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

[Neonchameleon]

Ah yes, arguing for hearts and minds, very productive in a thread asking for exactly what your pushing again.

Essentially, thread crapping? Impressive.

My primary hope is always to learn. I'll now defend GP for XP as very legitimate because of a thread like this.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not really the transformation that's problematic. It isn't even really about invoking a consequence. It's more about the idea that the GM is evaluating your play, finding it lacking, and then administering punishment.

It's deep in the DNA of the game, with paladins getting forced back into fighter, or behaviors being judged for alignment change that then gives an XP penalty, or even not awarding XP to a dual-class character who uses abilities from their starting class. That framework of judgment is still common in the mindsets of players of the earlier generations (myself included), and is where the primary pushback comes from.

I think the old concerns from 1e and 2e are coloring viewpoints here and causing misperceptions to occur. We aren't saying that we are evaluating play, finding it lacking, and then administering a punishment. What we are doing is the basic play loop.

The DM describes the environment(the patron shows up and would like the warlock to attend the ball at the palace.) The player declares what his PC does(flips off his patron). The DM narrates the results(announces the consequences that emerge from the PC actions). It's not a punishment when his patron becomes enraged at that sort of behavior. It's just naturally how things could/would proceed from that interaction.

If it were me there would be a bit more to it than that. I'd look at who the patron is, because some would be more or less forgiving than others. How reliable the warlock has been in the past. How much the patron likes or dislikes the warlock at this point. And so on. Then I'd make some sort of reaction roll based on those things and narrate an appropriate resulting consequence, which might even be nothing at all depending on how things shook out. On the other hand, if this is the 12th time the warlock has acted this way, the patron hates the warlock, the patron is a demon prince, and I roll low, it's going to go very badly for the PC.

A secondary concern is that for games in a neotrad framework, like 5e is typically played, character concept and visualization is a primary play goal. Having that visualization disrupted by an undesired consequence (like a conversion to Oathbreaker) can violate those play goals. Personally, I like leaving my characters open to change through play, even drastic transformations (that's one of the parts of OSR play I enjoy), but there's a large swathe of players, the ones who drop $50 on a HeroForge mini or work on detailed backstories, who absolutely do not want something that grossly interrupts their character's assumed arc.

Sure. In my experience, though, the overwhelming majority of the time the player isn't going to go so far off the rails like that. If the vision is constant and they've bought that mini, they are going to uphold that vision and the oaths. If there is an arc that will involve a complete fall or temporary fall and redemption, the player is going to talk to the DM about it and get the DM on board, so if oathbreaker happens, it is part of that vision.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the old concerns from 1e and 2e are coloring viewpoints here and causing misperceptions to occur. We aren't saying that we are evaluating play, finding it lacking, and then administering a punishment. What we are doing is the basic play loop.

The DM describes the environment(the patron shows up and would like the warlock to attend the ball at the palace.) The player declares what his PC does(flips off his patron). The DM narrates the results(announces the consequences that emerge from the PC actions). It's not a punishment when his patron becomes enraged at that sort of behavior. It's just naturally how things could/would proceed from that interaction.

If it were me there would be a bit more to it than that. I'd look at who the patron is, because some would be more or less forgiving than others. How reliable the warlock has been in the past. How much the patron likes or dislikes the warlock at this point. And so on. Then I'd make some sort of reaction roll based on those things and narrate an appropriate resulting consequence, which might even be nothing at all depending on how things shook out. On the other hand, if this is the 12th time the warlock has acted this way, the patron hates the warlock, the patron is a demon prince, and I roll low, it's going to go very badly for the PC.

I agree with all of this.

The point where we may differ, I believe, is that I don't feel like removing a character's power (like is often advocated for clerics, paladins, and warlocks) is ever an appropriate consequence within the game, and I actively shape my settings' cosmological underpinnings to make that true.

I also believe that the text within the 5e PHB gives me more than enough latitude to make that determination without falling into a category of "house rule" that I need to explain to my players prior to the game. (Not that I won't explain it if asked, it just isn't a high enough priority to spell out, like I do with house rules that are often encountered.)

Sure. In my experience, though, the overwhelming majority of the time the player isn't going to go so far off the rails like that. If the vision is constant and they've bought that mini, they are going to uphold that vision and the oaths. If there is an arc that will involve a complete fall or temporary fall and redemption, the player is going to talk to the DM about it and get the DM on board, so if oathbreaker happens, it is part of that vision.

I agree with that as well. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't want to play a paladin who isn't tempted to Oathbreak, but I'd want to work with the GM as to how all that goes down.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with all of this.

The point where we may differ, I believe, is that I don't feel like removing a character's power (like is often advocated for clerics, paladins, and warlocks) is ever an appropriate consequence within the game, and I actively shape my settings' cosmological underpinnings to make that true.

I also believe that the text within the 5e PHB gives me more than enough latitude to make that determination without falling into a category of "house rule" that I need to explain to my players prior to the game. (Not that I won't explain it if asked, it just isn't a high enough priority to spell out, like I do with house rules that are often encountered.)

