Do you want to explore that narrative or did the player throw this at you without talking to you about it? If you don't want to explore that and the player just did it without talking to you about it I agree with a potential squishening.
If you want to explore it, then there are several ideas about how you can explore that.
Have their powers flicker as their connection to their patron is being severed
you can establish that the power transfer is something that takes more effort to break and can use their powers in a way that upsets the patron to the point of sending others after said PC and then when they are at an appropriate level have the patron themself show up. Not all patrons are on the level of gods. In fact, I would argue that many higher-level enemies would make good patrons for exactly this reason.
Whatever you choose, you should certainly talk to the player about it first.
A warlock that loses the support of their patrons might still have their hp maximum and any of their proficiencies in weapons, armour, skills and tools. An option would be to leave them with just these basics until they either reestablish a supportive patron connection or try something else.
A warlock that loses the support of their patrons might still have their hp maximum and any of their proficiencies in weapons, armour, skills and tools. An option would be to leave them with just these basics until they either reestablish a supportive patron connection or try something else.
Warlock Patrons don't work quite like that. Warlocks aren't like clerics, who are constantly fueled by their deity. Patrons don't "fuel" warlocks, they gift them the power. A patron might help lead a warlock to discover magical secrets, or they might fill them with energy. Either way, once they have the power, a warlock's power is their own.
Do you want to explore that narrative or did the player throw this at you without talking to you about it? If you don't want to explore that and the player just did it without talking to you about it I agree with a potential squishening.
If you want to explore it, then there are several ideas about how you can explore that.
Have their powers flicker as their connection to their patron is being severed
you can establish that the power transfer is something that takes more effort to break and can use their powers in a way that upsets the patron to the point of sending others after said PC and then when they are at an appropriate level have the patron themself show up. Not all patrons are on the level of gods. In fact, I would argue that many higher-level enemies would make good patrons for exactly this reason.
Whatever you choose, you should certainly talk to the player about it first.
A warlock that loses the support of their patrons might still have their hp maximum and any of their proficiencies in weapons, armour, skills and tools. An option would be to leave them with just these basics until they either reestablish a supportive patron connection or try something else.
Warlock Patrons don't work quite like that. Warlocks aren't like clerics, who are constantly fueled by their deity. Patrons don't "fuel" warlocks, they gift them the power. A patron might help lead a warlock to discover magical secrets, or they might fill them with energy. Either way, once they have the power, a warlock's power is their own.
Or, as an alternative in between those two, you could have it be like the followers of the Elder's from The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, where they grant you power that can be taken away, but only by the one that granted it and only by touching the follower with the intent of ending it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco. No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
A warlock that loses the support of their patrons might still have their hp maximum and any of their proficiencies in weapons, armour, skills and tools. An option would be to leave them with just these basics until they either reestablish a supportive patron connection or try something else.
Warlock Patrons don't work quite like that. Warlocks aren't like clerics, who are constantly fueled by their deity. Patrons don't "fuel" warlocks, they gift them the power. A patron might help lead a warlock to discover magical secrets, or they might fill them with energy. Either way, once they have the power, a warlock's power is their own.
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. 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. 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.
There's a potential range of possible relationship parameters that might be used between warlock and patron. In the second Critical Role campaign, Fjord's patron directly removed powers and I think that in similar circumstances, if many patrons could, they also would.
In these cases perhaps the patron might remove powers immediately or they might delay the removal of powers until a face to face encounter. Perhaps the patron, also, was not as it first seemed.
I also think it might be fun if the patron had superiors who expected patrons to maintain a measure of control over their pact takers. Failure to maintain control, perhaps due to failure in properly ordering a pact, could result in no end of embarrassment.
This is often an issue with warlock players. When they make their character, serving a Great Old One or Fiend sounds like it gives them cool powers - until they realise that the bargain goes both ways. They are dependent on the entity for their gifts, and the patron can strip them if the pact is broken. If they agreed to serve, and they outright make war on the patron, then they no longer have a pact.
Pact magic and any other magical benefits they get from their patron should be lost.
I had a warlock in my campaign who found that serving a Great Old One - essentially Cthulhu - actually came with a steep price. He abandoned the patron but took up a pact with a different patron (a celestial) instead.
This is often an issue with warlock players. When they make their character, serving a Great Old One or Fiend sounds like it gives them cool powers - until they realise that the bargain goes both ways. They are dependent on the entity for their gifts, and the patron can strip them if the pact is broken. If they agreed to serve, and they outright make war on the patron, then they no longer have a pact.
Pact magic and any other magical benefits they get from their patron should be lost.
I had a warlock in my campaign who found that serving a Great Old One - essentially Cthulhu - actually came with a steep price. He abandoned the patron but took up a pact with a different patron (a celestial) instead.
