In my personal opinion I would just leave them with all of their levels in warlock but have the abilities locked because they have still put lots of time into their life as a warlock but since they no longer have their source of power. And then just allow them to take new class levels.
Yeah but again, lets say the deal was to kill the person who wronged you. Until you've accomplished that, you haven't completed your pact so neither would they complete theirs. Once you kill the person who wronged you, that is when you'd become a warlock. Don't get me wrong it could be some mafia thing, I'm going to give you this power see, and I don't want nothing form you in return now. But sometime in the future I will come to you in my hour of need, and then you will have to do what I ask. I guess that is theoretically possible, but seems like a bad deal on the side of the devil, old one, fey etc as you might tell them to piss off later. So they gave up power for nothing, being able to get revenge on you isn't really helping them out. It works for the mafia in these stories as they are dealing with normal people with families and lives, not some crazy ass adventurer.
My impression is you formed the pact, the pact part is already done. You can't break it, they can't break it, its done. They may come and ask things of you later, but that is outside of the pact.
Here's the thing about this.
The Deal to kill the person who wronged you would be your reason for entering the pact. The Demon can say. "I can help you make that happen" and maybe even "i want you to do it" But this isn't the Demon's motivation to entering the pact, this is your characters motivation. The Demon if it's smart didn't say that they would make it happen. Just that they can help you to. If it doesn't happen it's because it's your fault. So the Pact is not uncompleted just because they didn't die.
If it's just a random person that wrongs you and the demon says "go kill them." They aren't just going to give you powers to do it. What they are going to do is say that if you do it then they will give you more powers. Perhaps powers that help with whatever goal got you to make a pact with them to begin with. If they give you powers and then say go do this because you have them. Then they run into this issue that they've given you something and can't necessarily take it back without getting something from you first. Some Patrons might actually do this but this is actually covered in the warlock thing and Warlocks not necessarily getting along with their Patrons to begin with. Creating situations that are mentioned when it comes to warlocks in the write ups like the Warlock sending somebody else after you to get the Patron what is theirs from you.
Yeah but again, lets say the deal was to kill the person who wronged you. Until you've accomplished that, you haven't completed your pact so neither would they complete theirs. Once you kill the person who wronged you, that is when you'd become a warlock. Don't get me wrong it could be some mafia thing, I'm going to give you this power see, and I don't want nothing form you in return now. But sometime in the future I will come to you in my hour of need, and then you will have to do what I ask. I guess that is theoretically possible, but seems like a bad deal on the side of the devil, old one, fey etc as you might tell them to piss off later. So they gave up power for nothing, being able to get revenge on you isn't really helping them out. It works for the mafia in these stories as they are dealing with normal people with families and lives, not some crazy ass adventurer.
My impression is you formed the pact, the pact part is already done. You can't break it, they can't break it, its done. They may come and ask things of you later, but that is outside of the pact.
Here's the thing about this.
The Deal to kill the person who wronged you would be your reason for entering the pact. The Demon can say. "I can help you make that happen" and maybe even "i want you to do it" But this isn't the Demon's motivation to entering the pact, this is your characters motivation. The Demon if it's smart didn't say that they would make it happen. Just that they can help you to. If it doesn't happen it's because it's your fault. So the Pact is not uncompleted just because they didn't die.
If it's just a random person that wrongs you and the demon says "go kill them." They aren't just going to give you powers to do it. What they are going to do is say that if you do it then they will give you more powers. Perhaps powers that help with whatever goal got you to make a pact with them to begin with. If they give you powers and then say go do this because you have them. Then they run into this issue that they've given you something and can't necessarily take it back without getting something from you first. Some Patrons might actually do this but this is actually covered in the warlock thing and Warlocks not necessarily getting along with their Patrons to begin with. Creating situations that are mentioned when it comes to warlocks in the write ups like the Warlock sending somebody else after you to get the Patron what is theirs from you.
That's fine, that is your motivation to form a pact. But you still formed a pact, and its done.
