As a player, it is easy to say "I am going to be a warlock", or "I am MC'ing with a few Warlock levels".
But within the D&D world's "reality", I believe that taking a patron for a Warlock is somewhat problematic. It is easy enough for a player to visit a temple of a particular god, or enter a particular School of Wizardry, Fighting school, or Thieves' Guild. It is also easy enough to envision someone being born with innate magical powers, like a Sorcerer.
But Warlock's and their Patrons I think are different. But there are no buildings with signs that say "Fiend Warlocks sign up here" , or "Take a Patron of the Shadowfell, its Great!"
Now, I recognize that a player can set up a backstory which makes it perfectly logical for a char to start as a Warlock. I have done that myself, for my char(s). But to MC, after starting as another class, to me, requires the DM setting up an encounter, or set of encounters, that present the player with the option of taking on a patron, or being forced to take on a patron. Remember, it is a deal struck by the player. That to me requires a lot of work and co-ordination between player and DM, and that typically means dragging the party along for the ride.
It’s going to depend on the table, I’d think. Some could turn it into a session or two where the rest of the party goes along. Sometimes, for something quick (5minutes or so), I’ll get up from the table and go into another room with the player. But I’d think the most practical here would be to say the character has a dream/vision and then handle the details via email between sessions.
Of course, there are those who don’t even really care about the patron bit, and just say, you’re part warlock now, congratulations.
Maybe not totally "dragging the party for the ride," but certainly some thought and creativity by the DM and the player. Who is the patron? What is their motivation? How does the player character help further the goals of the patron? And on and on. They don't have to even agree eye to eye on alignment or perhaps even some larger issues, but have a common goal or enemy. The Raven Queen is Lawful Neutral, but detests undead as an abomination. She hates the Lich Lord Vecna, in particular, who is encroaching on her territory in Shadowfell. I can see her making a deal to help a good alignment paladin to kill undead. As long as he kills undead, she's ok with it. The Raven Queen might demand of him/her to do her bidding against some particular undead forces of Vecna or maybe Count Strahd. So the common enemy makes them allies of a sort.
Of course, there are those who don’t even really care about the patron bit, and just say, you’re part warlock now, congratulations.
And honestly, this is on WotC. They bake in all this flavor, set it up like it's required for the class, and then give no actual game hooks into it. There are no mechanics for making the deal, or breaking it, or pleasing/displeasing your patron, or any of that. It is also never any more dangerous, risky, or regrettable than the relationship between a cleric and their god, despite the whole Faustian origins of the concept.
I'm not saying I'd like it all laid out. I definitely appreciate having some space to reinterpret game elements for my campaign world, but I mean... something would be nice. Don't state all this stuff about the identity of the class and not back it up with anything. As it is now there's potentially a huge gulf between how two different people might think it works. And when those two people are a PC and their DM, you can get problems.
And just to rant a bit more, the flip effect of this bugs me too. So often I see someone who makes a shady deal or does something edgy and now they think they need to shoehorn a level of warlock into their character to reflect it. Warlocks don't have a monopoly on bad deals with powerful figures. Anyone can do that.
I think the warlock class is lacking in good alignment patrons, without some homebrew or tweaking by the DM. Sorry, but I don't want to have a good alignment warlock, in a deal with the Fiend or a Great Old One of Lovecraft. Yes, there is now the Celestial, but if I wanted to play a healer, I would have rolled a cleric! And for something like hexblade, it seems all the patrons would be evil or at best, neutral, since the sword is the stuff of Shadowfell. Like I posted above, there are ways to allow your good alignment character to have a neutral or evil patron, but it means you have to "jump through hoops" or mental gymnastics with your storyline to get there.
Per DnD Beyond's stats, only something like 8% of the characters are evil, of any stripe. Which is about 1/3 of just the numbers for Chaotic Good! Not sure why WotC are so stuck on us playing an evil character, perhaps they think it's cool or edgey? But it isn't going where the market is imo. WotC should do more investment on some good aligned patrons and I don't just mean Celestial healers.