I prefer the explanation that their pact requires a bit more effort to remove then the patron just saying "You don't have a pact anymore." From across the multiverse. After all, if the pact actually needs to be kept up with continuous effort from the patron, why aren't warlocks prepared casters? Just saying that you can't level up (without multiclassing or gaining a new source of power) and that the patron could end it with a touch seems fair to me.
I understand what you are talking about, and naturally everyone's free to have their own opinion, but it makes more sense to me this way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco. No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
This is often an issue with warlock players. When they make their character, serving a Great Old One or Fiend sounds like it gives them cool powers - until they realise that the bargain goes both ways. They are dependent on the entity for their gifts, and the patron can strip them if the pact is broken. If they agreed to serve, and they outright make war on the patron, then they no longer have a pact.
Pact magic and any other magical benefits they get from their patron should be lost.
I had a warlock in my campaign who found that serving a Great Old One - essentially Cthulhu - actually came with a steep price. He abandoned the patron but took up a pact with a different patron (a celestial) instead.
I prefer the explanation that their pact requires a bit more effort to remove then the patron just saying "You don't have a pact anymore." From across the multiverse. After all, if the pact actually needs to be kept up with continuous effort from the patron, why aren't warlocks prepared casters? Just saying that you can't level up (without multiclassing or gaining a new source of power) and that the patron could end it with a touch seems fair to me.
I understand what you are talking about, and naturally everyone's free to have their own opinion, but it makes more sense to me this way.
I suppose that it depends on what the nature of the pact is, and that can vary tremendously. Remember that if someone can just make a pact, then ignore everything about it and retain their powers, then really it's not a pact at all - it's simply powerful being tossing out magic and getting nothing in return. A pact requires that both parties fulfil their part.
Serve me by making a blood sacrifice every 3 days, and I will grant you the power to take revenge/become king/save your land
This pact is dependent on the character actually making the sacrifice. If they miss it because they were imprisoned, then the patron probably lets them off - but if they miss it because they are now actively opposed to the Fiend that they made the pact with then hell yeah they lose all their powers!
Kill the witch in the woods, and I will grant you Eldritch Blasts...
This is a very different pact - there's no time limit, there's no constant requirement etc. If that was the pact, then having done the deed then the warlock should have their powers permanently. I tend to think that when you make a pact with an Archfey or Fiend there's some kind of cosmic law around the magic, and the patron cannot break the pact themselves as long as you've done your warlocky bit.
I will return your love to life, but you will serve me as I see fit...
In this pact, the warlock is bound to serve the whims of their patron, and must do anything they're asked to. Not only should breaking this pact strip them of their powers, the former warlock can expect painful retribution to come down on their head (or be swallowed into a fiery crack in the ground).
If pacts are easily broken, then why doesn't everyone just make one and break it? Warlocks are one of those classes where by choosing to be a warlock you've started with a major roleplay, story and personality element in a way that perhaps being a barbarian or a fighter doesn't and I'm not sure players always understand that when they choose their class.
Dael Kingsmill gives a pretty cool brainstorm (basically thinking out loud not really providing a tested render) for a "pact burner" warlock:
My own thoughts, I'll preface noting influential lore. Archetypal warlock John Constantine is definitely one who doublecrosses his patrons on the regular. I think also the comic character Spawn could be seen as a Hexblade and/or Pact of Blade type Warlock who also is often at cross purposes with his patron.
So the bigger question for the game is "what do you or the player mean by 'war with their patron'?" To be fair, while the PHB allows for arch-whatevers and other near god like beings as patrons, it's usually suggested the entity that actually provides patronage to the Warlock is lower in the hierarchy. So by "war" are we talking about conflict with this particular patron but not the fiend/celestial/genie etc "realm" from which the Warlock derives their powers? In that case, it's not hard, especially in hierarchy realms like the Hells and to some extent the Feywild where a new patron from that "realm" can be determined and may actually enrich the character and maybe party's relationship with that realm through intrigue. I imagine some realms' entities are constantly vying for mortal Warlock agents (I think this is actually how Constantine rolls a lot of the time), or at least one can envision in some structured realms times of upheaval where Warlock loyalties can be bid against by other patrons. In less structured realms like the Abyss or Far Realm, it could be a matter of a different entity suddenly taking the patron's calls instead of the entity that originated the pact.
Now going to war with the realm from which the patronage power derives? Well, there's plenty of threads on here, some epic ones even (so to speak) about godkilling and what not. Those are decisions for your own particular world.
