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

[Charlaquin]

I appreciate all the replies and discourse, thank you! Just finished running a morning game, nice to come back to see everyone's thoughts on the matter


I'm not a fan of taking away class features either- I've never found it necessary! But the framework, the guidelines, the consequences are built in. For example I was running for some relatively new players, one of the PCs was an oath of devotion paladin; they helped a party member steal a magic cloak by lying to the owner. "Don't lie or cheat." That night they had a dream-visitation from their deity, a thematic scene where they were reminded of their oath.
The player asked if they could switch up deity and oath to Ancients after that (answer was yes, I let players change things up in the first few levels as they're still getting a feel for the character/game/party needs n' dynamic)



Yeah the art patron thing is an excellent comparison. I suppose warlocks require extra work on everyone's part to create and lay down some expectations; it kind of sucks that nothing was provided or suggested? Imagine if each warlock patron had something akin to a paladin oath- not an oath, but contract/pact examples. At least that'd be something to work off of, to riff on!

To whoever was saying "it should be totally in the warlocks hands," I'd be fine a warlock player coming up with some terms n' such because it'd be something, and I could curate it if necessary to be appropriate/fit things.

So yeah a lot of this comes down to basically sitting down with a warlock player at session 0 and hammering something out. A little web-searching has showed me that I'm not the first person to have these sorts of questions regarding the warlock, I'm sure some people out there have come up with some examples n' suggestions to inspire.

I actually wouldn’t lay out the terms in the beginning. That makes it more of a formal contract. I prefer the warlock/patron relationship to be more informal, like art patronage. There aren’t specific terms, just a gentleman’s agreement of quid-pro-quo. Indeed, I would have the patron start out giving the warlock power with no strings attached. The first hit is free, and all that. Let them use the power as much as they like so they become accustomed to having it, reliant on it, and afraid to lose it. Then have the patron (or one of their emissaries) show up to ask the warlock for a favor. Something small, seemingly harmless, like a nail. And don’t necessarily threaten that continued patronage is dependent on this favor, but just point out that the patron has been so generous, it only seems fair that the warlock be willing to return that kindness. Then slowly ramp it up. Start asking for favors more often, and have them be of greater significance. When/if the warlock shows reticence, lean harder into the idea that the patron made the warlock; they would be nobody without this power. Isn’t that worth a little sacrifice now and then? Keep ramping it up, turning the screws, until the warlock starts seriously considering refusing to do what the patron wants, and then hit them with the “I gave you this power, and I can take it away.” Don’t actually take it away, even if the warlock refuses (again, unless you’ve agreed with the player ahead of time that losing their class is on the table). But the looming threat of that power loss, and trying to skirt the boundaries of what you can get away with before the patron makes good on their threats to take the power away is part of the fun of roleplaying a warlock.

 

[Distracted DM]

I actually wouldn’t lay out the terms in the beginning. That makes it more of a formal contract. I prefer the warlock/patron relationship to be more informal, like art patronage. There aren’t specific terms, just a gentleman’s agreement of quid-pro-quo. Indeed, I would have the patron start out giving the warlock power with no strings attached. The first hit is free, and all that. Let them use the power as much as they like so they become accustomed to having it, reliant on it, and afraid to lose it. Then have the patron (or one of their emissaries) show up to ask the warlock for a favor. Something small, seemingly harmless, like a nail. And don’t necessarily threaten that continued patronage is dependent on this favor, but just point out that the patron has been so generous, it only seems fair that the warlock be willing to return that kindness. Then slowly ramp it up. Start asking for favors more often, and have them be of greater significance. When/if the warlock shows reticence, lean harder into the idea that the patron made the warlock; they would be nobody without this power. Isn’t that worth a little sacrifice now and then? Keep ramping it up, turning the screws, until the warlock starts seriously considering refusing to do what the patron wants, and then hit them with the “I gave you this power, and I can take it away.” Don’t actually take it away, even if the warlock refuses (again, unless you’ve agreed with the player ahead of time that losing their class is on the table). But the looming threat of that power loss, and trying to skirt the boundaries of what you can get away with before the patron makes good on their threats to take the power away is part of the fun of roleplaying a warlock.

Yeah that's another good recommendation!
I did think to check some Dungeon Crawl Classics sources- I use the carousing-downtime rules from Knights in the North frequently, and after some googling re: DCC patron requests I saw that someone pointed to a KitN Patron Demand table! Ya know I use those things so often I should probably see if they have a patreon or something so I can give a little back... (edit: yup)

Really I just need something to work with.

No. I have never had a problem with Warlocks BECAUSE I don't require anything from them. In fact, I do not require any narrative from anyone including Clerics and Paladins, and I do not bestow mechanical punishments to a player who doesn't deliver an expected narrative.

If someone wants to play their PC against the narrative premises that they chose themselves, the punishment is already self-inflicted in a mediocre roleplay experience. Even if someone chooses to play a Paladin of Devotion and starts murdering innocent, I am not going "power-stripping" or forcing him to switch to Oathbreaker (such thing in my games happens because the player has chosen it). I will tell the player that they suck at roleplay though, and suggest they either improve their interpretation, or make changes to their PC.

In the Warlock case, the very earliest inspiration for the class was "pact with a devil", which in folklore goes like selling their soul in exchange for some sort of power. And if that is fine for the player, it is totally fine for me: the Warlock sells their soul to a powerful entity, gets the power to learn magic (by themselves), and doesn't owe the entity anything else, because the entity will get their part of the pact eventually (i.e. the soul).

I probably should've specified that this whole dilemma only came about because one of my players was quite disappointed with Warlocks' lack of patron interaction during a short campaign we had; so after talking it out with them, I ended up making this thread in an effort to gain insights from the folk here
I've had other warlock players but til now they basically just played them as, and I categorized them in my head as, "different-mechanics sorcerers" (which funny enough is how the 3e class was pitched).. just because I didn't know what to make of them.

