There seems to be some contradictions in what can and cannot be a warlocks patron.
In the Players Handbook;
Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods, A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity-beings not typically served by clerics......
The beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are mighty inhabitants of other planes of existence-not gods, but almost godlike in their power.
For example from the Players Handbook;
Fiends powerful enough to forge a pact include demon lords such as Demogorgon, Orcus,Fraz'Urb-luu, and Baphomet; archdevils such as Asmodeus, Dispater, Mephistopheles, and Belial; pit fiends and balors that are especially mighty; and ultroloths and other lords of the yugoloths.
Entities of this type include Ghaunadar, called That Which Lurks; Tharizdun, the Chained God; Dendar, the Night Serpent; Zargon, the Returner; Great Cthulhu; and other unfathomable beings.
Demogorgon, Baphomet, Orcus are considered lesser deities
Asmodeus is both a god and archdevil
Fraz'Urb-luu has clerics
Ghuanadar is considered a greater deity
Tharizdun, The Chained God is considered an intermediate deity
From the Sword Coast Adventures Guide;
Moander is a dark power of corruption and decay.
In the Realms, Undying patrons include Larloch the Shadow King, legendary master of Warlock's Crypt, and Gilgeam, the God-King of Unther
Moander is considered a lesser deity
Gilgeam is considered a demigod
From the Unearthed Arcana
In the Forgotten Realms, your patron might be Azuth or Oghma.
Azuth and Oghma are Greater deities.
Can gods be considered to be patrons for warlocks? Even though it states they cannot but there are contradictions to this rule.
Unearthed Arcana recently unveiled the Raven Queen patron. The Raven Queen is a Forgotten Realms god. If you look just at SRD content the lines you quoted aren't in there. So given all the evidence those lines are probably a little poorly worded and should not be taken as a strict rule.
As with everything your DM has final say - I really like to work with the DM to determine the nature of the Warlock's relationship with their patron. The game allows it to be anything from no real relationship at all to something deeply involved, its up to you. Who the actual patron is and whether they are a god or not, ought to be the same way.
I believe that the "not gods" part of the description is not meant as a restriction. It's just to say that those powerful beings, though not (necessarily) divine in nature are capable of bestowing powers upon mortals through a pact. These powers are also arcane in nature, much like a sorcerer's or wizard's. A higher deity could probably do the same, but they have more influence on the mortal realms through their clerics, so why bother?
Some gods may actually want Warlocks, but generally for game terms they prefer clerics to inspire the masses and have acolytes perform rituals and services. But it wouldn't be a shock if some gods such as Odin, took some mortal and forged a pact with them to help delay Ragnarock. Possibly his offer of power, knowledge and succour comes with the hidden price tag, that he will swap his body with yours, to ensure his survival.
I just figured it was a difference of dedication (Clerics) vs transaction (Warlocks).
Pretty much this.
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
On the contrary, should a Warlock's patron die, the pact would be over along with the granted powers. The identity of the warlock's powers seems directly linked to the patron's nature, hence the different features for each patron. The warlock would have to make a new pact to regain his magic. That's how it feels to me, at least :D
"A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock's being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells."
I get the impression they'd still have access to the powers they'd learnt, if the pact ended. It heavily implies that it's like wizards, where spells and powers are learnt and changes are made to the warlock, but power isn't being drawn directly from the patron.
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
On the contrary, should a Warlock's patron die, the pact would be over along with the granted powers. The identity of the warlock's powers seems directly linked to the patron's nature, hence the different features for each patron. The warlock would have to make a new pact to regain his magic. That's how it feels to me, at least :D
I would propose that in most cases this would be true, but some Patrons might actually have granted those powers as innate abilities, or activated sorcery within the Warlocks blood. Obviously for the Warlock with the now missing or deceased patron, they can only advance as Warlocks by forging new Pacts with another Patron. Ultimately it's up to the DM and the player, how they envision the shared game world.
Actually, I've been wondering about this. Is the Raven Queen actually a Forgotten Realms deity? I can't find anything about her in the PHB or SCAG From what I can tell she's from 4e, which apparently had it's own setting? Also from what I've read, Shar is the creator and ruler of the Shadowfell in the Forgotten Realms Please tell me if I'm wrong, because I'm very confused about this particular deity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Abeir, Anchorome, Kara-Tur, Katashaka, Maztica, Zakhara, and Laerakond need some 5E love
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Raven Queen is technically a Forgotten Realms deity, but she is a D&D deity in the multiverse, residing in the Shadowfell and is a goddess of death who is opposed to undeath.