In my worlds, Warlocks are rarely as consequential as they think they are. They believe their mind-breaking or soul-rending contortions to curry the favor of their patron may not make them a King or Queen on the patron's great game, but put them in the position of a knight/rook/or bishop ... when in reality they are pawns with the "someday I may be queen" delusion of grandeur sometimes associated with those pieces. Consequently "betraying" a patron may not have the world shaking "look at my defiance" the Warlock expects. When I have players thinking their contending with the "great powers" I often bring out that exchange in Apocalypse Now between Col. Kurtz and Capt. Willard. In the film both are Green Berets, so think of them as Hexblade, imbued with the power to commit great violence as elite warriors on behalf of their patron, the U.S. Government. Kurtz has broken his pact and done the common D&D Warlock thing of basically setting up a vanity cult of his own. Willard has been tasked to "terminate" Kurtz "with extreme prejudice." Eventually Kurtz captures Willard and they have this exchange:
That right there, to me, is what Warlocks largely are in my games.
So "the war" could look like a bunch of things, maybe it's the godkiller narrative, maybe it's more getting deeper into the power structures and realm intrigue, maybe it's simply an affront to the patron with a "I don't want to do your dirty work ... no more" note that may or may not actually be filed and read. It doesn't have to be a table breaking play and can actually become a fun table focus or side intrigue. Now, mechanically, what happens to a pact burner, RAW are pretty light on this. First off, if change is desired, I'd say Warlocks (and to a lesser extend Clerics, and even lesser extent Sorcerers) in this regard are one of the few classes where the "subclass switch" rules outlined in Tasha's sort of makes sense. Mechanically they're sound and straight forward, narratively there's interesting possibilities. As you can probably tell by my framing, I think of Warlocks more as the "dirty work" agents of greater powers and a folk of that station who goes turncoat ... not exactly a prestige spot (real life history if full of traitors who were expecting great rewards but were basically allowed subsistence existence). So that's one option. Another options is ... nothing really happens mechanically. Warlocks do fill a need for their patrons. The warlock is utilized to perform acts in the prime material plane, providing agency the patron would not have otherwise. Given that barrier in the first place, maybe what the patron giveth, they can't take away. Some folks think of the patron as flipping a few patronage switches toggling "warlock" and said patron can then toggle them off if disappointed. That's one way. However a lot of the stories informing the Warlock character speak of these powers as a mix of knowledge and truths "revealed" to the Warlock. Maybe the patron can't take that back due to the same limits imposed on the patron's agency in the prime material plane in the first place. Mechanically, one thing you could do is halt the character's progression and have them pick another class to continue leveling through ... but you don't have to do that. Once a "ronin" Warlock knows "the way" and has the mysterious texts and codes revealed to them, there doesn't have to be anything stopping them from going further. In between those poles you could have some sort of "warden" challenge the Warlock must get through before hitting certain class feature milestones or what have you, if you want. There could be deeper ramifications to the game, or the Warlocks soul if/when the character meets their end, but pact scofflaws can be a thing if you want them to be.
In the end, when a Warlock tells their patron to sod off, it can be as inconsequential or grave as the DM wants it. You may wanna Mafia movie it. Let the affront happen, and it seems the character "gets away with it." Then much further down the line, whack 'em with the consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is often an issue with warlock players. When they make their character, serving a Great Old One or Fiend sounds like it gives them cool powers - until they realise that the bargain goes both ways. They are dependent on the entity for their gifts, and the patron can strip them if the pact is broken. If they agreed to serve, and they outright make war on the patron, then they no longer have a pact.
Pact magic and any other magical benefits they get from their patron should be lost.
I had a warlock in my campaign who found that serving a Great Old One - essentially Cthulhu - actually came with a steep price. He abandoned the patron but took up a pact with a different patron (a celestial) instead.
I prefer the explanation that their pact requires a bit more effort to remove then the patron just saying "You don't have a pact anymore." From across the multiverse. After all, if the pact actually needs to be kept up with continuous effort from the patron, why aren't warlocks prepared casters? Just saying that you can't level up (without multiclassing or gaining a new source of power) and that the patron could end it with a touch seems fair to me.
I understand what you are talking about, and naturally everyone's free to have their own opinion, but it makes more sense to me this way.
I suppose that it depends on what the nature of the pact is, and that can vary tremendously. Remember that if someone can just make a pact, then ignore everything about it and retain their powers, then really it's not a pact at all - it's simply powerful being tossing out magic and getting nothing in return. A pact requires that both parties fulfil their part.
Serve me by making a blood sacrifice every 3 days, and I will grant you the power to take revenge/become king/save your land
This pact is dependent on the character actually making the sacrifice. If they miss it because they were imprisoned, then the patron probably lets them off - but if they miss it because they are now actively opposed to the Fiend that they made the pact with then hell yeah they lose all their powers!
Kill the witch in the woods, and I will grant you Eldritch Blasts...