What's most interesting about this discussion to me - someone who loves the warlock class - is that the assumption seems to be that the character paid/provided their side of what is agreed to prior to adventuring. In the case of a fiendish patron, that makes sense: here's my soul, let me have my powers.
But for many other patrons, this doesn't seem to make as much sense. The Archfey, the Hexblade, a celestial (and even a fiend) - they could all have long term plans and schemes into which the character would figure. I've always thought about the pact between warlock and patron being something akin to "I grant you these powers; I reserve the right to call on you or require you to do something for me in return, at any time."
As someone upthread said: it's basically an employment contract. In my view, pact/class abilities can be lost (or at least halted) if the pact is broken. The details and difficulty in breaking the pact will differ from case to case. Obviously, if you've signed over your soul, getting it back will be challenging, to say the least. But in the case of pacts that are not quite that extreme, it seems like breaking them would conceivably be within the capability of both patron and warlock.
What's most interesting about this discussion to me - someone who loves the warlock class - is that the assumption seems to be that the character paid/provided their side of what is agreed to prior to adventuring. In the case of a fiendish patron, that makes sense: here's my soul, let me have my powers.
But for many other patrons, this doesn't seem to make as much sense. The Archfey, the Hexblade, a celestial (and even a fiend) - they could all have long term plans and schemes into which the character would figure. I've always thought about the pact between warlock and patron being something akin to "I grant you these powers; I reserve the right to call on you or require you to do something for me in return, at any time."
As someone upthread said: it's basically an employment contract. In my view, pact/class abilities can be lost (or at least halted) if the pact is broken. The details and difficulty in breaking the pact will differ from case to case. Obviously, if you've signed over your soul, getting it back will be challenging, to say the least. But in the case of pacts that are not quite that extreme, it seems like breaking them would conceivably be within the capability of both patron and warlock.
They could very easily play into their plots and still have prepaid all of these creatures for the pacts they are involved in. Even without realizing they are doing it and it doesn't have to be just there soul. There are a lot of intangibles that could work for all of them.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
If you sell the lawnmower, you have no justification to take it back, but that's not how it works with a Patron.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Just taking a level in a class to min max without consequences is like treating D&D as if it were a videogame.
Actions have consequences. If you attack a noble, should you not expect the town guard to chase you down?
Should you wake an evil dragon, would you not expect it to attack you?
Should you break a contract with a godlike being...
For me the above "lawnmower" analogy depends on who the warlock is and who the patron is in that analogy.
If the Patron says "I'll give you this lawnmower but you must mow this lawn every week" then the patron can indeed say "you failed to uphold your end of the deal", they can therefore revoke/remove/alter the powers granted to the warlock until such time as the warlock sees the error of their ways and starts to mow the lawn again.
If the patron says to the warlock "hey, I'll mow your lawn every week for you, all you have to do is give me your lawnmower" then the warlock has little to no recourse if the patron stops mowing the lawn.
If this deal was just a handshake over the fence then nothing can be done, you likely never talk to your friend again but other wise life goes on. If however you had a bill of sale for the lawnmower where it was stipulated that he cost of the lawnmower would be paid in your friend mowing your lawn "x" times rather than in monetary compensation then this would form your pact/contract. If (in real life) your friend failed to uphold it then you could likely sue them for breach of contract if you were of a mind to do so or at the least not talk to them again, or in warlock terms they have breached the pact. If the warlcok breaches the pact then the patron can take back the lawnmower or do something else. If the patron breaks the pact then then Warlock can keep their power. In some case either the patron or the warlock may contact with another power, such as a Marut, to resolve the pact issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence.
Agreed. And to me, the warlock class feels like it has a lot of inherent interesting and challenging RP aspects built into it.
A warlock enters in a pact at level 1. It could be the warlock's patron doesn't call for "payment"/fulfillment of contractual terms until the warlock is 10th level. What if the patron asks something the warlock finds repugnant or wrong or too difficult?
Treating patrons as gumball machines for eldritch powers feels like you're missing out on some great gameplay opportunities. (But I also feel the same way about clerics and paladins.)
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence.
Agreed. And to me, the warlock class feels like it has a lot of inherent interesting and challenging RP aspects built into it.