I think I am going to craft an encounter, where the player(s) have the option of MC'ing into Warlock. It may be that no player decides to do it (more than likely), or maybe more than one jumps at the chance. The circumstances are up in the air, but these are potential encounter/plot hooks I have so far, in rough terms:
a. Player interrupt some ceremony (possibly contacting a plane that has gone wrong), where some entity appears, and looks to lay waste. Players intervene, and cut some form of deal with the entity.
b. Players find some item that is closely aligned with some entity, and said entity becomes aware of at least one of the players' presence.
c. Players encounter a Warlock, likely killing said Warlock. The Patron is not pleased (or maybe is impressed), and demands a replacement.
Any other ideas? I know the players are going to be facing a Lich soon enough (no, they are not nearly powerful to fight such a creature, they know that, and this will be a plot development hook). Perhaps I do something dumb and give at least one of them the opportunity to become an Warlock with an Undead Patron (BTW, that UA subclass looks wildly OP).
One of my players floated the idea of MCing into Warlock. I told him that he would need to find some secret and forbidden lore that would lead him to discover this patron and maybe connect with it. He was just toying with the idea and I don't think he's mentioned it since, so I suspect he has changed his mind. But if he wanted to do it then I would "seed" some forbidden/lost lore into the world and leave it there for him to find.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Personally, I think you're thinking it through the right amount, but I disagree with your conclusion. If someone wants to MC into Warlock, that gives me a chance to think about the campaign in cosmic terms. Whose interests is all this questing in service of? That entity might well offer an alliance of sorts with an interested character. And that entity's enemies will sit on the characters' other shoulder and tempt them in the other direction, with promises of power.
Actually striking the bargain doesn't seem like the hard part to me. How long did it take Joan of Arc to have a vision? And keep in mind, there only needs to be static between the warlock's patron and the campaign if you want there to be. If your players' enemies are Queen Mab's enemies, they and she can have an agreement in principle and decide to iron out the details later.
In my world anyone can be a warlock, and can 'sign up' very easily. Fiends and fey *love* having mortals in their power.
As to RPing the contract, could you and the player work it into their backstory? Maybe the player had the 'offer' a long time ago and every year the patron turns up and says "how about now?"
Or the pact is a family inheritance - a distant relative dies and the PC wakes up with a genie standing over him saying "congratulations kid, you work for me now. See here in the contract your great great great aunt twice removed signed 500 years ago. Here's your lamp. Hang tight - I'll have some things for you to do in 10 or 100 years or so"
For Great Old One it could be even weirder. You could enter a pact and have no idea how or why. Maybe you ate something?
For the contract you could also do a "try before you buy" scenario - the get their patron at level 1, but the get the first few levels "free". They don't need to sign anything unless they want to go to level 3.
I think a MC dip into Warlock does require a little bit of thought, to at least make it fit. I'm playing a fiend-patron warlock currently, and the pact is a central theme of the character. It plays into level training; while most of the group can train in a conventional location I'm skulking off to meet a hag, a lich, or some other nefarious being to unlock abilities. It also weaves into the long story arc for the character. Depends on your table, but some classes require a devotion that makes a one or two level dip something that for me should be justified.
I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
Honestly, I think you are thinking it through too much.
1) It is very easy to have back story hooks that naturally lead to having a warlock patron of one sort or another. I have several characters who have done that.
- human lore bard character who read some forbidden books stored in his master's library. This eventually lead to a hexblade multiclass. (human level 14 lore bard/2 hexblade warlock)
- human rogue sailor who liked to explore - heard of a beautiful forest to explore one day when his ship was in port - met a fey, fell in love, stayed with her for over a century until she needed him to travel into the world to end a mysterious death curse - (human level 12 arcane trickster rogue / 5 fey warlock)
- unusual yuan-ti pureblood fighter - age 12 or so - worked as a hunter to feed the colony - touched by a GOO that had been trapped in the colony to be sacrificed to Dendar - freed the GOO from the runes holding part of it on this plane - avoided the search for the perpetrator who had freed the GOO. GOO opened their mind to other ways of living and to their own power within - (yuan-ti pureblood - 1 fighter/2 GOO warlock/8 draconic sorcerer).
