Warlock patron rules?

[Timur18]

I rolled up a half elf warlock for a campaign and when choosing my patron I went with a fiendish patron since that track had the most appealing perks.

I felt like a fiendish patron more easily went with an evil bent character but didn’t want to play one due to the greater difficultly of evil aligned characters on a team.

My problem is when hashing out my backstory, I figured that my character ”Jahnn” tried binding a demon to his service in his youth through a summoning but botched the spell so he is now in the demon’s service. So Jahnn isn’t inherently evil even though his patron is.

Can the warlock character work if he may be working against his patron trying to free himself? Could he lose his perks and spell casting like a fallen paladin would or are those powers given and kept by the user?

I know this is probably up to the DM but am curious.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I rolled up a half elf warlock for a campaign and when choosing my patron I went with a fiendish patron since that track had the most appealing perks.

I felt like a fiendish patron more easily went with an evil bent character but didn’t want to play one due to the greater difficultly of evil aligned characters on a team.

My problem is when hashing out my backstory, I figured that my character ”Jahnn” tried binding a demon to his service in his youth through a summoning but botched the spell so he is now in the demon’s service. So Jahnn isn’t inherently evil even though his patron is.

Can the warlock character work if he may be working against his patron trying to free himself? Could he lose his perks and spell casting like a fallen paladin would or are those powers given and kept by the user?

I know this is probably up to the DM but am curious.

a few things.

1. Nothing i say will stop your DM from doing whatever she wants to do.

2. There is nothing in the PHB or DMG or any official source that suggest a warlock will lose his power if working against his patron.

3. There are no alignment restrictions in 5e.

and Lastly, the working against ones patron type is a common story for a warlock character. Warlock originally mean't 'oath breaker' after all, i think its very fitting to use the power granted to you to take down your patron eventually.

In my campaigns the golden rule is 'Power once given cannot be taken back' this means little for most of the classes except the three here:
Clerics: Being a cleric requires basic spell casting ability (aka Wis 13) but all the powers are only funneled through the cleric. Cleric actually posses none of their gods power and are mere conduits which is why they have to pray for their spells and their gods can deny them.

Paladins: The conviction and oaths and personal beliefs are the source of a paladin. When he falls its because he loses identity within himself. His power isn't gone, the whole thing is actually just in his head.

Warlocks: A Patron doesn't funnel his power through a warlock like a god. No a Patron gives magical power from himself and embeds it into the warlock's being. This is why casting as a warlock is different than anybody else, its because the otherworldly entities don't use magic the same way people do. You can see this in the fey/fiend/abberation monster blocks that have spells. warlocks are artificialy created innate spellcasters, using a magic that is foreign from their body. It mutates in different ways which allows invocations and such. Patrons can't take this back its already planted.

[Luccan]

Generally, what Mortis said. What's key (if your DM doesn't require you to blindly follow your new fiendish patron) is that you need to be smart enough that your patron won't just kill you for insubordination, while still successfully undermining their goals. For purely evil beings like demons and devils this might get tricky. But it's also possible they won't care if you defy them, trusting that your power is a corrupting enough influence and they'll have you eventually. A devil or even a demon particularly good at forethought might even have this as their real end goal, if they know enough about you, and will let you believe you've been "beating" them the whole time when really you're just playing into their hands. Basically, you should be allowed to play against your Warlock patron and the key to doing this is being as underhanded as possible without, in this case, actually falling to the dark side.

[AvvyR]

As stated, a warlock working to end his bond with his patron is a common story trope. I even played a Hexblade with that element recently.

Attempting to bind a demon to your control is... kind of generally regarded as an evil act. You could spin it like you didn't really know what you were doing, but it might be worth working something else out.

Keep in mind, a warlock might not even be directly responsible for his own pact. It's possible an ancestor or family member made a literal deal with a devil, and now you're stuck with the bill. ("I give to you the soul of my firstborn son, and his firstborn son, and so on until the end of time.") Other ideas might involve being decieved by a devil in disguise, or getting way too sloshed and taking on the wrong dare, or losing the wrong bet. Perhaps as a child you were kidnapped by an evil cultist who nabbed kids off the street and sold them to a powerful demon, but eventually the demon betrayed and destroyed the cultist. Now he owns you and several others.