 

[Maxperson]

Only one of those tweets was from Crawford and you caught the post between noticing that the forum needs x changed to twitter to show the tweet. Normally Crawfords god awful hot takes are easily ignored yes, but in this case the rules and associated are written that way too.

Rules and lore need to match. In the case where there are no mechanics, the lore is where the default is. The 5e warlock lore is written so that the warlocks are sworn and beholden to their patron's wishes.

The Archfiend
The Great Old One
The Archfey
Etc
NONE of the warlock patrons are small fry, all of them are up there among those with high deific ranks in lore and description. The rogue equivalent would be if their subclasses were named things like Harper's Lord's Alliance House Deneith House Cannith and so forth.

I'm not sure what rogues have to do with this. The patron being not a small fry is capable of finding and demanding results from those sworn to them. The Great Old One might not bother, though. They don't think normally. Or they might even start transforming those warlocks who betray their oaths into some sort of spawn of the stars or something.

 

[Maxperson]

A contract would only be appropriate for a devil patron. Demons, GOOs and fairies aren’t much into paperwork.

Why would you think such a contract would require paperwork? All it takes is, "I'll give you this power, but you have to do X, Y and Z in return. Do you agree?" If yes, contract! Even demons and great old ones do that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Really? Thats not surprising considering the direction of D&D but a bit disappointing regardless.

Yes 5e goes wayyy out of its way to ensure that PCs don't actually need anything
~34:30 https://twitter.co,.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/850183402808463365
the earlier post19 warlock specific tweets
The ramifications of that design choice to ensure players don't need anything from the GM's world come up with the warlock/paladin/cleric classes, a few times in the TN/alignment thread, & it even extends to the god awful designed - rest mechanics.

It's a failure of design (IMO) with little to no input from the designers with regards to clerics, paladins and warlocks.

agreed 100%. Unfortunately someone was so excited to push their Sam & Dean Winchester/Crowley or Constantine/lucifer fanfic that they moved the needle wayyyyyyyy beyond the point where the player had any reason to care & the GM was effectively unable to have the power granting entity/force push back after having a stern look ignored

However, the DM is the master of the world, that much is explicit. You could determine there's an additional cost for that power as opposed to just say being a fighter.

Now you could be heavy handed or collaborative.
You could also cobble together ideas from Dungeon World and the like.

That bold bit is where RAW and it's associated fluff matters to an absolutely critical degree. With 5e, the Overton-window equivalent shifted so far that should the GM have anything in that world they supposedly master push back when a player takes actions as if their PC doesn't care or the player themselves simply responds to a stern look from the powers that be by simply calling the GM's "master of worlds" bluff by completely ignoring it. At that point the GM can either ignore it & continue as is or pull one of

Spoiler: These Levers

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGMIsACheatingBastard

Killer Game Master - TV Tropes

Opposite to the Monty Haul Game Master who heaps rewards by the truckful upon their players, the Killer Game-Master has set themself up as a hostile entity playing against them. To this person, it hasn't been a good day until the players have …

tvtropes.org

Railroading - TV Tropes

Being the Game Master of a Tabletop RPG campaign is a difficult business: Regardless of whatever exciting Story Arcs you've planned and worked out in advance, there's no guarantee that your human cohorts will proceed according to plan. After all …

tvtropes.org

Simply declaring the GM to be a master of worlds has no value when discussing areas of the game where the rules lore & fluff were designed to ensure the GM lacks enough authority to keep metaphorical soft power stern looks credible
All of those are choices that poison the social contract & doom a campaign.

 

[Scribe]

Yes 5e goes wayyy out of its way to ensure that PCs don't actually need anything
~34:30 https://twitter.co,.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/850183402808463365
the earlier post19 warlock specific tweets
The ramifications of that design choice to ensure players don't need anything from the GM's world come up with the warlock/paladin/cleric classes, a few times in the TN/alignment thread, & it even extends to the god awful designed - rest mechanics.


agreed 100%. Unfortunately someone was so excited to push their Sam & Dean Winchester/Crowley or Constantine/lucifer fanfic that they moved the needle wayyyyyyyy beyond the point where the player had any reason to care & the GM was effectively unable to have the power granting entity/force push back after having a stern look ignored

That bold bit is where RAW and it's associated fluff matters to an absolutely critical degree. With 5e, the Overton-window equivalent shifted so far that should the GM have anything in that world they supposedly master push back when a player takes actions as if their PC doesn't care or the player themselves simply responds to a stern look from the powers that be by simply calling the GM's "master of worlds" bluff by completely ignoring it. At that point the GM can either ignore it & continue as is or pull one of

Spoiler: These Levers

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGMIsACheatingBastard

Killer Game Master - TV Tropes

Opposite to the Monty Haul Game Master who heaps rewards by the truckful upon their players, the Killer Game-Master has set themself up as a hostile entity playing against them. To this person, it hasn't been a good day until the players have …

tvtropes.org

Railroading - TV Tropes

Being the Game Master of a Tabletop RPG campaign is a difficult business: Regardless of whatever exciting Story Arcs you've planned and worked out in advance, there's no guarantee that your human cohorts will proceed according to plan. After all …

tvtropes.org

Simply declaring the GM to be a master of worlds has no value when discussing areas of the game where the rules lore & fluff were designed to ensure the GM lacks enough authority to keep metaphorical soft power stern looks credible
All of those are choices that poison the social contract & doom a campaign.

Yeah it's just very unsatisfying isn't it?

Oh well, other games, other companies.

Play more Shadowdark folks.