Shar, the sister of Selune is the creator of the Shadow Weave, and her home plane has changed over the editions. Her divine realm in 2nd edition was the Palace of Loss on the Gray Waste; in 3rd edition the Palace of Loss was in the Plane of Shadow, and in 4th edition her realm is the Towers of Night. Shar with her twin sister Selune and Chauntea started the creation of the Forgotten Realms.
The Raven Queen was originally a mortal sorceress, who died, then married an evil death god. That god was destroyed and she managed to hold onto his divine mantle. The gods gave her a choice to either become the goddess of death (rather than the dead) or be destroyed. She later gained the domains of Fate and Winter).
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
On the contrary, should a Warlock's patron die, the pact would be over along with the granted powers. The identity of the warlock's powers seems directly linked to the patron's nature, hence the different features for each patron. The warlock would have to make a new pact to regain his magic. That's how it feels to me, at least :D
I would propose that in most cases this would be true, but some Patrons might actually have granted those powers as innate abilities, or activated sorcery within the Warlocks blood. Obviously for the Warlock with the now missing or deceased patron, they can only advance as Warlocks by forging new Pacts with another Patron. Ultimately it's up to the DM and the player, how they envision the shared game world.
As I'm currently playing a Warlock in a "modified" Forgotten Realms setting, I'd like to chime in on an option. While this definitely isn't a RAW interpretation, it fits reasonably well - especially with the Old One.
Consider modelling the ancient being off of a form of a pre or proto-god. In our game, we essentially used the concept of the Guardians from the classic Doctor Who episodes from the 1980's. In this situation, the warlock's power really is derived from "otherworldly" knowledge, or other dimensional or other time. Flavour as you wish.
Since the powers come from knowledge, this opens up the possibility of the Warlock seeking to break the pact at some future point through the acquisition of enough knowledge to wield the powers him or herself. Perhaps even enough power to destroy or control the Old One.
With this view, it could be possible to retain the powers after, or even in spite of, a broken pact.
This is, of course, an option that would require DM approval/encouragement.
I'm playing a warlock who's patron is a god. A god who was long ago forgotten. This god tried to get a following of devout followers recently to get a hold on the world and increase his power back to how it was. Wasn't able to get enough followers to bestow powers onto a cleric. He is trying a different path. A warlock pact that allows him to bestow a pact on a single being, through which this being will spread the word to potential followers. Hoping that the show of power this warlock displays will be enough to make a following big enough. The tiefling warlock is an astronomer who one day caught sight of something in the sky. She started having dreams of the being she saw. A month later she received a pickled jar with weird flesh having the symbol of the forgotten god tattooed upon it. She had to know more. In the course of adventuring she found out her part of the pact that she entered into with this being. She must spread his knowledge around.
Moander is listed in the SCAG as a name associated with The Great Old Ones, however, this is with a historical context as he is considered a Dead Power, one of the deadest of the powers with his Astral Plane body destroyed by Finder Wyvernspear who consumed his portfolio and I wouldn't expect Finder to be the Warlock patron type (ironic as that may seem considering his actions while alive). So I wouldn't expect a Warlock of Moander to be possible if strictly adhering to canon lore. Of course a return is always possible, but as far as I'm aware, Moander is about as dead as a God can possibly be. Which is a shame as he was one of the least corniest portrayed gods in the novels.
Moander seems to be some kind of viral patron from what the SCAG says. He infects the minds of the warlocks and acts through them. Perhaps he started making warlocks before his death and this kind of horcruxed him back to life?
Here's the problem with dead gods. They are never entirely dead as long as they aren't totally forgotten. So Moander's body may be torn asunder but there are parts of it still in the Astral plane where they won't waste away or decay. In fact I think a couple pieces of his body are actually used for outposts if I remember the details fully. So it's possible that there may be enough left that it could grant powers even though it can't actively control anything or claim a portfolio. It's still of an immense power level and a warlock devoted to such could be driven to try to return more concious power to it so that the "Dead God" might recover or be reborn somehow.
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
On the contrary, should a Warlock's patron die, the pact would be over along with the granted powers. The identity of the warlock's powers seems directly linked to the patron's nature, hence the different features for each patron. The warlock would have to make a new pact to regain his magic. That's how it feels to me, at least :D
I've never understood this interpretation of Warlock's powers. The Patron to me has always been more of a mentor with ulterior motives and the Warlock an apprentice leveraging the Patron's knowledge to unlock eldritch power from the universe itself rather than the Patron directly. Instead of learning via books, the warlock seems to learn by doing. But I don't get the vibe that a Warlock simply asks the patron to hand over powers without extensive effort by the Warlock to learn. Consider the following flavor text from Warlock Class:
"... young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will"- Not Patron's will- Warlock's will
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden..." Doesn't seem like the warlock is being gifted the power so much as taught the methods on how to wield it.