[lxion]

Yeah, I really like it that alignments aren't locked in 5e (not that I played other editions). For Warlocks, Paladins and Clerics you can take different directions. Binding yourself to a fiend could have been a mistake you did in your past, or something needed to save someone else.

[Unoriginal]

I rolled up a half elf warlock for a campaign and when choosing my patron I went with a fiendish patron since that track had the most appealing perks.

I felt like a fiendish patron more easily went with an evil bent character but didn’t want to play one due to the greater difficultly of evil aligned characters on a team.

My problem is when hashing out my backstory, I figured that my character ”Jahnn” tried binding a demon to his service in his youth through a summoning but botched the spell so he is now in the demon’s service. So Jahnn isn’t inherently evil even though his patron is.

Can the warlock character work if he may be working against his patron trying to free himself? Could he lose his perks and spell casting like a fallen paladin would or are those powers given and kept by the user?

I know this is probably up to the DM but am curious.

There is no relation between your Patron and alignment.

If we're talking about the 5e default assumption, a Warlock's Patron CANNOT do anything to the Warlock's power once it's been given (aka before the first level in Warlock).

Warlocks don't have to serve their Patrons, and the Patron cannot take back the spark of power. It was granted once and now it's the Warlock's. It's essentially an one-time-deal-then-it's-over relationship, although who the Patron is affect the nature of the power.


So no, a Warlock would not lose spells like a Paladin who breaks their oath and even less like a Cleric who gets cast out by their deity.


THAT BEING SAID, every deal is different, ultimately, so a Patron could include a "you can't work against me" clause. And that's not getting into your DM deciding how a Warlock's pact work in their setting.

But by default you could literally murder that demon and nothing would happen to your pact.

[Corpsecandle717]

There is no relation between your Patron and alignment.

If we're talking about the 5e default assumption, a Warlock's Patron CANNOT do anything to the Warlock's power once it's been given (aka before the first level in Warlock).

Warlocks don't have to serve their Patrons, and the Patron cannot take back the spark of power. It was granted once and now it's the Warlock's. It's essentially an one-time-deal-then-it's-over relationship, although who the Patron is affect the nature of the power.


So no, a Warlock would not lose spells like a Paladin who breaks their oath and even less like a Cleric who gets cast out by their deity.


THAT BEING SAID, every deal is different, ultimately, so a Patron could include a "you can't work against me" clause. And that's not getting into your DM deciding how a Warlock's pact work in their setting.

But by default you could literally murder that demon and nothing would happen to your pact.

Is this all written up somewhere, or are you deriving it from mechanics and what is good vs bad play? I've always played that this aspect of warlock-ness is entirely up to the DM (which can be good or bad).

[Sinon]

There are no rules regarding the relationship between a warlock and his patron.

If the DM makes his own rules, fine. But looking at the text, there is no reason you can’t be a lawful good character with a fiendish pact, and the hows, whys, and wherefores are limited only by your imagination.

It may very well be the demon hasn't given your warlock a second thought.

For example, your younger self was foolish enough to try to summon a dang demon. What better way to spread chaos and destruction across the material plane than to give power to sophomoric humans? Especially in a system where one easily gains more power through the repeated exercise of destructive or manipulative powers? Give you a taste. You'll probably take care of the rest on your own.

The demon doesn’t need to ever even communicate with you again. (Maybe it can’t? Unless you're foolish enough to try to summon it again.) Human nature being what it is, the character of people who think they can control demonic forces being what it is, chaos and destruction will ensue without any need for further interference on its part. (From my demonic perspective anyway.)

I mean, if I handed a set of nunchucks to a four-year-old in a poorly supervised daycare, I could walk away reasonably certain that there’s going to be pandemonium enough without my needing to stick around and issue commands.

So, what if you use that power to actively work toward law and good? Well, nuts. Good thing I gave power to a hundred other overly ambitious mortals. I may love chaos but I can still do the math.

[Corpsecandle717]

Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything.

[Unoriginal]

Is this all written up somewhere, or are you deriving it from mechanics and what is good vs bad play? I've always played that this aspect of warlock-ness is entirely up to the DM (which can be good or bad).

