So in my campaign that happened to be derailed off its butt btw, our warlock patron appeared before her and these almost dying humans and offered them a chance of living with power if they took his hand and made a contract with him. Well for some reason she slapped his hand away which was completely unexpected. Well, I had the Fiend look at her and tell her not to do that again. She then did it again.....
So the fiend ended up taking their hands anyways and disappeared with them. My question is what would you do in this situation. I personally turned off all her powers. I feel like that was the right move to do. We ended the session right there. I'm not really sure if I want this to be temporary or permanent. Should I have her look for a new patron or roll a new character or have the fiend give back power over time. She did offer her soul for power btw. So I feel like just instantly killing her would be ok too. Since she kinda broke the contract of adding more followers. She knows that is part of her contract and has enlisted others for her patron. Any idea's would help.
P.S. She did want to be more of a necromancer warlock but this what her first character and didn't know to go undying for the cool necro stuff. So this could be a way to patron that... But I also don't want to reward her for what she did. Should be a punishement
Have you talked to the player about why their character defied their patron, what arc are they looking for?
I approach DMing as collaborating with my players to tell their characters stories, find out what the story she wants to tell is. You said this is her first character, she will never have another first character, help her make it an awesome one so it’s the first of many, don’t just punish the player, you risk making it her last.
Ok I am going to start with your last point, you don’t want to reward her for what she did it should be a punishment why? Let’s look at the player first, the player did something ballsy, yea it wasn’t what you expected or thought but you started the question by stating the campaign went off the rails long ago so in some ways the player was completely on point. By stripping them of their powers in this way you risk them feeling you have taken all their agency away. Do as the DM wants or I will punish you. I am not suggesting this is what you where doing but how things are and how they are perceived are 2 different things. However by having the fiend do the thing anyway you took all player choice away and had the thing you wanted to happen happen anyway your players may be thinking what is the point in turning up if your just going to run roughshod over what they do.
Now let’s go to the in game reason, the patron strips the warlock of their powers because they refuse a deal, the whole point of fiends is they are the perfect deal makers. In reality if the fiend wants the warlock to accept the deal they won’t try and force it, they will use trickery, manipulation, try and convince they are a friend and an ally before then presenting a contract and taking the characters soul. By stripping the character of their powers having already been turned down they will not endear themselves to the character and convince them to deal and so this rash action will be unlikely to get them the end goal they want.
I had this exact same situation when a warlock player of mine reached level 6, I ran through the backstory of this character involving a visit to the 9 hells and a meeting with their patron. The patron made an offer the player couldn’t refuse, but they did, they had not realised the powers came from hell and refused to sell their soul, I ran with it and for the rest of the campaign every time the warlock leveled their fiend patron would find a reason to re visit to try and entice, each time offering something different and more elaborate, each time tying into the current adventure in someway so as not to keep distracting. It became a bit of a running joke. In the end the player came up with an offer for the fiend, In my campaign the player found that actually the fiend had made a bet with another fiend. The outcome of that bet was he could not actually remove the powers ever or he would lose his side. In the end when this was discovered the party offered the fiend a chance to end his bet and free him of that contract and in return he would no longer try to get the players soul and would give them all the power. That was not the plan from the start, It was an outcome I came up with in reaction to their continued refusal to even remotely meet him halfway.
It is not too late to retcon your decision and I really suggest you do, maybe her powers are just nullified by some magic item in her possession they where not aware they had. Maybe the fiend is only able to stop the flow of power to her for a brief time. Maybe this fiend is actually not the patron but a rival trying to steal the character away. Maybe her real patron is imprisoned by this fiend and therefore needs to be freed. Maybe the patron isn’t a fiend at all but an arch fey trapped, once the fey is freed your player can make the shift in character style she wants. Stripping them of all their powers is the simple nuclear option there is a lot of nuance you can introduce instead, but you could also just sit the player down and say, I made a mistake and went the wrong way with that, your powers are not stripped. I have done things like that before instead of trying to come up with clever writing to write myself out of a corner a quick decision made in haste at the end of a session got me into I just explain to the players I am retconning myself and why.
How about a rival of the original patron, perhaps someone with necromantic focus, shows up and offers her "new powers" for a patron swap. "You don't really want Demogorgon when you can have me, Orcus!" or some such. If she agrees to the swap, she can re-spec her character as the sort of subclass/option she would have done if she were not new to the game.
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.
Do you watch Critical Role? Does the warlock player? If she does, is it possible that she likes the character arc Fjord is on and wants to multi-class/change patrons? (Mayhap she's unhappy with the patron type she chose and is now playing the character as regretting their pact?) It boils down to a discussion with the player for where to go from here. Because the patron temporarily taking the power away as a reminder of who's actually in charge in the relationship is totally logical. But the patron likely wants something from their warlock and so will return the powers when they feel their warlock has been sufficiently chastised.