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge..."
"...warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power..." Again referencing the Warlock's own power being enhanced by universal secrets
"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power"
"...while poring over tomes of forbidden lore..." Again with the idea of studying eldritch secrets.
It's always been my understanding that once the power is given/taught, the Patron can no longer withhold it from the Warlock. It's power over the Warlock only lies in further and further secrets. Just my two cents.
Though it tends to end up being a bit blurred depending on the DM, I think the original intent was that Warlocks siphon (in the case of ancient monsters) or bargain (fiends and fey) for the knowledge to use the power, like jury-rigged Wizards, while Clerics directly draw power from the gods.
In theory Warlocks could use the power even if their patron was dead and gone, while I think a Cleric would have to swap over.
On the contrary, should a Warlock's patron die, the pact would be over along with the granted powers. The identity of the warlock's powers seems directly linked to the patron's nature, hence the different features for each patron. The warlock would have to make a new pact to regain his magic. That's how it feels to me, at least :D
I've never understood this interpretation of Warlock's powers. The Patron to me has always been more of a mentor with ulterior motives and the Warlock an apprentice leveraging the Patron's knowledge to unlock eldritch power from the universe itself rather than the Patron directly. Instead of learning via books, the warlock seems to learn by doing. But I don't get the vibe that a Warlock simply asks the patron to hand over powers without extensive effort by the Warlock to learn. Consider the following flavor text from Warlock Class:
"... young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will"- Not Patron's will- Warlock's will
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden..." Doesn't seem like the warlock is being gifted the power so much as taught the methods on how to wield it.
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge..."
"...warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power..." Again referencing the Warlock's own power being enhanced by universal secrets
"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power"
"...while poring over tomes of forbidden lore..." Again with the idea of studying eldritch secrets.
It's always been my understanding that once the power is given/taught, the Patron can no longer withhold it from the Warlock. It's power over the Warlock only lies in further and further secrets. Just my two cents.
I agree with this interpretation. In Star Wars, the Sith were trained by the Dark Lord of the Sith on how to increase their power. It was still the Sith's abilities to tap the powers which defined how strong they might be, even more powerful than the Dark Lord himself. I think the Patron simply teaches the warlock how to tap powers, etc, versus granting powers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There seems to be some contradictions in what can and cannot be a warlocks patron.
In the Players Handbook;
For example from the Players Handbook;
Demogorgon, Baphomet, Orcus are considered lesser deities
Asmodeus is both a god and archdevil
Fraz'Urb-luu has clerics
Ghuanadar is considered a greater deity
Tharizdun, The Chained God is considered an intermediate deity
From the Sword Coast Adventures Guide;
Moander is considered a lesser deity
Gilgeam is considered a demigod
From the Unearthed Arcana
Azuth and Oghma are Greater deities.
Can gods be considered to be patrons for warlocks? Even though it states they cannot but there are contradictions to this rule.
Unearthed Arcana recently unveiled the Raven Queen patron. The Raven Queen is a
Forgotten Realmsgod. If you look just at SRD content the lines you quoted aren't in there. So given all the evidence those lines are probably a little poorly worded and should not be taken as a strict rule.As with everything your DM has final say - I really like to work with the DM to determine the nature of the Warlock's relationship with their patron. The game allows it to be anything from no real relationship at all to something deeply involved, its up to you. Who the actual patron is and whether they are a god or not, ought to be the same way.
I believe that the "not gods" part of the description is not meant as a restriction. It's just to say that those powerful beings, though not (necessarily) divine in nature are capable of bestowing powers upon mortals through a pact. These powers are also arcane in nature, much like a sorcerer's or wizard's. A higher deity could probably do the same, but they have more influence on the mortal realms through their clerics, so why bother?
Some gods may actually want Warlocks, but generally for game terms they prefer clerics to inspire the masses and have acolytes perform rituals and services. But it wouldn't be a shock if some gods such as Odin, took some mortal and forged a pact with them to help delay Ragnarock. Possibly his offer of power, knowledge and succour comes with the hidden price tag, that he will swap his body with yours, to ensure his survival.
I just figured it was a difference of dedication (Clerics) vs transaction (Warlocks).
"A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the
patron’s behalf.
The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock's being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language)
to access to powerful spells."
I get the impression they'd still have access to the powers they'd learnt, if the pact ended. It heavily implies that it's like wizards, where spells and powers are learnt and changes are made to the warlock, but power isn't being drawn directly from the patron.
