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

[Distracted DM]

But NPCs cannot remove PC powers

What? Where did you pull this blanket statement from?
Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be done without good reason, but it's DnD. If you're fighting the avatar of the god of magic, you better believe he could mess with the spellcasters' spells. Remove some of them, swap'em round, random bonanza, you name it.
If you're fighting a memory slug and it sucks on your brains, yeah you might lose a class feature for a bit.

If (and this has happened before) you make a bet with an extraplanar entity on a game of lawn darts that you'll forfeit your ability to magically heal if you lose, and they'll save a city if you win.. and you lose ... yes, you've lost Lay on Hands and access to any healing spells. As the DM I will probably throw the PC a bone at some point in the near future and give them something so they don't feel like they totally lost out for trying something noble, but yes NPCs can remove PC powers.

"Can't interact in any way with the meta?" Lol I'm sorry what, what makes you say that? We've literally had very powerful vindictive villain discover a player's identity in real life and try to sever their connection to their characters in the game by attempting to destroy their eternal hero statue in the immortal city of Tanelorn. We had a whole birthday session (at the player's request) based around the siege of the city and the all-stars characters from previous campaigns coming out of retirement to defend it.

I bought an illithid mask for the occasion to really spark some joy and terror and give life to the illithilich villain (Happy birthday, Chris!)

 

[Maxperson]

The patron is an NPC, and therefore run by the DM. But NPCs cannot remove PC powers, or stop them levelling, or in anyway interact with the meta. They can only act within the game world. And Cthulhu is not going to turn up in the game world to stomp a PC for being nice to little old ladies.

But he might turn the PC into a Slug From Beyond the Stars if he doesn't work towards bringing about the end of the world like he promised Cthulhu he would.

Have you ever read a dictionary? Words have more than one definition. And "formally set forth agreement" is not the only definition of the word "pact". And the D&D rules (deliberately) do not tell you which one applies - because it could be any of them.

Sure. It might be the meaning, "He pact his suitcase for his flight to Europe."

C'mon dude. It's clearly an agreement, covenant, or compact. Since that's the sort of pact that can be binding in the case of a warlock. It doesn't specify, because it's obviously not, "An agreement or treaty between two nations."

And even "formally set forth agreements" can (and often are) be broken.

Not when they are magically binding like is specified with Warlocks.

"Stories of warlocks binding themselves to fiends are widely known."

"Some patrons collect warlocks, doling out mystic knowledge relatively freely or boasting of their ability to bind mortals to their will."

And if the pacts weren't binding(or at least always honored by the patron) in both directions, there would be no warlocks with a wisdom higher than 6.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But he might turn the PC into a Slug From Beyond the Stars if he doesn't work towards bringing about the end of the world like he promised Cthulhu he would.

If you think that, you haven't understood Cthulhu. Cthulhu is beyond noticing their human followers. Cthulhu doesn't care about ending the world. If that happens, it's just treading on an ant when their followers poke them awake.

And this is the thing. No matter how legalistically you interpret class fluff, these things are clear:

The player chooses their patron, from within a very board range of parameters.

The player decides the nature and terms of the pact.

Thus, it is very easy for the player to choose a pact that will be supportive, indifferent or powerless to interfere with how they play their character.

Thus, if there is a conflict with the patron, it is because the player has chosen to set it up. Just as a rogue player may choose to have their character owe money to a fat slimy crime lord. The DM will then become involved in how the conflict plays out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What? Where did you pull this blanket statement from?

It's not in the rules. The same goes for clerics, paladins, etc. There are no rules in 5e for removing PC powers or denying them advancement.

 

[tetrasodium]

What? Where did you pull this blanket statement from?

Spoiler: Paraphrased from here perhaps?

Seems pretty close to word for word with the first & definitely in sentiment for both. I'd not be surprised if one of the videos where Crawford gushed on exactly that has him saying it there too.

Unfortunately it's a badly designed message said so loudly & clearly in 5e's design along with a decade of messaging from wotc that

The rules say otherwise. The DM does in fact have a say in how active the patron is. At least in 5e.

"Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career."

Except wotc has effectively redefined what "work with your GM" means by deciding that the GM is no longer a mere role at the game table & treating the GM "roleJob" as simply a service provider for so long. You need only look at the recent tortle thread for hundreds of pages with examples of how that choice of bad design & messaging where the GM saying "that PC doesn't fit because $reason but these seemingly important parts could kinda fit [like so] & I'm willing to add to/alter this bit of the world [in this way] to carry a little more, but the full tortle still doesn't fit" is repeatedly painted as the GM refusing to "work with" the player who has decided to run with the baton wotc loudly & clearly handed them by deciding "I want X in every way & your world will allow it because it's MyChArEcTeR Do your Job" .

 

[AnotherGuy]

What doesn't get mentioned enough is the positive thing about players having characters that are clerics, paladins and warlocks - which is the opportunity for collaborative world building.
Contracts, oaths, alignment, rituals, orders, attire, bonds, ideals, flaws, relationships with like and non-like minded individuals and factions, allies and enemies, public perception, side quests, tailored spells and invocations, relics, holy symbols & spell foci, theological or ideological doctrine and arguments, communication (if any) with the patron...etc

And this does not have to be limited to the player with that character alone to create ideas, the whole table can offer input as you pull the ones that best suit the campaign and the table.

You could also have a player that is actually comfortable not peeking behind the curtain, hoping to be surprised by the DM's ingenuity.

If you really have an asshat who wishes to ignore it all, without any explanation or consequences, then they are likely not suited to your playstyle.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if the GM wants of course the gods can take away the cleric's powers and the patrons the warlock's powers. Though it probably would be the best to inform the player that this is how it works before they choose the class.

But the reason why this is more relevant to warlocks rather than clerics, paladins or druids, is that thematically the warlock/patron relationship has chances to be way more antagonistic than on the divine side. The divine caster might be expected to some degree uphold and follow the tenets of their deity, but that character probably is an adherent of that deity because they agree with those tenets, so a conflict is far more unlikely. Yes, there could be some crisis of faith narrative, but that is not the core theme of those classes.

The core narrative of warlock however is bargaining for power. What would you be willing to do for power? What (and who) would you sacrifice? And for such themes to work, the patron must ask things that test the limits of the character and they need to have real leverage.

And yeah, you don't need to play it that way, but that is the inspiration of the class. And if you don't want to do that, and just have the patron as some impersonal or immaterial power source that is no longer actively relevant, then that just makes the warlock a sorcerer.