It was spoken about by the game's authors in a lore video (or several).

[Quoxis]

Is this all written up somewhere, or are you deriving it from mechanics and what is good vs bad play? I've always played that this aspect of warlock-ness is entirely up to the DM (which can be good or bad).

Mostly just the absence of any RAW that would state that warlocks lose their power.
There’s a green box in the phb stating that paladins who voluntarily break their oath may be forced to change their class or become fallen paladins, and the cleric section literally calls clerics conduits who has to spend a specific amount of time in prayer for their spells and whose magic power comes from their devotion, so it’s not too far fetched to assume if the latter gets lost or the cleric would act in a way that’d enrage their deity, the conduit power would be turned off.

The warlock class description states that most warlocks are akin to their patrons apprentice more than a mere tool, that they grow and learn and that „the magic bestowed on [them] by [their] patron“ is what makes them casters - it’s more of a between-the-lines kind of thing, but i can see both options (the patron taking away power from the warlock or the gifted power being eternal) being read out of it, although i personally tend towards the „no refunds on gifts“ side.

The cleric thing might also be kind of the same as the druid not wearing metal armor - they just don’t defy their gods. Why? They just don’t. You don’t become a cleric because you want power, you get picked by a god for a reason which might be your servitude or devotion or just because you’re unique enough to pique their interest, and (some strange yet interesting character concepts aside) it’s just not assumed of a cleric to not do the only logical thing and do their gods‘ bidding. It’s a clerics identity, their main reason to live, their calling, while warlocks seek knowledge and power in their pacts - or they stumble into it by bad luck, according to flavor texts.

[NecroDancer]

What if your connection to your patron is permanent? You have access to warlock magic and can't lose it, however, your patron has tricked you into thinking you need to work for him for your powers

Or

Your patron makes it easier for you to draw on your powers, without your patron's support you need to do nightly rituals to keep your connection.

Or

Your patron keeps you "safe" from other more dangerous fiends that want to become your new patron.

[Sinon]

Mostly just the absence of any RAW that would state that warlocks lose their power...
With all due respect, the absence of something doesn't really state anything.

In saying that since the cleric and the paladin have such restrictions, the warlock must, too, you're arguing from analogy, not directly from the text.

And, if we're making assumptions (your word), a far stronger one is that when such rules are clearly made for three other classes and not made for the warlock, the absence means exactly the opposite of what you suggest - it isn't there because there is no rule.

They could have put that same sort of sidebar in the warlock description. They didn't.

They could have put the same sort of text as in the paladin description. They didn't.

The OP's DM can make any decision they want, but respectfully, I see no written rule, in betwen the lines or anywhere else.

[Extra Anchovies]

Pact-offering devils don't last long unless they're clever. Jahnn's patron offered power with the knowledge (or confident expectation) that Jahnn will use that power in ways which happen to align with that devil's individual goals. If Jahnn would need to be pressured to act in the patron's interests, the patron would have simply found another schmuck with more convenient attitudes or ambitions. Even if Jahnn dedicates a lifetime to obliterating devils, that's just less competition in his patron's way, isn't it? :smallamused:

[Quoxis]

With all due respect, the absence of something doesn't really state anything.

In saying that since the cleric and the paladin have such restrictions, the warlock must, too, you're arguing from analogy, not directly from the text.

I think you misinterpreted what i meant (sorry for writing that way, non-native english speaker here ^^“).

I meant basically just that: the paladins description explicitly says „you can lose your class powers if you break your oath“. The cleric flavor text strongly implies you could theoretically lose your class powers if you break with your deity (for whatever reason you would choose to do so).
Nothing about the warlock description says you would lose your powers if you flipped your patron off, so there’s no implication that you would.

Yet, there’s nothing explicitly saying the opposite (just as with clerics, by the way), therefore it’s a classic case of „ask your GM“, even if i tend to read it as warlocks retaining their powers no matter what.

[Mortis_Elrod]

With all due respect, the absence of something doesn't really state anything.

In saying that since the cleric and the paladin have such restrictions, the warlock must, too, you're arguing from analogy, not directly from the text.