2) However, if the idea wasn't in the character concept then all the player needs to do is talk to the DM and see what back story elements can be inserted into the sroryline. If the character decides that they wish to be a warlock then it becomes a part of the campaign for the character to find a patron. The DM can make this as easy or as hard as they like but personally, I don't see much point in trying to make it difficult for a player to develop a character they want to play.
Essentially, any multiclass can be justified with fluff and back story combined with the cooperation of the DM. If the DM wants some sort of in character explanation it is ridiculously easy to come up with some sort of fluff for it. If the DM says no because that type of character or patron doesn't exist in their game world fine - if the DM says no because they don't allow multiclassing then fine - if the DM says no because the resulting character just wouldn't fit in with the other characters in the campaign then fine - however, if the DM says no just because they arbitrarily decide it doesn't make sense because they can't see the character that the player has in mind - then chat to the DM about it and if they still insist on saying no then find a new DM.
(e.g. There are ways to make a devotion paladin with a fiend warlock patron work from a role play and back story perspective but some DMs will just say no).
I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
In my game, if a char starts as some class, no problem. That is covered in their original backstory. But if they later want to MC into another class, at least one with a powerful entity associated with it (Clerics and many Paladin's), the player better have a damn good reason and it will take some work to get the opportunity to gain the exposure to MC. And Warlocks are even more difficult.
If there is another char in the group that can show them the path of enlightenment (clerics and paladin's), that makes sense. Same if there is a Warlock in the group and this char wants to cut a deal with the same patron. Otherwise, it utterly breaks immersion, unless the char in question has the opportunity to interact with an NPC or organization that represents that new class and its entity.
I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
In my game, if a char starts as some class, no problem. That is covered in their original backstory. But if they later want to MC into another class, at least one with a powerful entity associated with it (Clerics and many Paladin's), the player better have a damn good reason and it will take some work to get the opportunity to gain the exposure to MC. And Warlocks are even more difficult.
If there is another char in the group that can show them the path of enlightenment (clerics and paladin's), that makes sense. Same if there is a Warlock in the group and this char wants to cut a deal with the same patron. Otherwise, it utterly breaks immersion, unless the char in question has the opportunity to interact with an NPC or organization that represents that new class and its entity.
Let's see...who again has the power to bring in an NPC or organization for the character to interact with? Oh yeah! You! The DM! ;)
Declaring you want to be a warlock is not the work to become one. Instead you must hunt down forbidden lore for the appropriate being and study it.
Declaring you want to be a cleric is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a cleric of the appropriate God and study their holy book.
Declaring you want to be a wizard is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a wizard to teach you and study their books most ferociously.
Declaring you want to be a Druid is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a druid to teach you and learn from them.
....
Do I need to continue?
Honestly it is the same for all classes. That kind of work is not fun to do. Many DM's just hand wave it away as identical to the normal study required to level up.
Other DMs require some extra role playing whenever you take the first level of a new class. But Warlocks are NOT the 'hard' class to start.
That honor belongs to Sorcerer because they are finding an innate talent for magic and figuring out how to use it.
I disagree. If there's one thing the Warlock is about, thematically, it's getting power the easy way. The work needed to become a Warlock is all the work required to reach out and shake Demogorgon's tentacle.
