I have an idea of having my warlock's (there's three all picked the fiend patron) he was featured in a prequel one shot as he was constantly in one players head telling him to do questionable things such as killing people and stealing things, through that chsutavter he was given enough power to enter the mortal realm which is why I want the players to be able to meet him however he still has evil intentions and wants to convert a town to sell their soul to him would this be too much in the sense of a patron being an actual physical force? I always second guess this idea and need some other feedback
I always have the idea of walking the fine line between a patron, where you want the role playing to carry a lot of weight, but you don't want to necessarily punish the players directly or mechanically for things they do with/ to their patron.
If that makes sense. So I say go for it, but make sure you have something saved up that you can use when the party inevitably doesn't want to follow the patron and the patron can (but probably shouldn't) actually hurt them
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I see what youre saying, I have it so theres like a few higher ranked ones that have sold their soul that are actually like sacrificing others to his name. The patron doesn't necessarily care since he already has the officers bound to him. So maybe i can out the focus on that for the players and have the Patron just be a big neutral force and maybe give rewards for taking out the officers
I haven't gone this heavy handed with my warlock - at least not yet - although I've fully fleshed out the patron and the "shadow organization" around the service of that patron.
The warlock just isn't powerful enough to warrant much attention from the Patron. This may change if he ups the warlock level ( multi-classed warlock/rogue ). Currently, the patron is playing the long game. He has goals and influences the world - but we're talking over generations.
I'm kind of using "the organization" to nudge the warlock player to action ( read, "quest giver" - for quests of questionable motivation ) for now.
In your case, I'd note the fiends/devils are Lawful - so they're unlikely to urge the PCs to do chaotic things. Evil, absolutely - but probably not chaotic things like theft, random murder, etc.
Think of fiends/devils as "supernatural shyster lawyers" ( disclaimer: not all lawyers are shysters :p ). They may urge the party to make unfair deals, use aspects of deals to extract or extort things out of people ( hey, you should have read the fine print - now you, and all your orphans, get out! ), but probably not to go back on contracts/agreements, or cause random mayhem.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I haven't gone this heavy handed with my warlock - at least not yet - although I've fully fleshed out the patron and the "shadow organization" around the service of that patron.
The warlock just isn't powerful enough to warrant much attention from the Patron. This may change if he ups the warlock level ( multi-classed warlock/rogue ). Currently, the patron is playing the long game. He has goals and influences the world - but we're talking over generations.
I'm kind of using "the organization" to nudge the warlock player to action ( read, "quest giver" - for quests of questionable motivation ) for now.
In your case, I'd note the fiends/devils are Lawful - so they're unlikely to urge the PCs to do chaotic things. Evil, absolutely - but probably not chaotic things like theft, random murder, etc.
Think of fiends/devils as "supernatural shyster lawyers" ( disclaimer: not all lawyers are shysters :p ). They may urge the party to make unfair deals, use aspects of deals to extract or extort things out of people ( hey, you should have read the fine print - now you, and all your orphans, get out! ), but probably not to go back on contracts/agreements, or cause random mayhem.
I see, yeah i really wanna tread lightly with this so they don't see him as a threat but won't out right ignore him, I like your idea of the warlock not being strong enough to warrant any attention. They should be meeting him today and i have it planned that he kind of redirects them back to the city they left that's in danger unbeknownst to them as he just has no interest in the patrons or party as whole. I will definitely keep the chaotic requests down this time as i didn't even think about the fact that fiends/devils are lawful
Since patrons aren't (usually) deities, it's perfectly acceptable that they're entities you can meet and that have a concrete agenda (as opposed to furthering abstract concepts like war or trickery.)
Mike Mearls talks about that in one of the D&D Beyond interviews. He also mentions that pacts are more or less permanent, so warlocks can turn against their patrons if they wish.
Since patrons aren't (usually) deities, it's perfectly acceptable that they're entities you can meet and that have a concrete agenda (as opposed to furthering abstract concepts like war or trickery.)
Mike Mearls talks about that in one of the D&D Beyond interviews. He also mentions that pacts are more or less permanent, so warlocks can turn against their patrons if they wish.
This is exactly the answer I was looking for thank you so much,
Mike Mearls directly contradicted the PHB where it states, "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." though. My interpretation of that combined with this video from Mike Mearls is warlocks can turn against their patrons if they wish and they won't lose any of their existing abilities if they do so, but they won't be able to gain any new warlock abilities unless they find another patron or work things out with their existing patron.
In your case, I'd note the fiends/devils are Lawful - so they're unlikely to urge the PCs to do chaotic things. Evil, absolutely - but probably not chaotic things like theft, random murder, etc.
Here's the definitions for LE and CE:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
Specific acts (e.g. murder) aren't inherently lawful or chaotic; the difference between the alignments is 1) motivation and 2) boundaries.
It's perfectly in character for a devil to trick adventurers into committing random murder as long as it aligns with the devil's goal, they keep up their end of the bargain and they're not defying their superiors.
Specific acts (e.g. murder) aren't inherently lawful or chaotic; the difference between the alignments is 1) motivation and 2) boundaries.
It's perfectly in character for a devil to trick adventurers into committing random murder as long as it aligns with the devil's goal, they keep up their end of the bargain and they're not defying their superiors.
Please note: in dnd, devils are lawful, demons are chaotic. The term fiend is a blanket term for both
Fiend also covers yugoloths, incubi/succubi, and other inhabitants of the lower planes.
All excellent points.
I suppose I was getting a random impulse "kill them, kill them all!" vibe from the OP - which may not have been what the they meant at all - and I was absolutely equating devil and fiend.