And, if we're making assumptions (your word), a far stronger one is that when such rules are clearly made for three other classes and not made for the warlock, the absence means exactly the opposite of what you suggest - it isn't there because there is no rule.

They could have put that same sort of sidebar in the warlock description. They didn't.

They could have put the same sort of text as in the paladin description. They didn't.

The OP's DM can make any decision they want, but respectfully, I see no written rule, in betwen the lines or anywhere else.

I’m sorry but your argument is bassackwards.

The default for any class is that your features aren’t’ going be taken away from you for some arbitrary moral reason. Clerics description implies a differently, and the sidebar in the paladin’s description sets a different precedent, but that’s a case of specific vs general.

D&D doesn’t operate under “you can’t do these things, everything else you can”. It operates as “this is the stuff you can do, this is the stuff you can’t. Everything else is up to your DM or not AL legal”

[Sinon]

I’m sorry but your argument is bassackwards.
I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was being unclear.

I said there's no rule in the text that warlocks must follow some sort of code, obey their patrons, or in any way risk losing their powers or suffering any other sort of sanction for acting an a way that the patron might not approve of.

Is there one I missed?

[MilkmanDanimal]

Pact-offering devils don't last long unless they're clever. Jahnn's patron offered power with the knowledge (or confident expectation) that Jahnn will use that power in ways which happen to align with that devil's individual goals. If Jahnn would need to be pressured to act in the patron's interests, the patron would have simply found another schmuck with more convenient attitudes or ambitions. Even if Jahnn dedicates a lifetime to obliterating devils, that's just less competition in his patron's way, isn't it? :smallamused:

I'm playing a Chaotic Good Fiend pack warlock using that exact motivation; the devil uses my character to take out demonic cults and the agents of his rival devils, thereby increasing his own power. It's very much an "enemy of my enemy" thing, and it fits the whole "do anything to do the right thing" motif of the Chaotic Good alignment anyways.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was being unclear.

I said there's no rule in the text that warlocks must follow some sort of code, obey their patrons, or in any way risk losing their powers or suffering any other sort of sanction for acting an a way that the patron might not approve of.

Is there one I missed?

Man I read your entire thing wrong. My bad bro.

[Sinon]

Man I read your entire thing wrong. My bad bro.

We've all done that before. Station.

[Asmotherion]

Dm dependant stuff.

The most appropriate in my personal oppinion is:

A Warlock's power is his own. It's a permanent transformation happening to your Physiology and Soul (kinda like Outsiders get promoted to more powerful outsiders by their essance getting transforemed by their Higher Ups). However, to gain further levels into the Warlock Class, you need to have a good standing with your Patron, or make a New Pact with a New Patron. Every Level is like a New Paragraph to your Pact.

Some specific powers that are granted by your patron may be unavalable to a Renegate warlock (such as Eldritch Master or some Patron Specific powers, at the very least the Active ones), until he makes a new Pact. Which ones are up to the DM, but that's how I DM it, and I do the same for Oathbreaker Paladins.

Don't worry too much about that stuff though. A good DM won't let you regreat taking a Class.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was being unclear.

I said there's no rule in the text that warlocks must follow some sort of code, obey their patrons, or in any way risk losing their powers or suffering any other sort of sanction for acting an a way that the patron might not approve of.

Is there one I missed?
Yes. It's in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes on page 128, so it's new.

Under the Deathlock:
The forging of a pact between a warlock and a patron
is no minor occasion- at least not for the warlock. The consequences ofbreaking that pact can be dire and, in some cases, lethal. A warlock who fails to live up to a bargain with an evil patron runs the risk of rising from the dead as a deathlock, a foul undead driven to serve its otherworldly patron from beyond the grave.

This potentially gives us some new insight into how the designers intended the Warlock / Patron relationship to work. The warlock can suffer from breaking the pact, and one possible result is death, and then possibly rising as a Deathlock NPC.

[Joe the Rat]

So in the end, it comes down to what you and your DM decide on doing. If you don't want to muck with it, your dealings are done. But Patrons do make good pseudo-bonds; links to tie your character to the workd and story.