To me, the hook is finding the motivation for WHY this fey, fiend, celestial, old one, etc is thinking they should teach you, impart in you, the powers they have? It might be a same path or goal, a common enemy, a promise of a future service in a war or a mission (which could be a future campaign storyline). I noted earlier, that a lawful good paladin might take powers from the lawful neutral Raven Queen because he will use them to destroy undead. The Raven Queen has a special hatred for undeath and so do good aligned paladins. Perhaps the paladin/warlock is going to be drawn into a mission against the Lich Vecna or perhaps even serve as a soldier in the war against Vecna's armies. The Raven Queen might see advantage in the lawful good paladin's service and the paladin in accepting the powers of the Raven Queen. The HOW of it is up to DM to decide. The DM has to work the Raven Queen into the story. Does this piss off his/her god? That likely depends on the bargain. If the commitment is to constantly hunt undead...a good alignment god may be ok with it.
I hadn't thought about it, but the bargaining for powers shouldn't be a one time thing, either. Each new ability, invocation and power moves the warlock up the food chain of attention from his/her patron. Imo, it shouldn't necessarily be one bargain struck, but an ever increasing bargain. Isn't that how deals like this work in folklore? You are trading your freedom for power. More of your freedom lost as you gain more power.
I find it far more reasonable for someone to make a deal or uncover a bit of hidden knowledge on level up than (for example) discover that they are descended from a dragon allowing them to multiclass into sorcerer. If you have a problem with multiclassing, either ban it or require your characters to talk to you about it at least one level in advance so it can be part of the story.
I find it far more reasonable for someone to make a deal or uncover a bit of hidden knowledge on level up than (for example) discover that they are descended from a dragon allowing them to multiclass into sorcerer. If you have a problem with multiclassing, either ban it or require your characters to talk to you about it at least one level in advance so it can be part of the story.
There should be consultation with the DM long before anybody decides to multiclass. I think any large decision that effects gameplay should be made with consultation and approval of the DM.
I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
In my game, if a char starts as some class, no problem. That is covered in their original backstory. But if they later want to MC into another class, at least one with a powerful entity associated with it (Clerics and many Paladin's), the player better have a damn good reason and it will take some work to get the opportunity to gain the exposure to MC. And Warlocks are even more difficult.
If there is another char in the group that can show them the path of enlightenment (clerics and paladin's), that makes sense. Same if there is a Warlock in the group and this char wants to cut a deal with the same patron. Otherwise, it utterly breaks immersion, unless the char in question has the opportunity to interact with an NPC or organization that represents that new class and its entity.
Let's see...who again has the power to bring in an NPC or organization for the character to interact with? Oh yeah! You! The DM! ;)
I think you misunderstand. Yes, the DM must provide the required circumstances for a char to MC into any class, once a game is well underway, if one cares about immersion. But see my original post. It is easy enough for a player to say when a group hits some town to say "Guys, see you in a bit, heading to Temple of X", or "Wizard School of Y". One does not find Warlock schools in town, or anywhere else. It requires far more immersion and effort by both the DM and player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a player, it is easy to say "I am going to be a warlock", or "I am MC'ing with a few Warlock levels".
But within the D&D world's "reality", I believe that taking a patron for a Warlock is somewhat problematic. It is easy enough for a player to visit a temple of a particular god, or enter a particular School of Wizardry, Fighting school, or Thieves' Guild. It is also easy enough to envision someone being born with innate magical powers, like a Sorcerer.
But Warlock's and their Patrons I think are different. But there are no buildings with signs that say "Fiend Warlocks sign up here" , or "Take a Patron of the Shadowfell, its Great!"
Now, I recognize that a player can set up a backstory which makes it perfectly logical for a char to start as a Warlock. I have done that myself, for my char(s). But to MC, after starting as another class, to me, requires the DM setting up an encounter, or set of encounters, that present the player with the option of taking on a patron, or being forced to take on a patron. Remember, it is a deal struck by the player. That to me requires a lot of work and co-ordination between player and DM, and that typically means dragging the party along for the ride.
Am I thinking this through too much?