I still feel that devils ( not fiends in general ) are unlikely to desire the characters to commit random murder - the only plausible scenario I see for that being where the acts and mayhem have another purpose: diversion, destabilizing a town/region, inflicting fear and chaos on the locals to change their general mental state and make them more open to different kinds of manipulation, etc.
That's totally my own interpretation of the difference between devils - who, to me, represent cold calculating, structured, purposeful evil - and demons - which, to me, represent more raw, primal, bestial impulses and drives. Devils would be more sociopathicic ( although - admittedly - you can easily have sociopath serial killers, although they seem to believe they're acting according to a strict internal - and horrific - code of behavior ); demons would be more ID-driving frenzied maniacs; while other fiend creatures - akin to the Lovecraftian "old ones" - might not have motives or behaviors which are comprehensible to humans at all.
I think that if you make your evil more nuanced like that, you can spin out very different "flavors" of patrons, pacts, and warlocks, pretty easily.
Looping back to the OP - it's totally in character for a fiend Patron to want more souls, and to use the Warlock to get them. I think a devil might want to use trickery and corruption to manipulate the citizens to relinquish their souls voluntarily - even if not with total understanding. A demon might actually be going "kill them, kill them all, and send their souls to me <bestial hungry roar>!".
I'm also of the opinion that evil patrons are best brought on stage sparingly; sharks are scariest when they're just ripples under the water - although as the warlock increases in power and level, the Patron is more and more likely to be more "hands on" as their servant becomes more directly useful as a tool.
Anywho - it's all up to interpretation - and as long as everyone is having fun, roll with what works for you :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
@Vedexent : "sharks are scariest when they're just ripples under the water" I'm guessing you're not from Australia or South Africa! :)
Around here, it's conger eels. Like fiends, I have no real comprehension of their motivation - beyond hunger - and I really would not want to come face to ugly face with one.
Perhaps that is how a patron should be viewed (by the warlock) - as something you don't want to meet. Just like any other boss really. :) If they have shown up, it's probably not to give you a pay rise!
The ripples under the water theory is still good when it comes to creating tension.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Roleplaying since Runequest.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have an idea of having my warlock's (there's three all picked the fiend patron) he was featured in a prequel one shot as he was constantly in one players head telling him to do questionable things such as killing people and stealing things, through that chsutavter he was given enough power to enter the mortal realm which is why I want the players to be able to meet him however he still has evil intentions and wants to convert a town to sell their soul to him would this be too much in the sense of a patron being an actual physical force? I always second guess this idea and need some other feedback
"I am THE truth"
I always have the idea of walking the fine line between a patron, where you want the role playing to carry a lot of weight, but you don't want to necessarily punish the players directly or mechanically for things they do with/ to their patron.
If that makes sense. So I say go for it, but make sure you have something saved up that you can use when the party inevitably doesn't want to follow the patron and the patron can (but probably shouldn't) actually hurt them
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I see what youre saying, I have it so theres like a few higher ranked ones that have sold their soul that are actually like sacrificing others to his name. The patron doesn't necessarily care since he already has the officers bound to him. So maybe i can out the focus on that for the players and have the Patron just be a big neutral force and maybe give rewards for taking out the officers
"I am THE truth"
I haven't gone this heavy handed with my warlock - at least not yet - although I've fully fleshed out the patron and the "shadow organization" around the service of that patron.
The warlock just isn't powerful enough to warrant much attention from the Patron. This may change if he ups the warlock level ( multi-classed warlock/rogue ). Currently, the patron is playing the long game. He has goals and influences the world - but we're talking over generations.
I'm kind of using "the organization" to nudge the warlock player to action ( read, "quest giver" - for quests of questionable motivation ) for now.
In your case, I'd note the fiends/devils are Lawful - so they're unlikely to urge the PCs to do chaotic things. Evil, absolutely - but probably not chaotic things like theft, random murder, etc.
Think of fiends/devils as "supernatural shyster lawyers" ( disclaimer: not all lawyers are shysters :p ). They may urge the party to make unfair deals, use aspects of deals to extract or extort things out of people ( hey, you should have read the fine print - now you, and all your orphans, get out! ), but probably not to go back on contracts/agreements, or cause random mayhem.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
"I am THE truth"
Since patrons aren't (usually) deities, it's perfectly acceptable that they're entities you can meet and that have a concrete agenda (as opposed to furthering abstract concepts like war or trickery.)
Mike Mearls talks about that in one of the D&D Beyond interviews. He also mentions that pacts are more or less permanent, so warlocks can turn against their patrons if they wish.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
"I am THE truth"
Mike Mearls directly contradicted the PHB where it states, "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." though. My interpretation of that combined with this video from Mike Mearls is warlocks can turn against their patrons if they wish and they won't lose any of their existing abilities if they do so, but they won't be able to gain any new warlock abilities unless they find another patron or work things out with their existing patron.
Professional computer geek
Please note: in dnd, devils are lawful, demons are chaotic. The term fiend is a blanket term for both
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Here's the definitions for LE and CE:
Specific acts (e.g. murder) aren't inherently lawful or chaotic; the difference between the alignments is 1) motivation and 2) boundaries.
It's perfectly in character for a devil to trick adventurers into committing random murder as long as it aligns with the devil's goal, they keep up their end of the bargain and they're not defying their superiors.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
@Vedexent : "sharks are scariest when they're just ripples under the water"
I'm guessing you're not from Australia or South Africa! :)
Around here, it's conger eels. Like fiends, I have no real comprehension of their motivation - beyond hunger - and I really would not want to come face to ugly face with one.
Perhaps that is how a patron should be viewed (by the warlock) - as something you don't want to meet. Just like any other boss really. :) If they have shown up, it's probably not to give you a pay rise!
The ripples under the water theory is still good when it comes to creating tension.
Roleplaying since Runequest.