A warlock enters in a pact at level 1. It could be the warlock's patron doesn't call for "payment"/fulfillment of contractual terms until the warlock is 10th level. What if the patron asks something the warlock finds repugnant or wrong or too difficult?
Treating patrons as gumball machines for eldritch powersfeels like you're missing out on some great gameplay opportunities. (But I also feel the same way about clerics and paladins.)
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
If you sell the lawnmower, you have no justification to take it back, but that's not how it works with a Patron.
But it is, that is exactly how it works with a patron. It is not a employment contract, you gave away your soul, sacrificed 6 heroes to a volcano, opened your mind to the beyond and were granted abilities for doing that.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
FWIW, that's not consistent with what Mike Mearls says in this clip. He goes on to say, "You're giving something to the patron in return for the power you're given. That power once given... and this is where it's a risk for the patron, the entity, can't take it back."
So I think it largely dependent on what you gave in exchange. If it was your soul, odds are you have lost some measure of free will and may not be able to disobey your patron. I saw this in another thread, but maybe every action defying your patron is done at disadvantage or is subject to a wisdom save. Seems like a fair trade *if* you traded your soul. In theory, not fulfilling your end probably means the devil will try to kill you, claim your soul *and then* subject you to endless torture for defying them. Where a Warlock who keeps their terms *and* has proven useful, may be reborn as a lesser devil. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes even mentions the possibility of being reborn as a greater devil (Ice Devil specifically).
But if you had better terms on your deal, maybe the patron needed you to do something that they were incapable of due to some ward that repelled fiends, maybe you were given power in exchange for a specific task that you completed. Of course the nature of that task is probably evil, so it brings you closer to damnation. This gives you your Warlock abilities and you can continue to grow stronger without their help. But what if you're lazy and don't want to really put in the work, what if since your are new to these abilities and they're so different from literally every other spellcaster, you're unable to progress further. Maybe every now and then your patron returns, dangles more power in exchange for another tasks, and all of these tasks have the goal of corrupting you enough that they gain your soul anyway.
...personally, I don't like that treatment of the class. It seems to give the player a free pass on what should be a life-altering bargain. (And not just life-altering in the sense of gaining warlock abilities.) As I called it above, it feels like it's treating the pact like a gumball machine.
Obviously, it's perfectly acceptable to play and DM the warlock as Mearls said. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and even more, it seems to deliberately clear off some great opportunities for gameplay, role playing, and the like.
I'm not always a huge fan of Critical Role in terms of the drama the characters generate, but I thought Fjord's conflict with his patron was a spot on way to depict the possible ramifications of making a pact with an entity.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
...personally, I don't like that treatment of the class. It seems to give the player a free pass on what should be a life-altering bargain. (And not just life-altering in the sense of gaining warlock abilities.) As I called it above, it feels like it's treating the pact like a gumball machine.
Obviously, it's perfectly acceptable to play and DM the warlock as Mearls said. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and even more, it seems to deliberately clear off some great opportunities for gameplay, role playing, and the like.
I'm not always a huge fan of Critical Role in terms of the drama the characters generate, but I thought Fjord's conflict with his patron was a spot on way to depict the possible ramifications of making a pact with an entity.
But as a DM you can create conflict in a number of ways that don't involve forcing the character to role play in a way they don't want to. Maybe when giving out gear you give the Warlock a Wand of the War Mage but the Patron gives you a specific tasks to do, one that's evil, but realistically doable and afterwards the wand is transformed into a Rod of the Pact Keeper.
Maybe a Pact of the Chain Warlock gets a Variant Imp...Maybe a Pact of the Blade Warlock gets their +2 Scimitar upgraded to a Scimitar of Speed...Maybe a Pact of the Tome Warlock gets a rare ritual written in their book
Or maybe they are given crucial information that specifically benefits them or gives them an advantage over the rest of their party
Quick reminder: Selling your soul is not required.
You patron may ask you to perform specific tasks, e.g., lie to specific people about small things, desecrate shrines to a particular god; they may take a memory, or your ability to smile.