It’s going to depend on the table, I’d think. Some could turn it into a session or two where the rest of the party goes along. Sometimes, for something quick (5minutes or so), I’ll get up from the table and go into another room with the player. But I’d think the most practical here would be to say the character has a dream/vision and then handle the details via email between sessions.
Of course, there are those who don’t even really care about the patron bit, and just say, you’re part warlock now, congratulations.
Maybe not totally "dragging the party for the ride," but certainly some thought and creativity by the DM and the player. Who is the patron? What is their motivation? How does the player character help further the goals of the patron? And on and on. They don't have to even agree eye to eye on alignment or perhaps even some larger issues, but have a common goal or enemy. The Raven Queen is Lawful Neutral, but detests undead as an abomination. She hates the Lich Lord Vecna, in particular, who is encroaching on her territory in Shadowfell. I can see her making a deal to help a good alignment paladin to kill undead. As long as he kills undead, she's ok with it. The Raven Queen might demand of him/her to do her bidding against some particular undead forces of Vecna or maybe Count Strahd. So the common enemy makes them allies of a sort.
And honestly, this is on WotC. They bake in all this flavor, set it up like it's required for the class, and then give no actual game hooks into it. There are no mechanics for making the deal, or breaking it, or pleasing/displeasing your patron, or any of that. It is also never any more dangerous, risky, or regrettable than the relationship between a cleric and their god, despite the whole Faustian origins of the concept.
I'm not saying I'd like it all laid out. I definitely appreciate having some space to reinterpret game elements for my campaign world, but I mean... something would be nice. Don't state all this stuff about the identity of the class and not back it up with anything. As it is now there's potentially a huge gulf between how two different people might think it works. And when those two people are a PC and their DM, you can get problems.
And just to rant a bit more, the flip effect of this bugs me too. So often I see someone who makes a shady deal or does something edgy and now they think they need to shoehorn a level of warlock into their character to reflect it. Warlocks don't have a monopoly on bad deals with powerful figures. Anyone can do that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think the warlock class is lacking in good alignment patrons, without some homebrew or tweaking by the DM. Sorry, but I don't want to have a good alignment warlock, in a deal with the Fiend or a Great Old One of Lovecraft. Yes, there is now the Celestial, but if I wanted to play a healer, I would have rolled a cleric! And for something like hexblade, it seems all the patrons would be evil or at best, neutral, since the sword is the stuff of Shadowfell. Like I posted above, there are ways to allow your good alignment character to have a neutral or evil patron, but it means you have to "jump through hoops" or mental gymnastics with your storyline to get there.
Per DnD Beyond's stats, only something like 8% of the characters are evil, of any stripe. Which is about 1/3 of just the numbers for Chaotic Good! Not sure why WotC are so stuck on us playing an evil character, perhaps they think it's cool or edgey? But it isn't going where the market is imo. WotC should do more investment on some good aligned patrons and I don't just mean Celestial healers.
I think I am going to craft an encounter, where the player(s) have the option of MC'ing into Warlock. It may be that no player decides to do it (more than likely), or maybe more than one jumps at the chance. The circumstances are up in the air, but these are potential encounter/plot hooks I have so far, in rough terms:
a. Player interrupt some ceremony (possibly contacting a plane that has gone wrong), where some entity appears, and looks to lay waste. Players intervene, and cut some form of deal with the entity.
b. Players find some item that is closely aligned with some entity, and said entity becomes aware of at least one of the players' presence.
c. Players encounter a Warlock, likely killing said Warlock. The Patron is not pleased (or maybe is impressed), and demands a replacement.
Any other ideas? I know the players are going to be facing a Lich soon enough (no, they are not nearly powerful to fight such a creature, they know that, and this will be a plot development hook). Perhaps I do something dumb and give at least one of them the opportunity to become an Warlock with an Undead Patron (BTW, that UA subclass looks wildly OP).