P.S. She did want to be more of a necromancer warlock but this what her first character and didn't know to go undying for the cool necro stuff. So this could be a way to patron that... But I also don't want to reward her for what she did. Should be a punishement
While presumably the patron wants to punish the character, that doesn't mean the DM should punish the player. I would talk to the player to try and figure out what they were trying to do.
A general problem with warlock patrons is that the default patrons are prone to having villainous goals, which is a problem for heroic characters (and most campaigns do focus around heroic PCs), so it's usually best to have the patrons not show up very much.
There's a section in Tasha's on changing your subclass. The short version is, if the DM allows it, it may just happen, or it may cost some time and money. But there's also an option for a "sudden" change, which is probably more appropriate here, where the DM could just allow it to happen. So if you're worried about RAW, there's an option that allows it. FWIW, I'd go with BioWizard's suggestion of a new patron sensing the power void and jumping in.
As far as a punishment, I'd suggest a story-related consequence (rather than a punishment) is far more interesting than something mechanical. In this case, it seems like she's really pissed off her former patron. Others who follow that patron (I mean warlocks, sure, but probably there's some cultists. There's always some cultists.) will be hostile toward her, and may actively seek to kill her and anyone allied with her or even just disrupt her plans. And the patron itself, who she physically assaulted, might also pop in to deal with her personally, at the time when she is most vulnerable, of course.
I’ve read a couple of different interpretations of how the pact a warlock makes with a patron works.
The powers are granted one time when the warlock makes the pact and after that the warlock has them forever. The warlock will gain power as they go up in levels without any further interaction with their patron.
The powers are granted and/or the knowledge is taught each time the warlock goes up a level. The warlock has to keep serving the patron to level up as a warlock, but the powers and knowledge granted can’t be taken away by the patron.
The powers are granted and can be taken away by the patron at any time, which is how you interpreted the pact.
I personally go with the second option in my campaigns. It gives me role playing options without making players feel that warlocks are too limited.
I’ve read a couple of different interpretations of how the pact a warlock makes with a patron works.
The powers are granted one time when the warlock makes the pact and after that the warlock has them forever. The warlock will gain power as they go up in levels without any further interaction with their patron.
The powers are granted and/or the knowledge is taught each time the warlock goes up a level. The warlock has to keep serving the patron to level up as a warlock, but the powers and knowledge granted can’t be taken away by the patron.
The powers are granted and can be taken away by the patron at any time, which is how you interpreted the pact.
I personally go with the second option in my campaigns. It gives me role playing options without making players feel that warlocks are too limited.
If we assume that 'pact' is a literal term, it's a contract, so the PC loses powers if they violate the terms of the contract. Of course, the rules are completely vague on what the actual terms of a warlock pact are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So in my campaign that happened to be derailed off its butt btw, our warlock patron appeared before her and these almost dying humans and offered them a chance of living with power if they took his hand and made a contract with him. Well for some reason she slapped his hand away which was completely unexpected. Well, I had the Fiend look at her and tell her not to do that again. She then did it again.....
So the fiend ended up taking their hands anyways and disappeared with them. My question is what would you do in this situation. I personally turned off all her powers. I feel like that was the right move to do. We ended the session right there. I'm not really sure if I want this to be temporary or permanent. Should I have her look for a new patron or roll a new character or have the fiend give back power over time. She did offer her soul for power btw. So I feel like just instantly killing her would be ok too. Since she kinda broke the contract of adding more followers. She knows that is part of her contract and has enlisted others for her patron. Any idea's would help.
P.S. She did want to be more of a necromancer warlock but this what her first character and didn't know to go undying for the cool necro stuff. So this could be a way to patron that... But I also don't want to reward her for what she did. Should be a punishement
Have you talked to the player about why their character defied their patron, what arc are they looking for?
I approach DMing as collaborating with my players to tell their characters stories, find out what the story she wants to tell is. You said this is her first character, she will never have another first character, help her make it an awesome one so it’s the first of many, don’t just punish the player, you risk making it her last.
Ok I am going to start with your last point, you don’t want to reward her for what she did it should be a punishment why? Let’s look at the player first, the player did something ballsy, yea it wasn’t what you expected or thought but you started the question by stating the campaign went off the rails long ago so in some ways the player was completely on point. By stripping them of their powers in this way you risk them feeling you have taken all their agency away. Do as the DM wants or I will punish you. I am not suggesting this is what you where doing but how things are and how they are perceived are 2 different things. However by having the fiend do the thing anyway you took all player choice away and had the thing you wanted to happen happen anyway your players may be thinking what is the point in turning up if your just going to run roughshod over what they do.