You patron may just want you to spread their influence, by preaching their word. They may just think it's funny to give you the powers.
Your patron may not even be aware that you exist.
I agree, Fiend Patrons are more likely to be somewhat aware, but selling your soul is not required.
A matter of fact, I'd even say it's a bad strategy for a fiend to make that their initial offer. Unless someone is desperate or foolish, they would run for the hills.
However, laying out specific terms that force them to commit evil acts that escalate is far more clever...and fun :)
But as a DM you can create conflict in a number of ways that don't involve forcing the character to role play in a way they don't want to. Maybe when giving out gear you give the Warlock a Wand of the War Mage but the Patron gives you a specific tasks to do, one that's evil, but realistically doable and afterwards the wand is transformed into a Rod of the Pact Keeper.
This is a great idea and along the lines of what I'm thinking. Of course, the patron can ask for just about any kind of task or work; it's up to the DM to determine what makes sense for their campaign, what will ultimately be fun (in the most inclusive sense) for their group, etc.
I'm just against the idea of a completely passive patron who never, ever asks/requires the character to fulfill their side of the pact. (I'm also in complete disagreement that a patron can't withdraw or halt warlock powers, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.)
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
What's the reasoning for this? If a Patron can grant powers, what prevents them from taking the granted powers away?
But as a DM you can create conflict in a number of ways that don't involve forcing the character to role play in a way they don't want to. Maybe when giving out gear you give the Warlock a Wand of the War Mage but the Patron gives you a specific tasks to do, one that's evil, but realistically doable and afterwards the wand is transformed into a Rod of the Pact Keeper.
This is a great idea and along the lines of what I'm thinking. Of course, the patron can ask for just about any kind of task or work; it's up to the DM to determine what makes sense for their campaign, what will ultimately be fun (in the most inclusive sense) for their group, etc.
I'm just against the idea of a completely passive patron who never, ever asks/requires the character to fulfill their side of the pact. (I'm also in complete disagreement that a patron can't withdraw or halt warlock powers, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.)
I do agree except the part about withdrawing powers.
I guess it all comes down to roll playing. If I'm a player that wants to roll a Warlock but doesn't want to deal with the baggage, I should be allowed to, however, I'm missing out on fun.
If the DM doesn't particular want to get into all that, that's a bummer, but fine.
But ideally, the two of us should be able to create some conflict that doesn't just entail them saying "Do this evil thing or else!"
Tempt me, offer me something that I wouldn't be able to get without you, clear a path for me that I would otherwise not be able to access.
For example, I just started a campaign for candlekeep mysteries. While candlekeep has magic and wards that prevent books from leaving, maybe there is one book that has my Patron's true name in it, maybe he doesn't reveal that to me, but if I get possession of the book and summon an agent of his, maybe they can return to the nine hells with the book due to their higher level of magic. So maybe I face some questioning, but since the keepers know that *if* I stole it, the magic would prevent it from leaving, so they drop it since they can't prove it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my personal opinion I would just leave them with all of their levels in warlock but have the abilities locked because they have still put lots of time into their life as a warlock but since they no longer have their source of power. And then just allow them to take new class levels.
Mythology Master
Here's the thing about this.
The Deal to kill the person who wronged you would be your reason for entering the pact. The Demon can say. "I can help you make that happen" and maybe even "i want you to do it" But this isn't the Demon's motivation to entering the pact, this is your characters motivation. The Demon if it's smart didn't say that they would make it happen. Just that they can help you to. If it doesn't happen it's because it's your fault. So the Pact is not uncompleted just because they didn't die.
If it's just a random person that wrongs you and the demon says "go kill them." They aren't just going to give you powers to do it. What they are going to do is say that if you do it then they will give you more powers. Perhaps powers that help with whatever goal got you to make a pact with them to begin with. If they give you powers and then say go do this because you have them. Then they run into this issue that they've given you something and can't necessarily take it back without getting something from you first. Some Patrons might actually do this but this is actually covered in the warlock thing and Warlocks not necessarily getting along with their Patrons to begin with. Creating situations that are mentioned when it comes to warlocks in the write ups like the Warlock sending somebody else after you to get the Patron what is theirs from you.
