will be most fun. Don't fall into the trap of trying to force your players to play the way you "think" they should. For some people, background fluff is irrelevant to their enjoyment of the game. So encourage and reward, but don't badger or punish if they aren't playing the "right" way.

And there, Oofta, is where I agree with you, 100%, word for word.

 

[Riley37]

My favorite scene on the player's side: party includes a full warlock, patron Raven Queen, and my paladin/warlock, patron the Great Dryad (Archfey). The RQlock wanted to add Speak with Animals to his tome, and my paladin has Speak with Animals as an Ancients paladin. By RAW, a tomelock can only copy from a spellbook, not from a paladin who lacks ritual spellcasting. But with our DM, it was worth trying, and even if it failed, the attempt might be fun RP, so the RQlock turned into a raven and the Ancients paladin cast Speak with Animals, and we went from there. (If nothing else, it was an opportunity to ask, in a Yoda-sensei voice, "What does the fox say?").


Anyways, the two PCs were having a conversation, in raven language, when the Raven Queen joined the chat, and then so did the Great Dryad, for a four-way conversation. The two patrons had each been steering their warlocks towards confrontation with a mutual enemy - a necromancer whom the Dryad sees as an insult to life, and whom the Raven Queen sees as an insult to death. So when the two of us came out of the forest and rejoined the party's camp, we had a new quest for everyone!

DM played the Great Dryad and the Raven Queen more or less simultaneously. I dunno how he does it.