Have a paladin with oath of ancients, and a 1 lvl dip of Warlock. Back story is that he got duped into that 1 level through his back story, but I want some non debilitating ramifications I can roll when he uses warlock spells or abilities. So for example rolling a D4 at the next long rest, provides an outcome he has to follow. Such as rolling 1 = a vow of silence for the next day to reflect on the guilt. 2 = Nothing. 3 = One less something next day.
The most important thing to consider is what does the player want? What was the player hoping for when they took the level of Warlock? Was it just for a mechanical boost, or does the player want that level of Warlock to become relevant to them in the current day?
Another thing to consider is why do you feel like the Paladin player should be punished for taking this dip? Do you think that any other multiclass should be used to punish players? If yes, why? If no, why just the Paladin/Warlock? Do you believe that it is too overpowered compared to the rest of the party (and if so why did you allow it in the first place)?
I suggest using narrative consequences instead. This would be especially effective if the player only took the level for mechanical reasons. Have the Patron contact the Paladin and encourage them to do something for them. Maybe bring in other Warlock followers of the Patron - especially effective if the Paladin has an item which the Warlock followers want, but the Paladin wouldn't want to give them. This can add both story hooks, and also serve as a reminder that power comes at a price.
I think that would be a far more fun option that, say, telling the player "you can't talk for the rest of the session, just sit there in silence," or taking away their powers, which will make them wonder - why did you allow them to take the dip in the first place if you didn't want them to have the powers in the first place?
There is no reason to have to punish such a multiclass. If anything, an Oath of the Ancients paladin could well make a deal with an Archfey Patron, Archfey might prove particularly tricky to deal with but they aren't going to cause these types of issues. Additionally most paladins could make a deal with a Celestial Patron, at which point there would be no conflict at all. Now if we were talking about a LG Paladin making a deal with a Fiend, that might, lore wise, cause some issues but there is no need for this D4 roll.
And yes, a "vow of silence" is deeply debilitating, more so in 2024 where smite spells all have Verbal Components.
Apologies, and to update on this. I am not the DM in this instance. The character is mine, and the back story is that his family and friends are from Elturel and were part of the creed resolute. In short, the oath is to bring the city back by dealing with Zariel (whatever folly of an endeavour that may be). As part of this journey, he had been duped into the warlock class, and I'd like him to have that conflict of using that type of magic and path. Hence to have some form of outcome / conflict whenever he uses that type of magic. Obviously trying to make sure it's not majorly debilitating in any way. Hope that makes more sense. Suggestions that could work in an easy dice roll whenever resting following the use of warlock speels would make it a quick and easy game / narrative device. Suggestions welcome here
I would say that Warlock doesn't really work this way, yes it generally involves a contract, but being tricked into it would probably not be enough to get a warlock level, it requires supplying continued service to the patron, where somebody who was "tricked" is unlikely to do and since the service is not supplied, neither would the power of the contract also still be in effect, most patrons would remove it or claim it back, I feel. Or there maybe punishment itself in not fulfilling the services, but such a contract is probably not even something a patron would trick somebody into since warlock contracts are more for willing servants than just a contract to try and claim somebody's soul.
Of course your table is free to play it how they feel, but I'd advise against this D4 system, a Vow of Silence is deeply nerfing the character, once every 4 days. If you want to have a rollable table then maybe something weekly and a bit less strict, like having to have a vigil, performing duties towards their Oath, performing prayers. giving 10 beggers each 1 silver coin to get food, that type of stuff seems much more tame and playable without getting overbearing or particularly nerfing the character.
Now knowing that it is your character, I don't think that changes the answers too much. Mechanical consequences will probably be more debilitating than was worth the cost of using the warlock powers. Narrative consequences would be the way to go. Talk with your DM about how much they want to incorporate this into the overall story, or if it's just a personal character thing.
The idea that some cultists would now tail the paladin and want something is a good one. Or have the paladin's order send people to check up on them when they start to hear stories of eldritch blasts and magical darkness.
You could even have the duping go the other way, eventually... where the paladin seeks out and foils the fiend's plans using the powers that were given to them.
My answer also doesn't really change much, it just changes "what does the player want from this" to what do YOU want from this."
It seems like you want some kind of narrative consequences to accepting the deal. You should really consider the nature of the entity your PC made the pact with and how the Paladin feels about that entity. R3sistance also makes a good point that deals really should be voluntary. I have a concept for a PC who accepted a deal with a patron because the choices were pretty much "accept the deal" or "remain slowly bleeding out and HOPE someone else comes along (and good luck with that)." Even though there was an element of coercion, it was still, technically, a voluntary acceptance of the deal.
In fiction writing, a key piece of advice when it comes to writing protagonist characters is to consider what they want and what they need, and how those things are rarely the same. In fact, many characters themselves often mistake something they want for something they need, and their journey is discovering what they actually need, and not what they think they need. Consider this: If your PC really hates the deal, then they wouldn't use any of the benefits of it, right? They wouldn't use their Warlock spells or Invocation. ...But your PC is using them, right? Why is that? What is the reason your PC tells themself why they use those powers they 'were tricked into'? One approach to think of is to consider that maybe, deep down, a part of them really did want the deal. They lie to themself that they were tricked into it, because it makes it easier to believe that. Contending and dealing with that dark part that everyone has inside themself could be an interesting character arc.
