D&D 5E Should Warlock Patrons be able to revoke a Warlock's powers if the Patron is displeased?

[S'mon]

Warlocks are not Clerics, they are not even Divine casters, and I definitely would not rule that the fiend/fey/Cthulu can revoke granted powers. They might seek to punish the Warlock in other ways, but PC-Elric can definitely act against the interests of patron-Arioch while retaining all abilities.

Divine casters such as Cleric & Paladin, I can imagine stripping them of power in some campaign settings, since in some worlds the power they serve can sever or reduce the strength of the link between character & themselves. The PC could turn to a new deity though & likely get powers restored. In other worlds the gods are remote and the Cleric can effectively do what he likes as long as he genuinely believes he's serving the deity's interests. In others the corrupt Cleric may think Pelor is granting him power when really it's coming from Zehir, CS Lewis style.

 

[Yunru]

I'm just going to chime in here and say that if you patron has taken a personal interest in you, you've got bigger problems than losing your magic.

 

[Mephista]

That's not really true

Sure it is. The core book depicts the majority of warlocks as a mentor-student relationship. The "mentor" in this case might not be making demands, or care about its student, or teach lessons inadvertantly, but it doesn't change that the relationship between Patron and Warlock is overwhelmingly described as that of master and apprentice.

With that established, we tie it back to the OP and say that the mentor can always stop teaching the apprentice in the scenario described. If the Patron doesn't care or notice? Then of course it won't stop. But that's not the scenario as described by the OP, and thus not relevant.

Which lore points to that?

Core book. Here's a few of the more obvious quotes that show it.
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."
"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf."
"At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service."
"Starting at 1st level, your patron bestows upon you the ability to project the beguiling and fearsome presence of the fey."
"Beginning at 10th level, your patron teaches you how to turn the mind-affecting magic of your enemies against them."
"Starting at 6th level. you can call on your patron to alter fate in your favor."
EDIT - Oh, here's another one I spotted in sorcerer: "Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do." Bold emphasis mine.


Now, 4e especially had a thing where you could go out and uncover ancient pacts in old ruins and research magic that way. In fact, it was a major thing for uncovering the ruins of the old tiefling empire. But 5e has put a larger emphasis on the Patron and its relationship with the warlock, quite possibly because the writers wanted to make a stronger difference between the wizard (power from individual research) and warlock (power from teacher).

 

[Quickleaf]

As written, I don't see any (game-mechanical) consequences for a Warlock accepting powers froma Patron and then using said powers in a manner that opposes the desires of his/her Patron, i.e. a Warlock with the Fiend Pact from an Arch-Devil using his powers to fight the Devil's own forces. Can a Patron revoke the powers it's granted to a Warlock? Should a Patron be able to do this? In previous editions, deities could strip a Cleric of some or all of his spells if the Cleric made his god mad - aren't Warlocks basically the Arcane equivalent of Clerics? Of course, in 5th Edition Clerics don't seem to be subject to this rule anymore, either...

By RAW, the answer is "No."

If you house rule this, I suggest being clear about which classes you're implementing the house rule for up front so your players know during character creation.

My more nuanced answer is that, yes, a warlock could wield their powers contrary to the will of the Patron. BUT...an immortal Archfiend is playing a longer term game. They don't need to implement the blunt solution of "take the toys away." No! Keep the toys. That way lies damnation. See, in a situation like that the DM needs to up his or her game to devise some real dilemmas for the player. Incentivize acting in ways that subtly support the Archfiend's plans, nothing major, just small things at first that might overlap with the players' own goals. But slowly start to probe those edges of the warlock's morality, test out the weak points and go for those. If the Archfiend is worth his salt, there will be some way to - bit by bit - leverage the warlock to be his or her own downfall. And THAT is better than stripping the warlock's powers, because corruption & taking the warlock's is the goal of such a Patron in the long term.

 

[Mephista]

By default, whatever pact the warlock makes with their patron doesn't involve their continued obedience or loyalty.

It's a business transaction, and the Patron has already received whatever payment they are owed in return for granting the warlock their powers. Or the payment won't be due until after the player has stopped playing the warlock.

That depends on the pact that the Patron and Warlock make. 5e does not assume a business deal, one-and-done, and outright says that the warlock often does need to perform favors for their Patron throughout their adventuring carreer (which can take place during downtime). "Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures,
or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures."

That is because the warlocks are mechanically balanced against the other spellcasting classes and don't have any extra penalties that the other classes don't have.

Then what about a cleric pissing off their god, the wizard having their spell books burned, the paladin breaking their oath? Druids may get their power from nature gods and elemental forces, which has all the same restrictions as a cleric, or through a "spirituality of transcendent union" with nature, which can theoretically break through an addiction to city life, drugs, gambling, etc. Bards need to perform, and a bard with a crushed larnyx or otherwise unable to perform is in trouble.

All spellcasters have some kind of "penalty," as you put it, with the sole exception of the sorcerer. And that's fine, because its what the stuff of stories is made up of.

 

[Mephista]

Warlocks are not Clerics, they are not even Divine casters,

There's no Arcane versus Divine divide in 5e. Each spellcaster has their own type - its cleric v. wizard v. warlock v. bard v. druid v. paladin v. mystic v. etc. Ranger, who uses some bits of druidism, and the eldritch knight / arcane trickster, who use some wizardry, are the only exceptions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jasper]

Hmm. Depends on the homebrew. Either the powers can do nothing to the silly bugger, or the powers can take stuff away. And the powers may send a repo squad after you. How about a middle of the road approach. Break the pact, rules, flavor, alignment, etc of the powers; then the powers allies get advantage on you in all cases.
Warlock cast a spell on powers allies, npc gets advantage always. DM does not tell the player.
Paladin has ticked off his god, and trying to bluff the towns guardsmen. God gives the guardsmen advantage.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would say "depends", and that it is dependent on the details of pact the Warlock made. Which of course if not something that is written in the game and is something the player must create via backstory, but also that the DM should have a hand in. Perhaps the player receives powers because the Entity was taken prisoner by another, and the player freed them and the powers are their payment. Perhaps the player has been a life-long devotee of this Entity, spreading their message around the lands. Perhaps the Entity is using the player in some larger scheme. Perhaps the player traded their soul for power, or sacrificed the soul of another.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Count me in the "patron sends thugs to 'ruff up' the warlock" camp (ditto for paladins, clerics, and druids). Anything the PC's can do to cause themselves problems is good for me as a DM.

I do like to know what the general terms of the pact are (I reserve the right to add fine print).
[MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]'s comments above did remind me that the fluff for the chaos sorcerer mentions demons, fey, and slaadi (and I think the Far Realm, but don't quote me on that), which are parallels for the warlock's fiend, archfey, and GOO patrons. I think it was the intent that the "consequence-free"/"never see the patron again" version of the warlock was supposed to be the chaos sorcerer.