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

[Umbran]

And you wonder why I take the view I take on your posts.

Should do the respectful and positive thing, not have to--every GM always has the right to be a huge jerk at any time and for any reason!

Mod note:

Hey.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, reinterpreting other people's posts in the worst possible way was a really crappy way to have a conversation?

Because, right now, it looks like you are looking to have a fight. And that would end with you ejected from the discussion.

If that's what you want, we can do that for you right now. If that isn't what you want, apply less outrage, and more empathy. Thanks.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have noted, repeatedly, that I'm talking about 5e's version of a warlock- which is different from the 3e version which was that some distant ancestor made a bad deal and your entire bloodline was cursed with evil power, go have fun trying to resist the foul power within you, there's no patron, that was all said and done generations ago. 4e's said "you made a pact for power with X entity, you got the power, now go have fun blasting." No further patron interaction mentioned.

5e's version specifically calls out an ongoing relationship: "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

Yup. The 5e version does but it also sandbags the GM when it comes to the patron actually doing that because every interaction can immediately be backhanded by the player with a show me the money rejection pushing for more and more sweetener from a patron instantly stuck resorting to "please please pretty please with sugar on top" while the other players are stuck twiddling their thumbs.

That's why so many of the posts trying to provide something constructive focus on the hurdles that 5e places between you the gm and the goal.

This entire promised dynamic, the class fantasy pitched to the player, provides no further guidance or mechanical backing for the DM; which is why I came here for help, because one of my players wants to have that warlock-patron relationship and up 'til now all of my warlock players have just wanted the warlock to basically be a different-rules-sorcerer.
But everyone has their own axe to grind, and it's now become another thread about DMs wanting to strangle players with rules.

This kinda depends on your players being familiar enough with the tropes and willing to play ball but it could probably smooth over some of the rough edges by breaking open and spreading the sandbags around. BMy best suggestion is to put it out in the open and go a step further into litrpg than order of the stick does where it's just 4th wall breaking to where the characters know the mechanics of d&d. Pull back to curtain and have the patron "bless" the entire party with a step into system world trope

Spoiler: system world

Unfortunately tv tropes does not have a useful entry for system or system world and the closest analogs are an awful mess. So Here's what Google describes:
A system world LitRPG is a subgenre of literary role-playing games (LitRPG) where the, normally, physical world is governed by, or merges with, a,,game-like,system,of,rules, stats, levels, skills, and quests. It features a,visible,interface, (often holographic) through which,characters,interact,with,this,system,to,progress,in,power, usually,not,in,a,VR,setting.
Key Characteristics of System World LitRPG:
The System as Rulemaker: An omniscient AI, magical force, or cosmic entity dictates the world's mechanics, assigning quests, managing stats, and defining classes.
Visible Progression: Characters have access to stat screens, skill trees, and inventory interfaces that quantify their power, common in both,Crunchy,and,Stat-Light,subgenres.
Game-like Interaction: The world operates on mechanics reminiscent of RPG video games or tabletop games, with leveling up and skill acquisition.
System Apocalypse/Integration: A common,trope,is,the,"System,Apocalypse," where the system abruptly appears in the real world, introducing monsters, magic, and,forced,survival,quests,.
Common Subtypes:
System Apocalypse: The world is forced into a,game-like,reality, abruptly, often collapsing existing civilization.
System Integration: The,system,slowly,merges,with,the,world,or,people,are,transported,into,one,.
Only MC has a System: A variation where,only,the,main,character,has,access,to,the,interface,.
These stories often focus on,progression,fantasy, elements, where the character,starts,weak,and,grinds,to,become,incredibly,powerful,by,exploiting,the,system's,rules,.

The patron can interact with the warlock through it or seamlessly switch to any interested player's PC through the usual isekai/litrpg style system interactions if they get a cold shoulder.

Allow that system interface interaction to go both ways and have fun with letting the players have their PCs interact with the system. No need for rules to it, just have fun and see where it goes. Be clear that it's a thing granted to the PCs rather than the players though... Something like the ever common status/stats/character sheet should absolutely be allowed (and maybe even hinted by the patron if players don't consider it quick), but that comes in the form of "hand me your sheet" & whatever you feel like describing to the PC with a possible side dish of things like"what is your character looking to know". Of course just because they have access to the system and the system could potentially present quests ranging from a normal quest vto "convince [PC Bob] he's being unreasonable" to "slap the [PC]" doesn't mean that they start out with full and unlimited no cost access to it and that they don't gain access to new bits useful to you/the patron or lose them as appropriate

 

[Remathilis]

Because that freedom is very useful in many ways to non-jerk GMs to do non-jerk things, whereas no amount of rules restrictions will make a jerk GM a non-jerk GM.

But it can not enable them.

If the DM wants to set up the paladin in the Kobayashi Maru to strip him of his paladinhood, he can do so. However, the 5e DM has to create the mechanism to strip him of his status and state that exists as a house rule at session zero. In AD&D, the DM need only say "hey man, the rules say X is an evil act, and I'm just playing by the rules." In both situations, the DM is being a jerk. In the former, the DM is saying "I am going to sit in judgement of your paladin'* actions" while the latter is saying "hey, the rules say you are losing your power, I'm just being an arbiter of what the rules say."

You want to be a micromanaging DM who keeps your PCs on a short leash? Own it. Put it in your house rules how whipped your clerics, warlocks and paladins (and possibly others) are going to be. Don't hide behind "but the rulebook says..." When you put those characters in "role playing situations" that screw over their class features...

 

[Scribe]

Nope. What? That was what you got out of the post? A complaint "that the warlock didn't just give all agency to the DM?"

No, that's just the loaded language trolling version.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because that freedom is very useful in many ways to non-jerk GMs to do non-jerk things, whereas no amount of rules restrictions will make a jerk GM a non-jerk GM.

The think about most jerk DMs is they believe they are not jerk DMs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The think about most jerk DMs is they believe they are not jerk DMs.

Of course. This is not an issue that can be solved by the rules either.