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

[Shadowdweller00]

Depends on the class, nature of the god / patron, and nature of transgression. USUALLY it's lose powers until amends have been made. But new gods or patrons may be found to replace old ones. Usually a difficult task or sacrifice is required in the latter case to prove devotion, though often at least some of the former powers may be given provisionally until said task complete. I find that the lack of consequences for disobedience results in inappropriate disrespect of supernatural powers and other undesirable characteristics in a game world.

If a character wants to create a character in deliberate defiance of a god or patron from the get-go, I'm willing to work with them. But the player needs to negotiate ways in which they maintain powers despite being at odds with the god/patron's goals...i.e. loopholes to use. But things don't always go the player's way and they are warned about this ahead of time. If player casually decides to defy their god/patron when it becomes inconvenient, bad things happen.

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever the player decides.

I've had players - and could easily see myself among their number were I on the other side of the screen - who, given the opportunity, would abuse the hell out of this.

No thanks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've had players - and could easily see myself among their number were I on the other side of the screen - who, given the opportunity, would abuse the hell out of this.

No thanks.

I wouldn't play with any player who would abuse anything.

But friction between a PC and their patron/deity is only something that would happen if the player wanted to role-play the conflict. If the player didn't they would choose a patron/deity/power source that will just go along with whatever they where doing. There is no point in abusing anything.

 

[JEB]

Never came up in any game I ran, but much like some others here, it'd be very case-by-case.

For starters, some patrons (like a Great Old One or really distant, indifferent deities) might not care what their servants do, so it's a moot point. If the patron does care, then the main things would be whether the offense was intentional; the nature of the god/oath/patron; and what the player intends to do about it, if anything.

If the offense was unintentional or forced upon them, I would generally have no penalty (except from the harshest and least forgiving patrons), but there might be some expectation of regret or atonement. A PC that does neither is likely going to be on their patron's watchlist, and won't get as much forgiveness for future offenses.

If the offense was completely intentional and done without hesitation, depends on the class.

• For clerics, druids, and paladins, it's likely atonement or they'd find their supernatural abilities reduced or cut off. If your powers are dependent on a deity or cosmic principle or whatever to be recharged on a regular basis, going against that means no more easy recharges.
• For warlocks, a close reading of their abilities would be required.
  • Supernatural abilities that appear to be learned permanently would be retained at full power, though an offended patron would probably try to capture their rogue ex-servant and take the power back, or otherwise make their life hell (possibly literally). No additional such abilities could be learned, however, since the patron would no longer be willing to grant new boons.
  • Supernatural abilities that appear to operate entirely at the patron's will would be reduced or cut off until the patron is no longer displeased, just as with clerics etc.

That all said, the PC would be welcome to seek out a replacement patron, after falling out of favor with their old one. Which would allow them to continue with little change if they desired, beyond some role-playing opportunities (and having made a very powerful enemy).

 

[Mirtek]

Clerics should stop receiving new powers.

Warlocks would find themselves being confronted by other agents of their patron

 

[Ixal]

It helps when you interpret religion in D&D in a more polytheistic way instead of the parallel monotheistic churches in the rulebooks.
In that case the powers a cleric receive is similar to the warlock, the result of a deal.

"I do (and keep doing) X in your name and you give a sliver of your power". And when the cleric stops honouring the deal the god does too and also gives him the boot in form of a curse for good measure. That doesn't prevent the cleric from trying to make deals with someone else, but as the god know that he can't be trusted with keeping them that might be difficult.

 

[Oofta]

Some people seem to be ignoring the wording of the question. What does it mean to "gravely offend"? My perspective is that this has to be really, really serious transgression. It's not a minor offense, it's not even something that requires much of a judgement call. It's the PC openly and egregiously going against the will of their patron. It's a cleric of Pelor burning down an orphanage. It's the warlock with a devil patron not just subverting the intent of their contract but staying within the letter, it's that warlock ripping up the contract and actively attempting to thwart the goals of their patron.

This isn't some sort of Sword of Damocles here, the DM playing "gotcha". This is a conscious and deliberate violation of an agreement or oath to me. Minor transgressions? You get bad dreams. Tell your patron to go f*** themselves and the horse they road in on while openly opposing them? Like my answer above, you lose your powers.

 

[Jer]

I've had players - and could easily see myself among their number were I on the other side of the screen - who, given the opportunity, would abuse the hell out of this.

No thanks.

Abuse in what sense? It's a storytelling trope not a mechanical balance issue. So the only thing a player who "abuses" this is doing is telling the DM what kind of story they want to have for their character. Maybe that story is "I love the Warlock mechanics but I don't really like the flavor of the character class" or maybe it's "I want to have a dustup with my Patron and have that be part of my story". Or maybe the player doesn't like the DM showing up as an NPC and telling them to go do something or else. It's not like the character's abilities are balanced by the DM having to have the patron show up every once in a while to slap the character around or something.

(I'm tempted to make up a Patronless Warlock class now, though there'd be no use for it in my games. Though I do like to have the Godless Cleric as an option. Hmmm...)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Some people seem to be ignoring the wording of the question. What does it mean to "gravely offend"?

I think the "why?" is more meaningful than the "what?" I mean, if a player wants their character wants to go murder hoboing around, just don't choose a good deity/patron. The only situations where the player doesn't offend their patron for role-play reasons is when the DM forces them into an impossible situation - in which case it's the DM who is the abusive player.

 

[jgsugden]

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...

The PC is playing a cleric, warlock, or paladin. The relationship with a greater power is baked into that class design. It is a story hook (or many hooks), and the negotiation of that relationship is part of the story set up for the PC. You can do a heck of a lot to tell amazing stories in this arena. The relationship between a PC and their God/Power is a very close relationship. It can be an analogy for many other types of relationships - both good and bad.

A player that has a wonderful and supporting family that always has their back, never abuses them and always builds them up can experiment with a Patron or God that provides a less healthy relationship based upon use and selfishness of the other party. This is more on the cliche side of things - but there is a lot of meat to be found on this structure.

However, a player that doesn't have a great home life can also experience a warm and supporting environment where their Deity is a giving, caring and supportive figure, as are the other members of the priesthood.

Warlocks are in a deal, and people often assume that the deal is going to be set up to take advantage of the PC. That works, certainly - but you can also have powers that believe that it makes sense for both sides of the deal to prosper.

I think Matt Mercer has done some interesting things with the clerics and warlocks in his CR campaigns. Pike, Percy*, Fjord, Jester, Caduceus, Yasha, Laudna ... all have a career long relationship with a greater power, and each is different. These elements are fundamental to their characters, guide the development of the PC's story, and are interesting. I am eager to see how Laudna's story plays out in campaign 3 - and that is primarily about how the relationship will work, not just what the other half of the relationship is.