D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?

[Snarf Zagyg]

On a semi-serious note, I really think it depends on the particular campaign.

In my games, I expect players to engage at least somewhat with the lore and the fiction of the world. As such, Clerics and Warlocks will have built-in "hooks" when it comes to engaging with the fiction of the world.

The point is ... it's supposed to be fun for the player. They are the ones choosing the deity or patron. They are the ones choosing the player. They are the ones choosing how to play their PC.

Choices that might result in angering the deity/patron are never a surprise to the player- it's always telegraphed ahead of time. This shouldn't be a game of "gotcha," but the player should feel that their choices have real impacts. The very few times this has become an issue over the decades of play I have been involved with, it's because the player chose to make it an issue for various RP reasons, and had fun doing so.

Having Warlocks and Clerics just be a grab-bag of abilities really removes a rich thematic source of tension and choice for the players, and makes the game less fun for the types of games that I am involved in. YMMV, etc.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

D&D doesn't have the narrative tools a system like Fate or Mutants & Masterminds has, so I would not nerf the PC.

They may get a new patron, get a plot hook (attacked by NPCs, which would involve the entire party and could be a good plot hook) or nothing could happen. The first two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nothing.

The patron gains power from them using their power in the world. No 'loyalty' necessary.

The god has more important things to worry about and the power came from faith anyway, not some divine tap.

If the PCs rock up to one of these folks directly and pick a fight, something will happen, but I don't like playing the 'you know what you did, now be a Fighter until I think you've apologized enough game.'

 

[Stormonu]

It kinda depends on the character, the patron, and the class, but here's how I do it.

Clerics are devout, they worship a deity or a pantheon. This is a conscious act, a decision to follow a particular god or goddess and in return, they get to share in their power. However, in my campaign, the gods are distant...they don't monitor their temples and followers, and they honestly couldn't care less about what a mortal thinks of their agenda. (The clerics do not worship "divine policemen.") So a "grave offense" would be not maintaining the rituals, prayers, hymns, and other ceremonies at various shrines and temples. This corrodes their link to that distant power source...and therefore, they lose their powers. This is gradual at first: they lose a cantrip or two, or maybe a spell slot. But if they miss enough ceremonies and rites, and don't make enough offerings at the relevant shrines, they might lose their Channel Divinity and Spellcasting features altogether. They fix this by performing extra rituals, duties, and quests for their temple...or a new temple altogether. (In game-speak, this is a curse that can be broken by a side quest. It's also a convenient in-story way for a player to choose a new Domain for their cleric if their first choice isn't panning out.)

Paladins make oaths. They basically promise themselves that they are going to vanquish a particular entity, or uphold a particular ideal, or enforce a certain ethos. So the only "grave offense" they can commit are to themselves. This self-doubt affects their zeal, their faith, and their confidence, all of which will inhibit their ability to do their job. Without that fire, they don't have enough conviction and confidence to properly use their abilities. So a paladin who definitively, decidedly breaks their vow no longer has a subclass, and must undertake a side-quest to reaffirm it, or make a completely different vow. As with clerics, there are no Divine Police showing up and demanding they pay a fine or atone...instead, they must find their own way to reaffirm their faith. (In game-speak: this is never an accident or a consequence of dice rolls...this is always the player's choice. So, that said: if the player decides that they no longer want to be Oath of Vengeance, they lose their subclass until they complete a side-quest. At the end of that quest, they make a vow to the Ancients or whatever, and gain a different subclass.)

Warlocks make bargains: they have sold their soul to a powerful extraplanar entity in exchange for fast power. They did not bargain with a god, because remember that gods are distant in my campaign....but this being is still immortal and still powerful and is very interested indeed in protecting their interests. A warlock who displeases their patron can suffer any variety of consequences, depending on the patron and the terms of their contract. Typically: fiends might withhold their soul, making it unavailable to return to the warlock's body for the purposes of Raise Dead and other spells...the archfey will toy with the warlock like a cat toys with a mouse, sending monsters to fight them for their amusement or polymorphing the warlock and his friends into amusing creatures...the Great Old Ones will wrack the warlock's mind with nightmares and madness, sapping away their spell slots and imposing Disadvantage at random on rolls. All of these consequences will persist until the player finds a way to placate their patron, or buy out their contract. (In game terms: the warlock will undertake a side-quest on behalf of their patron, or on the behalf of a new one. Until they do so, they are subjected to a variety of penalties that both the DM and the player have agreed upon in advance.)