One of my players floated the idea of MCing into Warlock. I told him that he would need to find some secret and forbidden lore that would lead him to discover this patron and maybe connect with it. He was just toying with the idea and I don't think he's mentioned it since, so I suspect he has changed his mind. But if he wanted to do it then I would "seed" some forbidden/lost lore into the world and leave it there for him to find.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Personally, I think you're thinking it through the right amount, but I disagree with your conclusion. If someone wants to MC into Warlock, that gives me a chance to think about the campaign in cosmic terms. Whose interests is all this questing in service of? That entity might well offer an alliance of sorts with an interested character. And that entity's enemies will sit on the characters' other shoulder and tempt them in the other direction, with promises of power.
Actually striking the bargain doesn't seem like the hard part to me. How long did it take Joan of Arc to have a vision? And keep in mind, there only needs to be static between the warlock's patron and the campaign if you want there to be. If your players' enemies are Queen Mab's enemies, they and she can have an agreement in principle and decide to iron out the details later.
In my world anyone can be a warlock, and can 'sign up' very easily. Fiends and fey *love* having mortals in their power.
As to RPing the contract, could you and the player work it into their backstory? Maybe the player had the 'offer' a long time ago and every year the patron turns up and says "how about now?"
Or the pact is a family inheritance - a distant relative dies and the PC wakes up with a genie standing over him saying "congratulations kid, you work for me now. See here in the contract your great great great aunt twice removed signed 500 years ago. Here's your lamp. Hang tight - I'll have some things for you to do in 10 or 100 years or so"
For Great Old One it could be even weirder. You could enter a pact and have no idea how or why. Maybe you ate something?
For the contract you could also do a "try before you buy" scenario - the get their patron at level 1, but the get the first few levels "free". They don't need to sign anything unless they want to go to level 3.
So many fun options!
I think a MC dip into Warlock does require a little bit of thought, to at least make it fit. I'm playing a fiend-patron warlock currently, and the pact is a central theme of the character. It plays into level training; while most of the group can train in a conventional location I'm skulking off to meet a hag, a lich, or some other nefarious being to unlock abilities. It also weaves into the long story arc for the character. Depends on your table, but some classes require a devotion that makes a one or two level dip something that for me should be justified.
I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
Honestly, I think you are thinking it through too much.
1) It is very easy to have back story hooks that naturally lead to having a warlock patron of one sort or another. I have several characters who have done that.
- human lore bard character who read some forbidden books stored in his master's library. This eventually lead to a hexblade multiclass. (human level 14 lore bard/2 hexblade warlock)
- human rogue sailor who liked to explore - heard of a beautiful forest to explore one day when his ship was in port - met a fey, fell in love, stayed with her for over a century until she needed him to travel into the world to end a mysterious death curse - (human level 12 arcane trickster rogue / 5 fey warlock)
- unusual yuan-ti pureblood fighter - age 12 or so - worked as a hunter to feed the colony - touched by a GOO that had been trapped in the colony to be sacrificed to Dendar - freed the GOO from the runes holding part of it on this plane - avoided the search for the perpetrator who had freed the GOO. GOO opened their mind to other ways of living and to their own power within - (yuan-ti pureblood - 1 fighter/2 GOO warlock/8 draconic sorcerer).
2) However, if the idea wasn't in the character concept then all the player needs to do is talk to the DM and see what back story elements can be inserted into the sroryline. If the character decides that they wish to be a warlock then it becomes a part of the campaign for the character to find a patron. The DM can make this as easy or as hard as they like but personally, I don't see much point in trying to make it difficult for a player to develop a character they want to play.
Essentially, any multiclass can be justified with fluff and back story combined with the cooperation of the DM. If the DM wants some sort of in character explanation it is ridiculously easy to come up with some sort of fluff for it. If the DM says no because that type of character or patron doesn't exist in their game world fine - if the DM says no because they don't allow multiclassing then fine - if the DM says no because the resulting character just wouldn't fit in with the other characters in the campaign then fine - however, if the DM says no just because they arbitrarily decide it doesn't make sense because they can't see the character that the player has in mind - then chat to the DM about it and if they still insist on saying no then find a new DM.