For my part I do believe that it is an appropriate consequence, but I would never do it suddenly. If a warlock were straying badly, there would first be dreams and omens. If those didn't work(from the patron's perspective), then every once in a while the power would fail in a round of combat. If the warlock continued on, the power would go for a day. And so on. If it ever got to the point where the warlock lost power long term, the player would have to be knowingly pushing for it to happen.

I agree with that as well. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't want to play a paladin who isn't tempted to Oathbreak, but I'd want to work with the GM as to how all that goes down.

 

[Blue]

I think that's more because those books don't use NPCs that join the party as an equal. The 5e DMG suggested PC class levels for NPCs who were going to be party members.

Perfectly fine, but we're at the point were I hope everyone can agree that classes are player-facing, not in-world constructs in 5e, regardless of preference one way or the other. Which is what the point in context of this Warlock conversation was.

 

[Blue]

There are millions of them. Every 5e PC fighter in every D&D game uses the same progression.

Which is entirely meaningless as a statement. Can I claim that if I use houserules in character creation that those houserules exist in your world because they exist somewhere? No, of course not.

So we have, in any particular world, a bare handful of Fighters (class), and a whole load of fighters (english word). And just like the real world, where not every EMT, bricklayer, coder, bookseller, garbage man, middle manager, actuary, nor HR rep has the same progression, neither do "fighters" in world.

 

[Blue]

The thing is "Paladins lose their powers for an evil act" hasn't been part of mainline D&D's rules since 2008 and has never been a part of the most popular version of D&D in history.

You are either not playing 5e or are dumpster diving through previous editions to pull out a bad rule from them and insert it in as a house rule.

Yeah, 5e Paladins don't lose their powers for an evil act. However, according to the 5e rules (2013!PHB pg 86, "Breaking Your Oath") we do have:

"If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide."

So in 5e it's not evil, it's breaking the tenets of their chosen oath. And it very much is listed as part of the 5e.

Mind you, this is also the most severe. A paladin breaking their oath who is penitent has a whole range of minor things, like holding prayer vigil, fasting, getting absolution from a cleric/paladin of their faith. So it is entirely within the player's ability to avoid that last bit, even after breaking one's oath willfully. And it doesn't come into play unless the oathbreaking was willful. "Ooops, you had no way to know it but..." doesn't break it.

EDIT: @TwoSix , just saw in a later post that you mentioned that you don't feel that removing a character's power is ever an appropriate consequence. Now, neither Warlock nor Cleric have any rules about removing power. The paladin bit above does, but replacing it with either another class or the oathbreaker, and is entirely within the player's control not to let escalate to that point, so seems like it is a conscious choice of the player to swap abilities. Is that acceptable?

 

[TwoSix]

EDIT: @TwoSix , just saw in a later post that you mentioned that you don't feel that removing a character's power is ever an appropriate consequence. Now, neither Warlock nor Cleric have any rules about removing power. The paladin bit above does, but replacing it with either another class or the oathbreaker, and is entirely within the player's control not to let escalate to that point, so seems like it is a conscious choice of the player to swap abilities. Is that acceptable?

I'm pretty much always OK if the player is on board. The "willfully violate" portion of the text is important, and definitely eases concerns I might otherwise have.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The paladin bit above does

No it doesn’t. It suggests multiclassing or subclass respecing, which are part of the rules, not removing powers, which are not. Bottom line, the DM has no powers to punish players, any more than the players are allowed to punish the DM. Everyone is equal, the DM is not judge, jury and executioner.

Becides, the 2024 tenets are so broad you would have to be trying really hard to break them.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with all of this.

The point where we may differ, I believe, is that I don't feel like removing a character's power (like is often advocated for clerics, paladins, and warlocks) is ever an appropriate consequence within the game, and I actively shape my settings' cosmological underpinnings to make that true.

I also believe that the text within the 5e PHB gives me more than enough latitude to make that determination without falling into a category of "house rule" that I need to explain to my players prior to the game. (Not that I won't explain it if asked, it just isn't a high enough priority to spell out, like I do with house rules that are often encountered.)


I agree with that as well. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't want to play a paladin who isn't tempted to Oathbreak, but I'd want to work with the GM as to how all that goes down.

Trouble is the fact that knowing those kinds of consequence could be on the table was the grease & fuel powering everything else coming into play before that point. It says a lot that the folks defending the 5e-ism of consequence immunity by pointing exclusively to removing PVC power as the first last and only goal while those on the other side of things can talk about things more broadly.

For example: Wayyyy back in post 6 I gave an example from actual play with a player at my table that shows how the total severing of consequence being welded to an encouragement for them to resist the class's basic conceit eliminates the entire "oh cool I better step out here & take point on [doing thing] so I can get some brownie points" set of proactive PC & stern look from patron to PC fueled motivations... I could be wrong, but I think the " neotrad" crowd calls players acting out things like that italicized sorta behavior "ROLEplaying", seems fretting over possible power loss is just mere "ROLLplay".