But I guess it's up to interpretation.
Actually, I've been wondering about this. Is the Raven Queen actually a Forgotten Realms deity?
I can't find anything about her in the PHB or SCAG
From what I can tell she's from 4e, which apparently had it's own setting?
Also from what I've read, Shar is the creator and ruler of the Shadowfell in the Forgotten Realms
Please tell me if I'm wrong, because I'm very confused about this particular deity
Abeir, Anchorome, Kara-Tur, Katashaka, Maztica, Zakhara, and Laerakond need some 5E love
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Raven Queen is technically a Forgotten Realms deity, but she is a D&D deity in the multiverse, residing in the Shadowfell and is a goddess of death who is opposed to undeath.
Shar, the sister of Selune is the creator of the Shadow Weave, and her home plane has changed over the editions. Her divine realm in 2nd edition was the Palace of Loss on the Gray Waste; in 3rd edition the Palace of Loss was in the Plane of Shadow, and in 4th edition her realm is the Towers of Night. Shar with her twin sister Selune and Chauntea started the creation of the Forgotten Realms.
The Raven Queen was originally a mortal sorceress, who died, then married an evil death god. That god was destroyed and she managed to hold onto his divine mantle. The gods gave her a choice to either become the goddess of death (rather than the dead) or be destroyed. She later gained the domains of Fate and Winter).
I'm playing a warlock who's patron is a god. A god who was long ago forgotten. This god tried to get a following of devout followers recently to get a hold on the world and increase his power back to how it was. Wasn't able to get enough followers to bestow powers onto a cleric. He is trying a different path. A warlock pact that allows him to bestow a pact on a single being, through which this being will spread the word to potential followers. Hoping that the show of power this warlock displays will be enough to make a following big enough. The tiefling warlock is an astronomer who one day caught sight of something in the sky. She started having dreams of the being she saw. A month later she received a pickled jar with weird flesh having the symbol of the forgotten god tattooed upon it. She had to know more. In the course of adventuring she found out her part of the pact that she entered into with this being. She must spread his knowledge around.
Moander is listed in the SCAG as a name associated with The Great Old Ones, however, this is with a historical context as he is considered a Dead Power, one of the deadest of the powers with his Astral Plane body destroyed by Finder Wyvernspear who consumed his portfolio and I wouldn't expect Finder to be the Warlock patron type (ironic as that may seem considering his actions while alive). So I wouldn't expect a Warlock of Moander to be possible if strictly adhering to canon lore. Of course a return is always possible, but as far as I'm aware, Moander is about as dead as a God can possibly be. Which is a shame as he was one of the least corniest portrayed gods in the novels.
Moander seems to be some kind of viral patron from what the SCAG says. He infects the minds of the warlocks and acts through them. Perhaps he started making warlocks before his death and this kind of horcruxed him back to life?
Here's the problem with dead gods. They are never entirely dead as long as they aren't totally forgotten. So Moander's body may be torn asunder but there are parts of it still in the Astral plane where they won't waste away or decay. In fact I think a couple pieces of his body are actually used for outposts if I remember the details fully. So it's possible that there may be enough left that it could grant powers even though it can't actively control anything or claim a portfolio. It's still of an immense power level and a warlock devoted to such could be driven to try to return more concious power to it so that the "Dead God" might recover or be reborn somehow.
I've never understood this interpretation of Warlock's powers. The Patron to me has always been more of a mentor with ulterior motives and the Warlock an apprentice leveraging the Patron's knowledge to unlock eldritch power from the universe itself rather than the Patron directly. Instead of learning via books, the warlock seems to learn by doing. But I don't get the vibe that a Warlock simply asks the patron to hand over powers without extensive effort by the Warlock to learn. Consider the following flavor text from Warlock Class:
"... young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will"- Not Patron's will- Warlock's will
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden..." Doesn't seem like the warlock is being gifted the power so much as taught the methods on how to wield it.
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge..."
"...warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power..." Again referencing the Warlock's own power being enhanced by universal secrets
"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power"
"...while poring over tomes of forbidden lore..." Again with the idea of studying eldritch secrets.
It's always been my understanding that once the power is given/taught, the Patron can no longer withhold it from the Warlock. It's power over the Warlock only lies in further and further secrets. Just my two cents.
I agree with this interpretation. In Star Wars, the Sith were trained by the Dark Lord of the Sith on how to increase their power. It was still the Sith's abilities to tap the powers which defined how strong they might be, even more powerful than the Dark Lord himself. I think the Patron simply teaches the warlock how to tap powers, etc, versus granting powers.