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

[Maxperson]

You mean the ones removed in 5e?

In 1st edition, the restrictions on the paladin were intended to balance the power of the class. About half way through the run of 3e WotC figured out that role play restrictions didn’t work for mechanical balance. Ergo, in 5e only mechanics figure into class balance. So, if the DM tries to impose role playing restrictions when some classes don’t have them they are being fundamentally unfair. So it’s up to the player to decide on any role playing restrictions that affect their character, such as religious tenets or patron demands. It has been removed from the DM’s purview.

No it hasn't been removed from the DM's purview and given to the player. It has been reduced, though.

First, the oaths are built into the class via the subclass. Those are not player created, though the DM and player could easily come up with some different ones. Default, though, it's in the subclass.

Second, the DM has the Oathbreaker subclass to use if the player is abusing his oaths.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No it hasn't been removed from the DM's purview and given to the player. It has been reduced, though.

First, the oaths are built into the class via the subclass. Those are not player created, though the DM and player could easily come up with some different ones. Default, though, it's in the subclass.

Second, the DM has the Oathbreaker subclass to use if the player is abusing his oaths.

There are, by design, no rules or penalties for completely ignoring it. Ergo it’s entirely up to the player to decide if they want to pay any attention to it or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

There are, by design, no rules or penalties for complete ignoring it. Ergo it’s entirely up to the player to decide if they want to pay any attention to it or not.

I mean sure, if you want your patron hunting you down or something else terrible. It's not like most of the patrons are just going to sit there and let a warlock get away with something like that. It's bad for business. Gives the other warlocks bad ideas.

I expect the players to actually roleplay their choices. Unless there's some sort of personal story arc that I've been made aware of, screwing over the patron that gave the warlock his power isn't going to work out well for the warlock, and possibly his party, or family, or friends, or... The method really depends on the patron.

And as I said, I sit down and work out the specifics of the pact with the player of the warlock. I make sure to build in agreed to consequences for betrayal that can be enacted by the patron.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean sure, if you want your patron hunting you down or something else terrible. It's not like most of the patrons are just going to sit there and let a warlock get away with something like that. It's bad for business. Gives the other warlocks bad ideas.

I expect the players to actually roleplay their choices. Unless there's some sort of personal story arc that I've been made aware of, screwing over the patron that gave the warlock his power isn't going to work out well for the warlock, and possibly his party, or family, or friends, or... The method really depends on the patron.

And as I said, I sit down and work out the specifics of the pact with the player of the warlock. I make sure to build in agreed to consequences for betrayal that can be enacted by the patron.

And do you force rogues to steal stuff?

 

[Maxperson]

And do you force rogues to steal stuff?

Do they have a nasty rogue patron who is going to cut off the fingers of his family if he doesn't? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the situation. Sometimes the rogue is part of a guild, and guilds have rules. Sometimes they are free spirits and are not obligated to an individual or organization.

In short, don't pick a class with built in obligations if you don't want to roleplay those obligations. I expect the players in my group to roleplay. I'm not interested in playing with people who just want to play numbers. They can find a different game to play in. Or I can find a different game if I've joined a game with folks who just want to play numbers and not roleplay out choices and obligations.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sometimes the rogue is part of a guild

Exactly - this is up to the player to decide. A rogue might be a middle class landowner who decides to go on an adventure.

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly - this is up to the player to decide. A rogue might be a middle class landowner who decides to go on an adventure.

Right. And by picking warlock the player decided to have a patron he is obligated to. That was his choice to make.

 

[tetrasodium]

No it hasn't been removed from the DM's purview and given to the player. It has been reduced, though.

First, the oaths are built into the class via the subclass. Those are not player created, though the DM and player could easily come up with some different ones. Default, though, it's in the subclass.

Second, the DM has the Oathbreaker subclass to use if the player is abusing his oaths.

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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Right. And by picking warlock the player decided to have a patron he is obligated to. That was his choice to make.

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 performed on them, as one of my players did, the effect is absolutely nothing.