This is a very different pact - there's no time limit, there's no constant requirement etc. If that was the pact, then having done the deed then the warlock should have their powers permanently. I tend to think that when you make a pact with an Archfey or Fiend there's some kind of cosmic law around the magic, and the patron cannot break the pact themselves as long as you've done your warlocky bit.
I will return your love to life, but you will serve me as I see fit...
In this pact, the warlock is bound to serve the whims of their patron, and must do anything they're asked to. Not only should breaking this pact strip them of their powers, the former warlock can expect painful retribution to come down on their head (or be swallowed into a fiery crack in the ground).
If pacts are easily broken, then why doesn't everyone just make one and break it? Warlocks are one of those classes where by choosing to be a warlock you've started with a major roleplay, story and personality element in a way that perhaps being a barbarian or a fighter doesn't and I'm not sure players always understand that when they choose their class.
Because you only break one if you can defeat your patron, plus then if you want to level up you will need a new source of power. If you can't defeat your patron in one-on-one combat, and your patron has the ability to find you and go to your location (which is likely), then they'll just slay you and continue.
Plus some pacts (especially those with devils) are just "Give me this, you get magic." And then let you continue as you please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco. No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
"Warlocks are one of those classes where by choosing to be a warlock you've started with a major roleplay, story and personality element in a way that perhaps being a barbarian or a fighter doesn't and I'm not sure players always understand that when they choose their class"
Oh man this is the warlock in a nutshell. So perfectly said. Chefs kiss.
Your scenario is different, typically I see players pick just downright awful evil patrons and throughout the game the requests they get to do becomes more odious, things like "you see that child with his father, slip this dust in his pocket", the next thing you see child crying as he's being pulled out of his home by the town guards and later on "you see that small temple, drag these black oozers to kill the head cleric and watch", eventually they get the hint that picking Cthulu as a patron was a bad idea and they are going to end up being asked to do something they won't want to do or they will take part in destroying the world. Whenever I see someone going full evil for patron and they are playing a good character or a good patron and they are playing an evil character, I make sure there is a neutral out. Have them find a magic sword with an extraplanar being entrapped in it, congratulations offer them the new patron and they pick what it is.
IF a warlock betrays their patron, sever all casting and boons, give them cantrips, hp and weapons and tell them they need to find another patron, until they do that's what they have. They can't expect to be casting spells using the power from their patron to attack him.
Because you only break one if you can defeat your patron, plus then if you want to level up you will need a new source of power. If you can't defeat your patron in one-on-one combat, and your patron has the ability to find you and go to your location (which is likely), then they'll just slay you and continue.
Plus some pacts (especially those with devils) are just "Give me this, you get magic." And then let you continue as you please.
You don't have to fight your patron to break a pact - in fact, since patrons are godly in terms of power, it will rarely be possible to do so. A Great Old One, for example, is essentially a god, and taking them on is likely to be the end goal of an entire campaign (and even then, you'll probably only foil their plans, and have no possible way to destroy it). These beings have such cosmic power that they can fuel the abilities of hundreds of warlocks.
Part of the giving of the pact is that the patrons are so far above mortals in the pecking order that mortals are more like playthings, beloved pets, or things to torment to patrons. But that doesn't mean that they can't be outsmarted at times (exploit their arrogance, abuse the pact's wording etc).
I definitely agree about pacts with devils - they're more likely to grant magic in exchange for a service and then forget about it than an archfey or GOO.
First and foremost, I'd let the player commit their character to this path. I wouldn't tell them they can't or detail why/how it's going to be harder. Free will and all...
After that? Well, that patron isn't going to grant more power to someone who's not keeping to their part of the bargain. So now the warlock in question is either going to need to find a new patron, or multiclass going forward. It makes for interesting choices.
I'd also have this patron spend a little effort and energy on getting the Warlock in question back in line. Nightmares, visions, other cultists coming at them as a heretic, etc. Plus direct stress on whomever and whatever this character values and treasures/loves most. "I wouldn't be doing this to your friends if you were still willing to work with me."
I'd make it a fun secondary plot theme. The minute the players want to jump on that... It'd be primary. If they never did, that's also good and fine. It becomes motivation for the character in question while they deal with other things.
Warlock patrons are ancient and powerful, and ancient/powerful beings usually have enemies. If you as the DM wanna give the player leeway to rebel against their patron, perhaps you can have an interested third party step in, all-too eager to recruit one of their enemies most powerful servants and unite their powers against the patron.