Maybe you have a specific number of things you are required to do. Maybe you have to do what your patron says whenever he says "please." Maybe your Patron has Three Favors that you had to undertake... and down the road He calls his last marker. Maybe you decide that each new level requires a new task. Maybe it cost you your soiil to get your power (lousy deal, mate), but have the option to "buy back" by performing tasks (nothing too overtly evil, of course. Otherwise you get resistance).

But nothing here says you must be evil. I find non-evil warlocks more intersting: What drove a relatively reasonable person to make a Really Bad Decision and enter into a pact with an obviously evil creature.

[Unoriginal]

Yes. It's in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes on page 128, so it's new.

Under the Deathlock:
The forging of a pact between a warlock and a patron
is no minor occasion- at least not for the warlock. The consequences ofbreaking that pact can be dire and, in some cases, lethal. A warlock who fails to live up to a bargain with an evil patron runs the risk of rising from the dead as a deathlock, a foul undead driven to serve its otherworldly patron from beyond the grave.

This potentially gives us some new insight into how the designers intended the Warlock / Patron relationship to work. The warlock can suffer from breaking the pact, and one possible result is death, and then possibly rising as a Deathlock NPC.

It should be noted that the designers explicitly said that in the case of the Warlock PCs at least, the default assumption is that the fact *has been* fulfilled before level 1, and that everything is said and done.

[Sinon]

Everything always comes down to the DM. I completely agree.


Yes. It's in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes on page 128, so it's new.

OK, I do admit you have something there; however, I don’t know that some of the descriptive text in a Monster Manual is really applicable to PCs, but you do have something. I realize this is just my feeling, no more, but I’m reminded of the references to familiars in the first Monster Manual – yeah, that says you get spell resistance and casters can have crawling claw as a familiar, but the Players Handbook doesn't.


This potentially gives us some new insight into how the designers intended the Warlock / Patron relationship to work.

You were only suggesting "insight", not laying the foundation of an argument, but this is one of those times where the notion of “designer intent” doesn't sit well with me.

1) Another person’s intent is never something we can truly know. It is something we can speculate and attempt to infer, but that’s it.

2) Even when a designer comes back and says later, “This is what we intended,” it really doesn’t matter if they wrote something completely different.

3) There literally is no such thing as “the designer’s intent.”
There is “the designers’ intent.”

Plural.

Obviously, intelligent, rational people can look at the same things and come to different interpretations. Designers sometimes fall into that category of intelligent, rational people.

Even within a single text, even with designers who communicate and collaborate exceptionally well, it is improbable that everyone who worked on that text interpreted things exactly the same way.

When you start comparing different texts, written at different times, with (I assume) different design teams, I don’t think you can assume a shared intent.

I know RAI is frequently discussed here. I just don't give those arguments much weight. (Not to say others cannot.)

Bringing us back to the DM, where we started. And, while this isn't a rule, if a DM murdered my character because I didn't live up to his understanding of the warlock/patron relationship, I'd probably seek a new DM.

Though, I think it could be fun to work out some sort of Patron's Contract, complete with consequences, during character creation.

I do concede: I asked for something in the text; you gave me something in a text.

(If this becomes an off-topic discussion of the merits of RAI, I will delete this post and replace it with apologies for pulling this off topic.)

[Millstone85]

For a PHB element that suggests a warlock shouldn't function like a cleric, see the sidebar page 205 that lays out which classes are considered arcane spellcasters (bards, fighters [EK], rogues [AT], sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards) and which are considered divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers). It also says that an arcane spellcaster "plucks directly at the strands of the Weave" while divine "spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated".

It still remains a matter of interpretation and headcanon. Mine is that characters are not at risk of losing warlock levels, but can not progress in this class without a patron.


Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes on page 128I am planning to make a thread about using deathlocks, the Ruby Rod and maruts with a warlock PC. Still collecting my thoughts for it.

[Tanarii]

It should be noted that the designers explicitly said that in the case of the Warlock PCs at least, the default assumption is that the fact *has been* fulfilled before level 1, and that everything is said and done.News to me. I'd love to read what was said. Got a link?



OK, I do admit you have something there; however, I don’t know that some of the descriptive text in a Monster Manual is really applicable to PCs, but you do have something. I realize this is just my feeling, no more, but I’m reminded of the references to familiars in the first Monster Manual – yeah, that says you get spell resistance and casters can have crawling claw as a familiar, but the Players Handbook doesn't.