In all cases, Rule Zero applies. Nobody wants to play "gotcha" with a Table Tyrant.

This pretty much matches how I'd view it.

I also have priests/paladins/warlocks/others who are devoted to an ideal or force (such as "Nature"). In the case of a force, generally nothing happens, though if the force has some sort of sentience, it may react negatively towards the character - sending minions and/or possibly withholding spells/abilties. For ideals, the "loss of faith" most likely causes loss of abilities until the character abandons the class, switches ideology or somehow redeems themselves.

 

[Lanefan]

4-way vote for me. I don't have Warlocks and the like but Clerics Druids and Paladins sure have to pay attention to this stuff:

Nothing: If the deity/patron doesn't happen to be paying attention at the time, or is but doesn't consider the offense worthy of punishment, then nothing happens.

Suffers some kind of reduction in abilities: sometimes, for example, an offending Cleric might find itself limited to only 1st and 2nd level spells for a while; or a Paladin could be ordered to make a sacrifice of significant value.

Completely loses abilities: sometimes an offender might lose all spell power or other abilities for a while; and might be forced to atone or fulfill a quest to get them back.

Other: rarely - but it has happened - a bolt of lightning comes down from the sky onto the offender, leaving only a small pile of smoking ash in its wake.

 

[Neonchameleon]

By default in my campaigns either nothing, bad dreams, or minions of the God/Patron come looking for a not especially friendly word.

I am, however, an advocate of characters changing subclass as a consequence of major events. I haven't had it happen to a warlock or cleric yet. So I would make it possible for a warlock to seek or even gain a new patron or a cleric to defect. And might have to see if I can have one seduced.

 

[beancounter]

IMO, if a PC does something to materially displease their patron, they should suffer loss of abilities.

I know it's not a popular opinion, but there has to be some consequences, otherwise the pact/agreement/oath has no meaning.

Slightly OT - I don't think Paladins need to be LG, but if they take actions that are inconsistent with their chosen alignment, they should lose their powers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me... plot first, mechanics second.

If a cleric/warlock displeases their deity/patron the narrative consequences will come about long before any mechanical ones. I mean, it's not really any different than the PCs being imprisoned-- they don't need to have any game rules removed from the sheet to still have to deal with the story of them being behind bars. So getting a talking to from their deity/patron for being a schmuck will force the PCs to deal with that part of the story first and foremost. Maybe if things continue to go sideways or if something happens that triggers it, game mechanics might get suppressed down the line... but it'll come out of how they react to their higher-up, not just a automatic switch that gets flipped by some "game rule" they break.

At least, that's how I play it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One of my biggest pet peeves about D&D (not just 5E) is how generic everything is. If the game doesn't make the gods or patrons matter then why will players care about them? Why even put them in the game?

For roleplay purposes.

The most common comment here seems to be "it depends" - because while we want the cleric's god/faith to matter, not all gods/faiths are going to work the same and it would be less fun if they did.

 

[Shiroiken]

First unintentional error, a supernatural visitor from the patron will chastise the PC, along with a reduction of power until atonement can be done. Assuming the PC is remorseful and appeases their patron, everything returns to normal afterwards. A second unintentional error would lead to a complete loss of power until the PC attempts atonement on their own. A third error is unforgivable, since the PC obviously doesn't understand their place with the patron/deity.

An intentional offense is like a second unintentional error. Power is lost, but could be regained with proper atonement. A second intentional offense, even if atonement for the prior has been complete would not only be left powerless, but would likely receive a visit by hostile agents of the patron.