Also, as 54MU41 implies, the Warlock isn't necessarily "plugged in" to the patron's power grid and dependant on them for power, though that is a popular interpretation of the dynamic. It could be that the patron exchanges secret knowledge of the arcane in exchange for service; ancient secrets that you can't just un-know if they get angry with you. Or maybe, as 54 says they can have filled you with a certain amount of their own power and, like an arm grafted onto the body, the power is yours now and would require a good deal of effort to sever. That room for a Warlock to retain their powers even if their pact is broken, allows the Warlock to push back against a patron's outright evil if they want to. The only thing is that you cannot learn any new ancient secrets or gain any new eldritch powers without either patching things up with cthulu, or finding a new magic sugar daddy.
I'm also of the mindset that a Warlock who betrays their Patron doesn't need to necessarily lose all their powers. Not that I think doing so is "wrong" or anything like that, but if it's not fun for the table then it's not necessary.
I do find it interesting that Paladins and Clerics both have unique subclasses that represent betraying their God, but there's no such subclass for Warlocks who leave their Patron. Although those subclasses are really intended more as a DM tool than necessarily meant to be something for players but still... I feel like a a Warlock turning on their patron is much more common at the table than a Cleric turning on their God. I suppose in the long run it's a good thing that there aren't set rules in the books about how to handle that, since it frees up DMs and players to tackle the issue with whatever works best for them, but I think it would be nice if there was at least some guidance.
Two things I'd like to see in D&D. 1) A pact burner Warlock, which gives the Warlock an in game mechanical and narrative path to either retain or shift their patron derived powers. 2.) A "double dealer" Warlock who is not beholden to a particular patron but can sort of pick and choose pact derived features and story-wise map out a series of competing obligations to powers often at cross purposes (this would require something like optional class features for Warlocks but with greater depth and breadth than the current OCF system laid out in Tashas, maybe something like what the ENWorld Level Up book is offering, dunno enough about it). Constantine's powers are arguably part of damnation but he's definitely not working under direct infernal supervision, often quite the opposite. Patrons can be victims of charlatans too. It just sees like folks forget that trope tradition and seem to relegate Warlocks to Renfield submission. Which is one way to play.
I'm also of the mindset that a Warlock who betrays their Patron doesn't need to necessarily lose all their powers. Not that I think doing so is "wrong" or anything like that, but if it's not fun for the table then it's not necessary.
I do find it interesting that Paladins and Clerics both have unique subclasses that represent betraying their God, but there's no such subclass for Warlocks who leave their Patron. Although those subclasses are really intended more as a DM tool than necessarily meant to be something for players but still... I feel like a a Warlock turning on their patron is much more common at the table than a Cleric turning on their God. I suppose in the long run it's a good thing that there aren't set rules in the books about how to handle that, since it frees up DMs and players to tackle the issue with whatever works best for them, but I think it would be nice if there was at least some guidance.
Paladins can be stooges for a wide range of typically law and order type causes. The word comes from x of the palace and the oath of the crown can represent a pure example of this. Even in this case, the paladin might have found their own access to a paladin power to represent the crown with no cost to the crown itself. If a paladin breaks the oath, the crown might think something, "oh well, it was good while it lasted". Paladin oath-breaking could involve a 'god' but, in some contexts, doesn't have to.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't think of a cleric subclass that represents betraying a god.
I also think it's possible to have contexts where the gods may or may not exist and that clerics may just channel or weave flows of magic in ways more in parallel to other casters. Certainly, otherworldly powers may or may not be involved. Even then the question as to whether or not these powers were of the style of god that belatedly developed in d&d might depend on the DM's preference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As per the title, a warlock player in my game has basically declared war on their patron - a celestial entity.
How would you handle such a situation?
I'm looking for fun alternatives to "you know I'm bigger than you, right?" *Squish*
Player dies (*squish*), then is sent to whatever afterlife is available, and has to find a way back to the living realm
Supreme Cat-lover Of The First Grade
I AM A CAT PERSON. /\_____/\
She/her pronouns please. (=^.^=)
Do you want to explore that narrative or did the player throw this at you without talking to you about it? If you don't want to explore that and the player just did it without talking to you about it I agree with a potential squishening.
If you want to explore it, then there are several ideas about how you can explore that.
Whatever you choose, you should certainly talk to the player about it first.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
A warlock that loses the support of their patrons might still have their hp maximum and any of their proficiencies in weapons, armour, skills and tools. An option would be to leave them with just these basics until they either reestablish a supportive patron connection or try something else.
Warlock Patrons don't work quite like that. Warlocks aren't like clerics, who are constantly fueled by their deity. Patrons don't "fuel" warlocks, they gift them the power. A patron might help lead a warlock to discover magical secrets, or they might fill them with energy. Either way, once they have the power, a warlock's power is their own.
Or, as an alternative in between those two, you could have it be like the followers of the Elder's from The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, where they grant you power that can be taken away, but only by the one that granted it and only by touching the follower with the intent of ending it.