That seems like something much more interesting to explore than rolling a d4 every once in a while for "a chance to have less fun."
Thank you all so far for the thoughts and input here. I think there is real food for thought from all of you.
My initial - and considering we're very early doors to me joining an existing long running campaign at lvl 8 - narrative for the character was around the disappearance of the city of Elturel to another dimension by the archdemon Zariel. The creed resolute meaning all inhabitants over time were part of this pact and were removed along with the city. My character for various reasons did not end up as part of the creed, but has obviously lost many family and friends, with his reason and ultimate oath being to try (however folly) to bring the city and its people back.
Currently he gets introduced to the party by researching at Candlekeep, and so far the backstory is that he is trying to research as much as he can on Zariel etc. Initially I thought having his 1 lvl dip into Warlock could be via deception, and now the mechanic of conflict I first enquired was how I wanted to go. However, post your feedback and thoughts, I think its a better position to have the PC actively seek the Warlock pact, as a way of accepting this would be a way to seek, hunt and understand someone like Zariel, but at a cost. I think narratively it would fit better, and would still open up opportunities of conflict for him. The constant pull of introducing both Oath Ancients and cultists wanting him to push one way or the other opens up some fun and interesting sub plots too potentially.
Either way, it feels like I need to discuss with the DM and go seek and understand some options on the warlock pact side that fits. Does anyone have any suggestions on that front which would possibly work / align with the Zariel front?
Apologies if this all comes across as not canon or world correct, but I am still a noob to a degree.
I think that might be a good idea. Your enemy is an Archdemon. In traditional lore, Lawful Evil Devils oppose Chaotic Evil Demons, so a Fiend patron who is a Devil who genuinely wants to destroy Zariel could fit, and maybe as a bonus, also getting the soul of a Paladin. But there are many different sorts of Patrons. Definitely talk with your DM.
As your character is an Oath of Ancients paladin, I'd suggest really digging into the Archfey Warlock.
You can think of it in one of two ways... either strictly mechanical - the classes are just the mechanical representation of your powers and abilities that you get from your relationship with the powers that be; or more story driven, where the classes represent the dual relationship or relationships you have. The Paladin Oath is more general, and from there you attracted the attention of a specific fey patron. There's no need for them to be at odds... just the opposite. One can be a deepening of the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Have a paladin with oath of ancients, and a 1 lvl dip of Warlock. Back story is that he got duped into that 1 level through his back story, but I want some non debilitating ramifications I can roll when he uses warlock spells or abilities. So for example rolling a D4 at the next long rest, provides an outcome he has to follow. Such as rolling 1 = a vow of silence for the next day to reflect on the guilt. 2 = Nothing. 3 = One less something next day.
Suggestions?
The most important thing to consider is what does the player want? What was the player hoping for when they took the level of Warlock? Was it just for a mechanical boost, or does the player want that level of Warlock to become relevant to them in the current day?
Another thing to consider is why do you feel like the Paladin player should be punished for taking this dip? Do you think that any other multiclass should be used to punish players? If yes, why? If no, why just the Paladin/Warlock? Do you believe that it is too overpowered compared to the rest of the party (and if so why did you allow it in the first place)?
I suggest using narrative consequences instead. This would be especially effective if the player only took the level for mechanical reasons. Have the Patron contact the Paladin and encourage them to do something for them. Maybe bring in other Warlock followers of the Patron - especially effective if the Paladin has an item which the Warlock followers want, but the Paladin wouldn't want to give them. This can add both story hooks, and also serve as a reminder that power comes at a price.
I think that would be a far more fun option that, say, telling the player "you can't talk for the rest of the session, just sit there in silence," or taking away their powers, which will make them wonder - why did you allow them to take the dip in the first place if you didn't want them to have the powers in the first place?
There is no reason to have to punish such a multiclass. If anything, an Oath of the Ancients paladin could well make a deal with an Archfey Patron, Archfey might prove particularly tricky to deal with but they aren't going to cause these types of issues. Additionally most paladins could make a deal with a Celestial Patron, at which point there would be no conflict at all. Now if we were talking about a LG Paladin making a deal with a Fiend, that might, lore wise, cause some issues but there is no need for this D4 roll.
And yes, a "vow of silence" is deeply debilitating, more so in 2024 where smite spells all have Verbal Components.
Apologies, and to update on this. I am not the DM in this instance. The character is mine, and the back story is that his family and friends are from Elturel and were part of the creed resolute. In short, the oath is to bring the city back by dealing with Zariel (whatever folly of an endeavour that may be). As part of this journey, he had been duped into the warlock class, and I'd like him to have that conflict of using that type of magic and path. Hence to have some form of outcome / conflict whenever he uses that type of magic. Obviously trying to make sure it's not majorly debilitating in any way. Hope that makes more sense. Suggestions that could work in an easy dice roll whenever resting following the use of warlock speels would make it a quick and easy game / narrative device. Suggestions welcome here
Thank you for the time and effort in responding. Please see my update and response to original post - and apologies for any confusion.