You were only suggesting "insight", not laying the foundation of an argument, but this is one of those times where the notion of “designer intent” doesn't sit well with me.

1) Another person’s intent is never something we can truly know. It is something we can speculate and attempt to infer, but that’s it.

2) Even when a designer comes back and says later, “This is what we intended,” it really doesn’t matter if they wrote something completely different.Good point on the MM familiar.

In this case I am speculating intent. But it's worth being aware that the 5e designer's intent is regular communicated to us by Crawford.

As far as I know, they've never written anything different. There's nothing in the PHB that explicitly days "warlocks can break their pacts with their patron and nothing happens." But neither was there anything before this that clearly implied there were consequences for doing so.


3) There literally is no such thing as “the designer’s intent.”
There is “the designers’ intent.”

Plural.You know that WotC 5e D&D only has a tiny handful of designers, and it all goes through Mearls and JC, with JC being the point guy, right? When discussing rules intent, we might as well be talking about it as if it is monolothic.

Regardless, you misused literally. :smalltongue: Things can have a single designer, and that designer can have intent.


I do concede: I asked for something in the text; you gave me something in a text.
yup, and it was in no way meant to imply you were wrong, in any kind of absolute way. It's something you had almost certainly missed (because new) that had implications for the matter of warlocks and how their Pacts work. In fact, when I read it I was thinking about posting a thread on the matter myself. I just read this one first. This thread was fairly good timing. :smallamused:

[Mortis_Elrod]

News to me. I'd love to read what was said. Got a link?


https://youtu.be/iiS5mkIff_8?t=120

[Millstone85]

It should be noted that the designers explicitly said that in the case of the Warlock PCs at least, the default assumption is that the fact *has been* fulfilled before level 1, and that everything is said and done.
News to me. I'd love to read what was said. Got a link?
https://youtu.be/iiS5mkIff_8?t=120Though this is the same video where he says this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8#t=1m42s):
For gods it is more like divine magic is really available to anyone who really studies and masters it. And the way I see it is each temple, each religion teaches a different technique and that's how you get different domains. But at the end of the day, divine magic is kind of like arcane magic. It is this background force in the universe. You can turn against your god, you don't lose your magic.

So for him, divine magic is a second Weave, and no spellcaster is at risk of losing their powers.

Except paladins, by RAW. I guess they are just too much fun for DMs to toy with. :smallamused:

[Tanarii]

https://youtu.be/iiS5mkIff_8?t=120
Thanks.

I do wish they'd transcript any videos they are in and stick them somewhere on the website, as a regular policy. All this releasing rules commentary embedded in long-ass videos drives me crazy.

[Timur18]

I mean, if I handed a set of nunchucks to a four-year-old in a poorly supervised daycare, I could walk away reasonably certain that there’s going to be pandemonium enough without my needing to stick around and issue commands.

So, what if you use that power to actively work toward law and good? Well, nuts. Good thing I gave power to a hundred other overly ambitious mortals. I may love chaos but I can still do the math.

Ha, I love the nunchuck argument. I hadn’t considered the possible large scope of deals with devils. You’re right, the demon may not care about me specifically too much.

I was just worried about creating an end goal that may result in losing the power obtained in the process. It seemed counterintuitive if the character wanted to keep adventuring after taking down the demon for good.

It is nice that alignment isn’t as locked in for 5e. I wanted the character to have a relatable reason for possessing what could be perceived as “evil” powers due to the demonic source.

I read a lot of Constantine comics so I borrowed themes from the “original sin” story. I went so far as to name the character Jhann Kahnstantyne.

Thank you all for so much feedback. I don’t think my DM will care that much but I like to really dive into my characters.

[Unoriginal]

Though this is the same video where he says this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8#t=1m42s):

So for him, divine magic is a second Weave, and no spellcaster is at risk of losing their powers.

Except paladins, by RAW. I guess they are just too much fun for DMs to toy with. :smallamused:

When he talks about Clerics, he's talking about his own homebrew setting, not the default lore.

Yeah, I know, it's not clear, but he does mention it's for his setting.