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco.
No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/warlock#SwornandBeholden
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. 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. 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.
There's a potential range of possible relationship parameters that might be used between warlock and patron. In the second Critical Role campaign, Fjord's patron directly removed powers and I think that in similar circumstances, if many patrons could, they also would.
In these cases perhaps the patron might remove powers immediately or they might delay the removal of powers until a face to face encounter. Perhaps the patron, also, was not as it first seemed.
I also think it might be fun if the patron had superiors who expected patrons to maintain a measure of control over their pact takers. Failure to maintain control, perhaps due to failure in properly ordering a pact, could result in no end of embarrassment.
This is often an issue with warlock players. When they make their character, serving a Great Old One or Fiend sounds like it gives them cool powers - until they realise that the bargain goes both ways. They are dependent on the entity for their gifts, and the patron can strip them if the pact is broken. If they agreed to serve, and they outright make war on the patron, then they no longer have a pact.
Pact magic and any other magical benefits they get from their patron should be lost.
I had a warlock in my campaign who found that serving a Great Old One - essentially Cthulhu - actually came with a steep price. He abandoned the patron but took up a pact with a different patron (a celestial) instead.
I prefer the explanation that their pact requires a bit more effort to remove then the patron just saying "You don't have a pact anymore." From across the multiverse. After all, if the pact actually needs to be kept up with continuous effort from the patron, why aren't warlocks prepared casters? Just saying that you can't level up (without multiclassing or gaining a new source of power) and that the patron could end it with a touch seems fair to me.
I understand what you are talking about, and naturally everyone's free to have their own opinion, but it makes more sense to me this way.
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco.
No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
I suppose that it depends on what the nature of the pact is, and that can vary tremendously. Remember that if someone can just make a pact, then ignore everything about it and retain their powers, then really it's not a pact at all - it's simply powerful being tossing out magic and getting nothing in return. A pact requires that both parties fulfil their part.
Serve me by making a blood sacrifice every 3 days, and I will grant you the power to take revenge/become king/save your land
This pact is dependent on the character actually making the sacrifice. If they miss it because they were imprisoned, then the patron probably lets them off - but if they miss it because they are now actively opposed to the Fiend that they made the pact with then hell yeah they lose all their powers!
Kill the witch in the woods, and I will grant you Eldritch Blasts...
This is a very different pact - there's no time limit, there's no constant requirement etc. If that was the pact, then having done the deed then the warlock should have their powers permanently. I tend to think that when you make a pact with an Archfey or Fiend there's some kind of cosmic law around the magic, and the patron cannot break the pact themselves as long as you've done your warlocky bit.
I will return your love to life, but you will serve me as I see fit...
In this pact, the warlock is bound to serve the whims of their patron, and must do anything they're asked to. Not only should breaking this pact strip them of their powers, the former warlock can expect painful retribution to come down on their head (or be swallowed into a fiery crack in the ground).
If pacts are easily broken, then why doesn't everyone just make one and break it? Warlocks are one of those classes where by choosing to be a warlock you've started with a major roleplay, story and personality element in a way that perhaps being a barbarian or a fighter doesn't and I'm not sure players always understand that when they choose their class.
Dael Kingsmill gives a pretty cool brainstorm (basically thinking out loud not really providing a tested render) for a "pact burner" warlock:
My own thoughts, I'll preface noting influential lore. Archetypal warlock John Constantine is definitely one who doublecrosses his patrons on the regular. I think also the comic character Spawn could be seen as a Hexblade and/or Pact of Blade type Warlock who also is often at cross purposes with his patron.
So the bigger question for the game is "what do you or the player mean by 'war with their patron'?" To be fair, while the PHB allows for arch-whatevers and other near god like beings as patrons, it's usually suggested the entity that actually provides patronage to the Warlock is lower in the hierarchy. So by "war" are we talking about conflict with this particular patron but not the fiend/celestial/genie etc "realm" from which the Warlock derives their powers? In that case, it's not hard, especially in hierarchy realms like the Hells and to some extent the Feywild where a new patron from that "realm" can be determined and may actually enrich the character and maybe party's relationship with that realm through intrigue. I imagine some realms' entities are constantly vying for mortal Warlock agents (I think this is actually how Constantine rolls a lot of the time), or at least one can envision in some structured realms times of upheaval where Warlock loyalties can be bid against by other patrons. In less structured realms like the Abyss or Far Realm, it could be a matter of a different entity suddenly taking the patron's calls instead of the entity that originated the pact.
Now going to war with the realm from which the patronage power derives? Well, there's plenty of threads on here, some epic ones even (so to speak) about godkilling and what not. Those are decisions for your own particular world.