Thank you for the time and effort in responding. Please see my update and response to original post - and apologies for any confusion.
I would say that Warlock doesn't really work this way, yes it generally involves a contract, but being tricked into it would probably not be enough to get a warlock level, it requires supplying continued service to the patron, where somebody who was "tricked" is unlikely to do and since the service is not supplied, neither would the power of the contract also still be in effect, most patrons would remove it or claim it back, I feel. Or there maybe punishment itself in not fulfilling the services, but such a contract is probably not even something a patron would trick somebody into since warlock contracts are more for willing servants than just a contract to try and claim somebody's soul.
Of course your table is free to play it how they feel, but I'd advise against this D4 system, a Vow of Silence is deeply nerfing the character, once every 4 days. If you want to have a rollable table then maybe something weekly and a bit less strict, like having to have a vigil, performing duties towards their Oath, performing prayers. giving 10 beggers each 1 silver coin to get food, that type of stuff seems much more tame and playable without getting overbearing or particularly nerfing the character.
Now knowing that it is your character, I don't think that changes the answers too much. Mechanical consequences will probably be more debilitating than was worth the cost of using the warlock powers. Narrative consequences would be the way to go. Talk with your DM about how much they want to incorporate this into the overall story, or if it's just a personal character thing.
The idea that some cultists would now tail the paladin and want something is a good one. Or have the paladin's order send people to check up on them when they start to hear stories of eldritch blasts and magical darkness.
You could even have the duping go the other way, eventually... where the paladin seeks out and foils the fiend's plans using the powers that were given to them.
My answer also doesn't really change much, it just changes "what does the player want from this" to what do YOU want from this."
It seems like you want some kind of narrative consequences to accepting the deal. You should really consider the nature of the entity your PC made the pact with and how the Paladin feels about that entity. R3sistance also makes a good point that deals really should be voluntary. I have a concept for a PC who accepted a deal with a patron because the choices were pretty much "accept the deal" or "remain slowly bleeding out and HOPE someone else comes along (and good luck with that)." Even though there was an element of coercion, it was still, technically, a voluntary acceptance of the deal.
In fiction writing, a key piece of advice when it comes to writing protagonist characters is to consider what they want and what they need, and how those things are rarely the same. In fact, many characters themselves often mistake something they want for something they need, and their journey is discovering what they actually need, and not what they think they need. Consider this: If your PC really hates the deal, then they wouldn't use any of the benefits of it, right? They wouldn't use their Warlock spells or Invocation. ...But your PC is using them, right? Why is that? What is the reason your PC tells themself why they use those powers they 'were tricked into'? One approach to think of is to consider that maybe, deep down, a part of them really did want the deal. They lie to themself that they were tricked into it, because it makes it easier to believe that. Contending and dealing with that dark part that everyone has inside themself could be an interesting character arc.
That seems like something much more interesting to explore than rolling a d4 every once in a while for "a chance to have less fun."
Thank you all so far for the thoughts and input here. I think there is real food for thought from all of you.
My initial - and considering we're very early doors to me joining an existing long running campaign at lvl 8 - narrative for the character was around the disappearance of the city of Elturel to another dimension by the archdemon Zariel. The creed resolute meaning all inhabitants over time were part of this pact and were removed along with the city. My character for various reasons did not end up as part of the creed, but has obviously lost many family and friends, with his reason and ultimate oath being to try (however folly) to bring the city and its people back.
Currently he gets introduced to the party by researching at Candlekeep, and so far the backstory is that he is trying to research as much as he can on Zariel etc. Initially I thought having his 1 lvl dip into Warlock could be via deception, and now the mechanic of conflict I first enquired was how I wanted to go. However, post your feedback and thoughts, I think its a better position to have the PC actively seek the Warlock pact, as a way of accepting this would be a way to seek, hunt and understand someone like Zariel, but at a cost. I think narratively it would fit better, and would still open up opportunities of conflict for him. The constant pull of introducing both Oath Ancients and cultists wanting him to push one way or the other opens up some fun and interesting sub plots too potentially.
Either way, it feels like I need to discuss with the DM and go seek and understand some options on the warlock pact side that fits. Does anyone have any suggestions on that front which would possibly work / align with the Zariel front?
Apologies if this all comes across as not canon or world correct, but I am still a noob to a degree.
I think that might be a good idea. Your enemy is an Archdemon. In traditional lore, Lawful Evil Devils oppose Chaotic Evil Demons, so a Fiend patron who is a Devil who genuinely wants to destroy Zariel could fit, and maybe as a bonus, also getting the soul of a Paladin. But there are many different sorts of Patrons. Definitely talk with your DM.
As your character is an Oath of Ancients paladin, I'd suggest really digging into the Archfey Warlock.
You can think of it in one of two ways... either strictly mechanical - the classes are just the mechanical representation of your powers and abilities that you get from your relationship with the powers that be; or more story driven, where the classes represent the dual relationship or relationships you have. The Paladin Oath is more general, and from there you attracted the attention of a specific fey patron. There's no need for them to be at odds... just the opposite. One can be a deepening of the other.