That's fine, that is your motivation to form a pact. But you still formed a pact, and its done.
What's most interesting about this discussion to me - someone who loves the warlock class - is that the assumption seems to be that the character paid/provided their side of what is agreed to prior to adventuring. In the case of a fiendish patron, that makes sense: here's my soul, let me have my powers.
But for many other patrons, this doesn't seem to make as much sense. The Archfey, the Hexblade, a celestial (and even a fiend) - they could all have long term plans and schemes into which the character would figure. I've always thought about the pact between warlock and patron being something akin to "I grant you these powers; I reserve the right to call on you or require you to do something for me in return, at any time."
As someone upthread said: it's basically an employment contract. In my view, pact/class abilities can be lost (or at least halted) if the pact is broken. The details and difficulty in breaking the pact will differ from case to case. Obviously, if you've signed over your soul, getting it back will be challenging, to say the least. But in the case of pacts that are not quite that extreme, it seems like breaking them would conceivably be within the capability of both patron and warlock.
They could very easily play into their plots and still have prepaid all of these creatures for the pacts they are involved in. Even without realizing they are doing it and it doesn't have to be just there soul. There are a lot of intangibles that could work for all of them.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
If you sell the lawnmower, you have no justification to take it back, but that's not how it works with a Patron.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Just taking a level in a class to min max without consequences is like treating D&D as if it were a videogame.
Actions have consequences. If you attack a noble, should you not expect the town guard to chase you down?
Should you wake an evil dragon, would you not expect it to attack you?
Should you break a contract with a godlike being...
For me the above "lawnmower" analogy depends on who the warlock is and who the patron is in that analogy.
If the Patron says "I'll give you this lawnmower but you must mow this lawn every week" then the patron can indeed say "you failed to uphold your end of the deal", they can therefore revoke/remove/alter the powers granted to the warlock until such time as the warlock sees the error of their ways and starts to mow the lawn again.
If the patron says to the warlock "hey, I'll mow your lawn every week for you, all you have to do is give me your lawnmower" then the warlock has little to no recourse if the patron stops mowing the lawn.
If this deal was just a handshake over the fence then nothing can be done, you likely never talk to your friend again but other wise life goes on. If however you had a bill of sale for the lawnmower where it was stipulated that he cost of the lawnmower would be paid in your friend mowing your lawn "x" times rather than in monetary compensation then this would form your pact/contract. If (in real life) your friend failed to uphold it then you could likely sue them for breach of contract if you were of a mind to do so or at the least not talk to them again, or in warlock terms they have breached the pact. If the warlcok breaches the pact then the patron can take back the lawnmower or do something else. If the patron breaks the pact then then Warlock can keep their power. In some case either the patron or the warlock may contact with another power, such as a Marut, to resolve the pact issue.
Agreed. And to me, the warlock class feels like it has a lot of inherent interesting and challenging RP aspects built into it.
A warlock enters in a pact at level 1. It could be the warlock's patron doesn't call for "payment"/fulfillment of contractual terms until the warlock is 10th level. What if the patron asks something the warlock finds repugnant or wrong or too difficult?
Treating patrons as gumball machines for eldritch powers feels like you're missing out on some great gameplay opportunities. (But I also feel the same way about clerics and paladins.)
I love that analogy!
But it is, that is exactly how it works with a patron. It is not a employment contract, you gave away your soul, sacrificed 6 heroes to a volcano, opened your mind to the beyond and were granted abilities for doing that.
The Warlock's Relationship to their Patrons in Dungeons & Dragons - YouTube
FWIW, that's not consistent with what Mike Mearls says in this clip. He goes on to say, "You're giving something to the patron in return for the power you're given. That power once given... and this is where it's a risk for the patron, the entity, can't take it back."