In my worlds, Warlocks are rarely as consequential as they think they are. They believe their mind-breaking or soul-rending contortions to curry the favor of their patron may not make them a King or Queen on the patron's great game, but put them in the position of a knight/rook/or bishop ... when in reality they are pawns with the "someday I may be queen" delusion of grandeur sometimes associated with those pieces. Consequently "betraying" a patron may not have the world shaking "look at my defiance" the Warlock expects. When I have players thinking their contending with the "great powers" I often bring out that exchange in Apocalypse Now between Col. Kurtz and Capt. Willard. In the film both are Green Berets, so think of them as Hexblade, imbued with the power to commit great violence as elite warriors on behalf of their patron, the U.S. Government. Kurtz has broken his pact and done the common D&D Warlock thing of basically setting up a vanity cult of his own. Willard has been tasked to "terminate" Kurtz "with extreme prejudice." Eventually Kurtz captures Willard and they have this exchange:
That right there, to me, is what Warlocks largely are in my games.
So "the war" could look like a bunch of things, maybe it's the godkiller narrative, maybe it's more getting deeper into the power structures and realm intrigue, maybe it's simply an affront to the patron with a "I don't want to do your dirty work ... no more" note that may or may not actually be filed and read. It doesn't have to be a table breaking play and can actually become a fun table focus or side intrigue. Now, mechanically, what happens to a pact burner, RAW are pretty light on this. First off, if change is desired, I'd say Warlocks (and to a lesser extend Clerics, and even lesser extent Sorcerers) in this regard are one of the few classes where the "subclass switch" rules outlined in Tasha's sort of makes sense. Mechanically they're sound and straight forward, narratively there's interesting possibilities. As you can probably tell by my framing, I think of Warlocks more as the "dirty work" agents of greater powers and a folk of that station who goes turncoat ... not exactly a prestige spot (real life history if full of traitors who were expecting great rewards but were basically allowed subsistence existence). So that's one option. Another options is ... nothing really happens mechanically. Warlocks do fill a need for their patrons. The warlock is utilized to perform acts in the prime material plane, providing agency the patron would not have otherwise. Given that barrier in the first place, maybe what the patron giveth, they can't take away. Some folks think of the patron as flipping a few patronage switches toggling "warlock" and said patron can then toggle them off if disappointed. That's one way. However a lot of the stories informing the Warlock character speak of these powers as a mix of knowledge and truths "revealed" to the Warlock. Maybe the patron can't take that back due to the same limits imposed on the patron's agency in the prime material plane in the first place. Mechanically, one thing you could do is halt the character's progression and have them pick another class to continue leveling through ... but you don't have to do that. Once a "ronin" Warlock knows "the way" and has the mysterious texts and codes revealed to them, there doesn't have to be anything stopping them from going further. In between those poles you could have some sort of "warden" challenge the Warlock must get through before hitting certain class feature milestones or what have you, if you want. There could be deeper ramifications to the game, or the Warlocks soul if/when the character meets their end, but pact scofflaws can be a thing if you want them to be.
In the end, when a Warlock tells their patron to sod off, it can be as inconsequential or grave as the DM wants it. You may wanna Mafia movie it. Let the affront happen, and it seems the character "gets away with it." Then much further down the line, whack 'em with the consequences.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Because you only break one if you can defeat your patron, plus then if you want to level up you will need a new source of power. If you can't defeat your patron in one-on-one combat, and your patron has the ability to find you and go to your location (which is likely), then they'll just slay you and continue.
Plus some pacts (especially those with devils) are just "Give me this, you get magic." And then let you continue as you please.
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco.
No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
"Warlocks are one of those classes where by choosing to be a warlock you've started with a major roleplay, story and personality element in a way that perhaps being a barbarian or a fighter doesn't and I'm not sure players always understand that when they choose their class"
Oh man this is the warlock in a nutshell. So perfectly said. Chefs kiss.
Your scenario is different, typically I see players pick just downright awful evil patrons and throughout the game the requests they get to do becomes more odious, things like "you see that child with his father, slip this dust in his pocket", the next thing you see child crying as he's being pulled out of his home by the town guards and later on "you see that small temple, drag these black oozers to kill the head cleric and watch", eventually they get the hint that picking Cthulu as a patron was a bad idea and they are going to end up being asked to do something they won't want to do or they will take part in destroying the world. Whenever I see someone going full evil for patron and they are playing a good character or a good patron and they are playing an evil character, I make sure there is a neutral out. Have them find a magic sword with an extraplanar being entrapped in it, congratulations offer them the new patron and they pick what it is.
IF a warlock betrays their patron, sever all casting and boons, give them cantrips, hp and weapons and tell them they need to find another patron, until they do that's what they have. They can't expect to be casting spells using the power from their patron to attack him.