(e.g. There are ways to make a devotion paladin with a fiend warlock patron work from a role play and back story perspective but some DMs will just say no).
In my game, if a char starts as some class, no problem. That is covered in their original backstory. But if they later want to MC into another class, at least one with a powerful entity associated with it (Clerics and many Paladin's), the player better have a damn good reason and it will take some work to get the opportunity to gain the exposure to MC. And Warlocks are even more difficult.
If there is another char in the group that can show them the path of enlightenment (clerics and paladin's), that makes sense. Same if there is a Warlock in the group and this char wants to cut a deal with the same patron. Otherwise, it utterly breaks immersion, unless the char in question has the opportunity to interact with an NPC or organization that represents that new class and its entity.
Let's see...who again has the power to bring in an NPC or organization for the character to interact with? Oh yeah! You! The DM! ;)
Declaring you want to be a warlock is not the work to become one. Instead you must hunt down forbidden lore for the appropriate being and study it.
Declaring you want to be a cleric is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a cleric of the appropriate God and study their holy book.
Declaring you want to be a wizard is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a wizard to teach you and study their books most ferociously.
Declaring you want to be a Druid is not the work to become one. Instead you must find a druid to teach you and learn from them.
....
Do I need to continue?
Honestly it is the same for all classes. That kind of work is not fun to do. Many DM's just hand wave it away as identical to the normal study required to level up.
Other DMs require some extra role playing whenever you take the first level of a new class. But Warlocks are NOT the 'hard' class to start.
That honor belongs to Sorcerer because they are finding an innate talent for magic and figuring out how to use it.
I disagree. If there's one thing the Warlock is about, thematically, it's getting power the easy way. The work needed to become a Warlock is all the work required to reach out and shake Demogorgon's tentacle.
To me, the hook is finding the motivation for WHY this fey, fiend, celestial, old one, etc is thinking they should teach you, impart in you, the powers they have? It might be a same path or goal, a common enemy, a promise of a future service in a war or a mission (which could be a future campaign storyline). I noted earlier, that a lawful good paladin might take powers from the lawful neutral Raven Queen because he will use them to destroy undead. The Raven Queen has a special hatred for undeath and so do good aligned paladins. Perhaps the paladin/warlock is going to be drawn into a mission against the Lich Vecna or perhaps even serve as a soldier in the war against Vecna's armies. The Raven Queen might see advantage in the lawful good paladin's service and the paladin in accepting the powers of the Raven Queen. The HOW of it is up to DM to decide. The DM has to work the Raven Queen into the story. Does this piss off his/her god? That likely depends on the bargain. If the commitment is to constantly hunt undead...a good alignment god may be ok with it.
I hadn't thought about it, but the bargaining for powers shouldn't be a one time thing, either. Each new ability, invocation and power moves the warlock up the food chain of attention from his/her patron. Imo, it shouldn't necessarily be one bargain struck, but an ever increasing bargain. Isn't that how deals like this work in folklore? You are trading your freedom for power. More of your freedom lost as you gain more power.
I find it far more reasonable for someone to make a deal or uncover a bit of hidden knowledge on level up than (for example) discover that they are descended from a dragon allowing them to multiclass into sorcerer. If you have a problem with multiclassing, either ban it or require your characters to talk to you about it at least one level in advance so it can be part of the story.
There should be consultation with the DM long before anybody decides to multiclass. I think any large decision that effects gameplay should be made with consultation and approval of the DM.
I think you misunderstand. Yes, the DM must provide the required circumstances for a char to MC into any class, once a game is well underway, if one cares about immersion. But see my original post. It is easy enough for a player to say when a group hits some town to say "Guys, see you in a bit, heading to Temple of X", or "Wizard School of Y". One does not find Warlock schools in town, or anywhere else. It requires far more immersion and effort by both the DM and player.