So I think it largely dependent on what you gave in exchange. If it was your soul, odds are you have lost some measure of free will and may not be able to disobey your patron. I saw this in another thread, but maybe every action defying your patron is done at disadvantage or is subject to a wisdom save. Seems like a fair trade *if* you traded your soul. In theory, not fulfilling your end probably means the devil will try to kill you, claim your soul *and then* subject you to endless torture for defying them. Where a Warlock who keeps their terms *and* has proven useful, may be reborn as a lesser devil. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes even mentions the possibility of being reborn as a greater devil (Ice Devil specifically).
But if you had better terms on your deal, maybe the patron needed you to do something that they were incapable of due to some ward that repelled fiends, maybe you were given power in exchange for a specific task that you completed. Of course the nature of that task is probably evil, so it brings you closer to damnation. This gives you your Warlock abilities and you can continue to grow stronger without their help. But what if you're lazy and don't want to really put in the work, what if since your are new to these abilities and they're so different from literally every other spellcaster, you're unable to progress further. Maybe every now and then your patron returns, dangles more power in exchange for another tasks, and all of these tasks have the goal of corrupting you enough that they gain your soul anyway.
I'm not gonna say Mike Mearls is wrong...
but....;)
...personally, I don't like that treatment of the class. It seems to give the player a free pass on what should be a life-altering bargain. (And not just life-altering in the sense of gaining warlock abilities.) As I called it above, it feels like it's treating the pact like a gumball machine.
Obviously, it's perfectly acceptable to play and DM the warlock as Mearls said. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and even more, it seems to deliberately clear off some great opportunities for gameplay, role playing, and the like.
I'm not always a huge fan of Critical Role in terms of the drama the characters generate, but I thought Fjord's conflict with his patron was a spot on way to depict the possible ramifications of making a pact with an entity.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
But as a DM you can create conflict in a number of ways that don't involve forcing the character to role play in a way they don't want to. Maybe when giving out gear you give the Warlock a Wand of the War Mage but the Patron gives you a specific tasks to do, one that's evil, but realistically doable and afterwards the wand is transformed into a Rod of the Pact Keeper.
Maybe a Pact of the Chain Warlock gets a Variant Imp...Maybe a Pact of the Blade Warlock gets their +2 Scimitar upgraded to a Scimitar of Speed...Maybe a Pact of the Tome Warlock gets a rare ritual written in their book
Or maybe they are given crucial information that specifically benefits them or gives them an advantage over the rest of their party
I agree, Fiend Patrons are more likely to be somewhat aware, but selling your soul is not required.
A matter of fact, I'd even say it's a bad strategy for a fiend to make that their initial offer. Unless someone is desperate or foolish, they would run for the hills.
However, laying out specific terms that force them to commit evil acts that escalate is far more clever...and fun :)
This is a great idea and along the lines of what I'm thinking. Of course, the patron can ask for just about any kind of task or work; it's up to the DM to determine what makes sense for their campaign, what will ultimately be fun (in the most inclusive sense) for their group, etc.
I'm just against the idea of a completely passive patron who never, ever asks/requires the character to fulfill their side of the pact. (I'm also in complete disagreement that a patron can't withdraw or halt warlock powers, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.)
What's the reasoning for this? If a Patron can grant powers, what prevents them from taking the granted powers away?
I do agree except the part about withdrawing powers.
I guess it all comes down to roll playing. If I'm a player that wants to roll a Warlock but doesn't want to deal with the baggage, I should be allowed to, however, I'm missing out on fun.
If the DM doesn't particular want to get into all that, that's a bummer, but fine.
But ideally, the two of us should be able to create some conflict that doesn't just entail them saying "Do this evil thing or else!"
Tempt me, offer me something that I wouldn't be able to get without you, clear a path for me that I would otherwise not be able to access.
For example, I just started a campaign for candlekeep mysteries. While candlekeep has magic and wards that prevent books from leaving, maybe there is one book that has my Patron's true name in it, maybe he doesn't reveal that to me, but if I get possession of the book and summon an agent of his, maybe they can return to the nine hells with the book due to their higher level of magic. So maybe I face some questioning, but since the keepers know that *if* I stole it, the magic would prevent it from leaving, so they drop it since they can't prove it.