You don't have to fight your patron to break a pact - in fact, since patrons are godly in terms of power, it will rarely be possible to do so. A Great Old One, for example, is essentially a god, and taking them on is likely to be the end goal of an entire campaign (and even then, you'll probably only foil their plans, and have no possible way to destroy it). These beings have such cosmic power that they can fuel the abilities of hundreds of warlocks.
Part of the giving of the pact is that the patrons are so far above mortals in the pecking order that mortals are more like playthings, beloved pets, or things to torment to patrons. But that doesn't mean that they can't be outsmarted at times (exploit their arrogance, abuse the pact's wording etc).
I definitely agree about pacts with devils - they're more likely to grant magic in exchange for a service and then forget about it than an archfey or GOO.
How would I handle it?
First and foremost, I'd let the player commit their character to this path. I wouldn't tell them they can't or detail why/how it's going to be harder. Free will and all...
After that? Well, that patron isn't going to grant more power to someone who's not keeping to their part of the bargain. So now the warlock in question is either going to need to find a new patron, or multiclass going forward. It makes for interesting choices.
I'd also have this patron spend a little effort and energy on getting the Warlock in question back in line. Nightmares, visions, other cultists coming at them as a heretic, etc. Plus direct stress on whomever and whatever this character values and treasures/loves most. "I wouldn't be doing this to your friends if you were still willing to work with me."
I'd make it a fun secondary plot theme. The minute the players want to jump on that... It'd be primary. If they never did, that's also good and fine. It becomes motivation for the character in question while they deal with other things.
Warlock patrons are ancient and powerful, and ancient/powerful beings usually have enemies. If you as the DM wanna give the player leeway to rebel against their patron, perhaps you can have an interested third party step in, all-too eager to recruit one of their enemies most powerful servants and unite their powers against the patron.
Also, as 54MU41 implies, the Warlock isn't necessarily "plugged in" to the patron's power grid and dependant on them for power, though that is a popular interpretation of the dynamic. It could be that the patron exchanges secret knowledge of the arcane in exchange for service; ancient secrets that you can't just un-know if they get angry with you. Or maybe, as 54 says they can have filled you with a certain amount of their own power and, like an arm grafted onto the body, the power is yours now and would require a good deal of effort to sever. That room for a Warlock to retain their powers even if their pact is broken, allows the Warlock to push back against a patron's outright evil if they want to. The only thing is that you cannot learn any new ancient secrets or gain any new eldritch powers without either patching things up with cthulu, or finding a new magic sugar daddy.
I'm also of the mindset that a Warlock who betrays their Patron doesn't need to necessarily lose all their powers. Not that I think doing so is "wrong" or anything like that, but if it's not fun for the table then it's not necessary.
I do find it interesting that Paladins and Clerics both have unique subclasses that represent betraying their God, but there's no such subclass for Warlocks who leave their Patron. Although those subclasses are really intended more as a DM tool than necessarily meant to be something for players but still... I feel like a a Warlock turning on their patron is much more common at the table than a Cleric turning on their God. I suppose in the long run it's a good thing that there aren't set rules in the books about how to handle that, since it frees up DMs and players to tackle the issue with whatever works best for them, but I think it would be nice if there was at least some guidance.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Two things I'd like to see in D&D. 1) A pact burner Warlock, which gives the Warlock an in game mechanical and narrative path to either retain or shift their patron derived powers. 2.) A "double dealer" Warlock who is not beholden to a particular patron but can sort of pick and choose pact derived features and story-wise map out a series of competing obligations to powers often at cross purposes (this would require something like optional class features for Warlocks but with greater depth and breadth than the current OCF system laid out in Tashas, maybe something like what the ENWorld Level Up book is offering, dunno enough about it). Constantine's powers are arguably part of damnation but he's definitely not working under direct infernal supervision, often quite the opposite. Patrons can be victims of charlatans too. It just sees like folks forget that trope tradition and seem to relegate Warlocks to Renfield submission. Which is one way to play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Paladins can be stooges for a wide range of typically law and order type causes. The word comes from x of the palace and the oath of the crown can represent a pure example of this. Even in this case, the paladin might have found their own access to a paladin power to represent the crown with no cost to the crown itself. If a paladin breaks the oath, the crown might think something, "oh well, it was good while it lasted". Paladin oath-breaking could involve a 'god' but, in some contexts, doesn't have to.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't think of a cleric subclass that represents betraying a god.
I also think it's possible to have contexts where the gods may or may not exist and that clerics may just channel or weave flows of magic in ways more in parallel to other casters. Certainly, otherworldly powers may or may not be involved. Even then the question as to whether or not these powers were of the style of god that belatedly developed in d&d might depend on the DM's preference.