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

[aco175]

Can the fighter or rogue lose their powers? No. Wizard? No. Anything divine? Also, no. Tying a PCs powers to something that they can loose is a dick move. That's why I always go with, powers once bestowed are permanent.

Now, I get the appeal, from a story telling perspective, but where is the fun? It's just DMs doing their own version of "but that's what my character would do," and we all know how fun that guy is to play with. It's the same as using the girdle of masculinity/femininity or helm of alignment changing. Taking away player agency is never a good thing.

This is about what I came to say. You are also putting the DM against the player in a game of what the DM think is moral vs what the player thinks. I recall some of this back in 2e where a paladin was stripped of power and we spend several sessions questing to regain good-good with the god.

I would also think that some of the penalty would be based on level. a 3rd level cleric gets less attention than a 15th level cleric by the gods and angels. Up until some point, you are not even on the radar. It is kind of like politics. Nobody seems to care about state congressmen or state senators. Most people do not know more than a handful of national congressmen or senators. Heck only half the people in America can name the vice president.

 

[Minigiant]

The empowerments by a patron are permanent, either teaching the character how to do some feature or transforming the character to exhibit some feature.

The nature of the bargain is enticements: "theres more where this comes from".

The patron may or may not gain returns on the investment in the character.



A disloyal character can provoke the patron to send emissaries to re-employ the character. It is a teachable moment for these loyal emissaries, who will try persuade the character, either by carrot or stick, or by a reminder of the greater purpose why the character made the bargain in the first place.

Yup.

Warlocks are more prone to disloyaty as the Patron usually can't take the power back.
Well maybe they can but the warlock would have to be so vulnerable and available to killing or imprisoning them would be less work.

An archfiend likely isn't going to waste time strapping you to the Dewarlock-inator Chair.

 

[Scribe]

Warlocks are more prone to disloyaty as the Patron usually can't take the power back.

Which makes literally no sense, since its supposedly the 'you make a pact/bargain' class.

I have hated the lore around Warlocks for so long now...

 

[jmartkdr2]

Even warlocks vary considerably - a Great Old One isn't aware of the warlock as an individual - they probably aren't aware of warlocks in general and possibly unaware of mortals in general. The warlock could be deliberately working against the GOO's interests with no direct consequences.

On the other hand a fiend or celestial probably had a sit-down and interview with the warlock before it all began and they would have been able to hash out expectations and terms. If the warlock has the Chain Pact boon, their familiar is probably reminding them of the terms whenever asked or if it looks like the warlock is even thinking about violating them.

A Hexblade doesn't know what their patron is by default - just a mysterious entity form the shadowfell, and an archfey isn't going to be consistent in reactions to warlock behavior, even if the warlock always does the same thing.

 

[Cruentus]

Comparing Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks to the other classes is apples and oranges.

Those are the only three where there is either worship, or a bargain struck. You might even include Druids - if they go around burning down the forests and killing off animals, mother nature might not be too happy.

+edit+ Of course, there are different Patrons, but I don't subscribe to the "stolen power" tripe. Its sad and lazy storytelling. If its going to be a "pact", then its both directions, and the Patron asks things of you in return, and they're not all pleasant.

Now, 5e clearly has moved away from any kind of character 'consequence' for these classes, as its all "everything goes, do what you want." But if the DM sets out the game world and the lore, and explains it to players at session zero that there are consequences for not following a god's tenets, or for not doing whatever your patron asks of you, then Bob's your uncle.

And this is how I run my games as well. Its very clear what you are signing up for. Don't want the headache? 1) Don't play the class OR 2) Play the class showing proper respect/worship/tithing/whatever OR 3) find another table. Simples!

For us, it's all about creating and playing interesting stories. The redemption story for the fallen Paladin, the fallen cleric, the Warlock either getting back into good graces, OR the search for a new Patron. Quests abound.

 

[Minigiant]

Which makes literally no sense, since its supposedly the 'you make a pact/bargain' class.

I have hated the lore around Warlocks for so long now...

Well it has to be in the contract.

In many contracts, you don't get the money back after its voided. Especially if the warlock was rewarded during the time they fulfilled their side of it.

The orphanage is burned down like you asked.
So no take backs of the Eldritch Blast.

 

[Scribe]

Well it has to be in the contract.

In many contracts, you don't get the money back after its voided. Especially if the warlock was rewarded during the time they fulfilled their side of it.

The orphanage is burned down like you asked.
So no take backs of the Eldritch Blast.

Which is why I would also build it into the game.

If the relationship to the patron (cleric or lock) is meaningless, then its a failure, in my eyes.

 

[GetInTheHole]

a Great Old One isn't aware of the warlock as an individual - they probably aren't aware of warlocks in general and possibly unaware of mortals in general

Which makes the entire premise of them granting warlock pacts very weird from the get go.

But the flip side is, since you can't even humanly fathom the minds of GOOs and why they did what they did in the first place, they could probably remove the pact simply by twitching an eyebrow the wrong way and not even think of it. Which doesn't make for great gameplay to be sure.

 

[Scribe]

Which makes the entire premise of them granting warlock pacts very weird from the get go.

But the flip side is, since you can't even humanly fathom the minds of GOOs and why they did what they did in the first place, they could probably remove the pact simply by twitching an eyebrow the wrong way and not even think of it. Which doesn't make for great gameplay to be sure.

100%!!

The whole concept of the Warlock pact needs to go. It makes no sense.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why I would also build it into the game.

If the relationship to the patron (cleric or lock) is meaningless, then its a failure, in my eyes.

The relationship is as meaningless as the player and DM males it.

I had a warlock player who actually wrote up a fake contract for his warlock and patron We rolled checks to choose contract penalties. The warlock's powers couldn't be stripped but he would be forced into a dreadful arraigned marriage for laziness and would struck ill if he purposely failed patron requests.