Now let’s go to the in game reason, the patron strips the warlock of their powers because they refuse a deal, the whole point of fiends is they are the perfect deal makers. In reality if the fiend wants the warlock to accept the deal they won’t try and force it, they will use trickery, manipulation, try and convince they are a friend and an ally before then presenting a contract and taking the characters soul. By stripping the character of their powers having already been turned down they will not endear themselves to the character and convince them to deal and so this rash action will be unlikely to get them the end goal they want.
I had this exact same situation when a warlock player of mine reached level 6, I ran through the backstory of this character involving a visit to the 9 hells and a meeting with their patron. The patron made an offer the player couldn’t refuse, but they did, they had not realised the powers came from hell and refused to sell their soul, I ran with it and for the rest of the campaign every time the warlock leveled their fiend patron would find a reason to re visit to try and entice, each time offering something different and more elaborate, each time tying into the current adventure in someway so as not to keep distracting. It became a bit of a running joke. In the end the player came up with an offer for the fiend, In my campaign the player found that actually the fiend had made a bet with another fiend. The outcome of that bet was he could not actually remove the powers ever or he would lose his side. In the end when this was discovered the party offered the fiend a chance to end his bet and free him of that contract and in return he would no longer try to get the players soul and would give them all the power. That was not the plan from the start, It was an outcome I came up with in reaction to their continued refusal to even remotely meet him halfway.
It is not too late to retcon your decision and I really suggest you do, maybe her powers are just nullified by some magic item in her possession they where not aware they had. Maybe the fiend is only able to stop the flow of power to her for a brief time. Maybe this fiend is actually not the patron but a rival trying to steal the character away. Maybe her real patron is imprisoned by this fiend and therefore needs to be freed. Maybe the patron isn’t a fiend at all but an arch fey trapped, once the fey is freed your player can make the shift in character style she wants. Stripping them of all their powers is the simple nuclear option there is a lot of nuance you can introduce instead, but you could also just sit the player down and say, I made a mistake and went the wrong way with that, your powers are not stripped. I have done things like that before instead of trying to come up with clever writing to write myself out of a corner a quick decision made in haste at the end of a session got me into I just explain to the players I am retconning myself and why.
How about a rival of the original patron, perhaps someone with necromantic focus, shows up and offers her "new powers" for a patron swap. "You don't really want Demogorgon when you can have me, Orcus!" or some such. If she agrees to the swap, she can re-spec her character as the sort of subclass/option she would have done if she were not new to the game.
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.
Do you watch Critical Role? Does the warlock player? If she does, is it possible that she likes the character arc Fjord is on and wants to multi-class/change patrons? (Mayhap she's unhappy with the patron type she chose and is now playing the character as regretting their pact?) It boils down to a discussion with the player for where to go from here. Because the patron temporarily taking the power away as a reminder of who's actually in charge in the relationship is totally logical. But the patron likely wants something from their warlock and so will return the powers when they feel their warlock has been sufficiently chastised.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
While presumably the patron wants to punish the character, that doesn't mean the DM should punish the player. I would talk to the player to try and figure out what they were trying to do.
A general problem with warlock patrons is that the default patrons are prone to having villainous goals, which is a problem for heroic characters (and most campaigns do focus around heroic PCs), so it's usually best to have the patrons not show up very much.
There's a section in Tasha's on changing your subclass. The short version is, if the DM allows it, it may just happen, or it may cost some time and money. But there's also an option for a "sudden" change, which is probably more appropriate here, where the DM could just allow it to happen. So if you're worried about RAW, there's an option that allows it. FWIW, I'd go with BioWizard's suggestion of a new patron sensing the power void and jumping in.
As far as a punishment, I'd suggest a story-related consequence (rather than a punishment) is far more interesting than something mechanical. In this case, it seems like she's really pissed off her former patron. Others who follow that patron (I mean warlocks, sure, but probably there's some cultists. There's always some cultists.) will be hostile toward her, and may actively seek to kill her and anyone allied with her or even just disrupt her plans. And the patron itself, who she physically assaulted, might also pop in to deal with her personally, at the time when she is most vulnerable, of course.
I’ve read a couple of different interpretations of how the pact a warlock makes with a patron works.
I personally go with the second option in my campaigns. It gives me role playing options without making players feel that warlocks are too limited.
Professional computer geek
#3 is basically the same idea s a Cleric -- deities can take your powers away if you displease them, too.
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.
If we assume that 'pact' is a literal term, it's a contract, so the PC loses powers if they violate the terms of the contract. Of course, the rules are completely vague on what the actual terms of a warlock pact are.