How do you handle Warlock versus Patron conflicts?

[Witty Username]

So, I have been thinking of the RP implications of warlocks. The big one being what if a warlock attempts to kill their patron or in fact actually succeeds.
How would you handle the situation as DM?

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

[ecarden]

So the way this plays out in my main game is that the knowledge, once given, is given, but no further advancements can be made without the patron's involvement. But a lot would depend on the specifics of the agreement. I think Critical Role did it a different way with Fjord in series 2.

[LudicSavant]

Default WotC answer is that the power can’t be taken away once given, though of course the answer can be whatever you like in your own worlds. In fact, I am even currently playing a character who had their warlock levels revoked when they defied their patron’s designs.

[Abracadangit]

It depends on how seriously you connect the default fluff with the mechanics, right. And also how much you perceive warlockomancy as an ability contingent on an existing pact, as opposed to something you gain/refine as a consequence of having signed a pact in the first place. Etc, etc.

If a player in my game killed their patron, I'd be like "Listen, you wanna keep rockin' the 'lock, I'm not gonna stop you. But if you wanted to change things up, now would be a rad time to do so."

Can a patron revoke a contract, or sue? Sure! I feel like this blends best with fiendlocks -- fiends are sort of the classic example of the "Sign on the dotted line" pactmakers, moreso than others. Having a patron sue their warlock and setting a series of encounters in a mock legal drama is a fantastic quest arc idea, ha ha -- might steal that, if you don't mind.

[Unoriginal]

So, I have been thinking of the RP implications of warlocks. The big one being what if a warlock attempts to kill their patron or in fact actually succeeds.
How would you handle the situation as DM?

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

Like LudicSavant said, the default is that the Warlock got their original spark of power from the Patron, and once it's done it's done, no take-back, risk to lose it if the Patron dies, or ongoing price.

That being said, a specific Patron can include a "you can't use your powers against me" or "your powers stop working if you don't do what I do" clause to the pact, but that's up to each specific Patron to put that on the contract and each specific warlock to agree. Similarly, various Patrons could set up specific conditions for the Warlock to keep using their powers.

Ultimately, the question is: what does the player and the DM find interesting?

[strangebloke]

All of the above statements about the nature of warlocks is very true.

At my table I run it as an active-power thing, where the patron can punish you or remove your powers, and although it hasn't happened it is at least possible that one of my players could lose his powers depending on the choices he makes. If that happens I already know how he'll handle it. He'll spend a few levels without pact magic or invocations (but cantrips and skills as normal) before being given the option to sign up with a different rival patron, and switch from Fiend to Celestial.

[Greywander]

Let me offer a slightly different take: warlocks don't have to be warlocks, and anyone can be a warlock.

I'm a big believer in using the class system as simply a package of mechanical features that can be refluffed to suit your character concept. So you could easily take the warlock mechanics and make it something else, so there is no patron or pact or anything. At the same time, you could easily do the reverse. For example, maybe you're a sorcerer, but you gained your power as a result of a pact. Or you're a wizard who learned secret knowledge from their patron. A cleric might be a bit more proactive in serving their patron's desires. And so on.

Now, how exactly you want to handle the relationship between a PC and their patron, or what the nature of their pact entails, that's a different matter (that many others have already made good points on in this thread). All I wanted to point out is that (a) this doesn't need to apply to a warlock if the player wants to fluff their character differently, and (b) this could apply to non-warlock classes if the player wanted to fluff their character that way.

[Psyren]

I'd say it doesn't have to be a binary between "toe the line or become a muggle/worse fighter." If the player wanted some more creative punishments for going against their patron's wishes, I'd consider things like their magic behaving unpredictably (roll on Wild Surge table) or getting a random condition if they use a pact slot, or losing the use of the pact-specific features like the Tome but keeping the other powers etc. There's a lot you can do before turning off the player's powers entirely and any such options should be discussed with them, if only broadly.

Alternatively, I'd consider whether the player wants such conflict to be a stepping stone to switching patrons. That way their warlock powers wouldn't be impacted at all (or at least, not in combat) while they resolve the difficulties through RP and ability checks.

[MoiMagnus]

So, I have been thinking of the RP implications of warlocks. The big one being what if a warlock attempts to kill their patron or in fact actually succeeds.
How would you handle the situation as DM?

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

I'd expect a Warlock overthrowing his Patron to "become his own Patron" in the process, maybe recovering whatever artefact the Patron was using to grant powers to his Warlocks. Further levelling up would not longer correspond to the Patron granting to him new powers, but to him gaining a better understanding of how to use said artefact to gain more power.

In case of failure, I'd probably expect the Warlock to die during the confrontation. Unless the player has some plan for their powerless Warlock retiring from adventuring, I'd assume death is a more satisfying outcome for everyone.

If neither success or death are an option, I'd expect for the Warlock keeps his power, but to be forced to multiclass as they can't level up Warlock any more.

[mabriss lethe]

Ok. So. I'm going to go with, "Don't cripple a player's ability to enjoy the game." As a guiding light. Using patrons as an excuse to force behaviors or lose their character's primary method of meaningful interaction is a very dicey move. It comes down to the old "paladin must fall" trope, but lazier, since Patrons can easily just be billed as "capricious".

That said make sure you talk that out with players beforehand. There might be players that think its a fun idea and are down with it.

One of the ways that I've found to just sort of bypass it is with the general idea that Patrons as a whole are distant and inscrutable. Your very existence, regardless of your actions, furthers their goals, just by giving their essence a foothold in the world. If a player wants a more adversarial role with their patron it's their choice, never mine, and I've found it's much better to throw little annoyances and monkey wrenches into the story as an antagonistic pateon "sends its fondest regards"

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

What contract? That's from a previous edition. None of our tables go that far; we prefer the KISS principle. My Celestial 'lock currently has a good relationship with her patron, who is an Empyrean.

Like LudicSavant said, the default is that the Warlock got their original spark of power from the Patron, and once it's done it's done, no take-back, risk to lose it if the Patron dies, or ongoing price.

Ultimately, the question is: what does the player and the DM find interesting?

That is how it seems to work best.

I have not had a problem with "you are a 'lock, you are on autopilot" as player or DM, but one of my fellow players who is MC as Divine Soul Sorc / Fiend Warlock (yes, internal conflict!) had a non trivial conflict with his patron.

Our DM did a great job of folding that into play. That patron was on his back, time and again, which had an influence on our adventures. We eventually accomplished the "Do this thing for me" task: take out a Vampire Lord who was somehow related to the patron via extraplanar politics or drama. Something about "Tell him my sister still hates him" was part of the message we were to deliver as we defeated him. (It was a near run thing).

At the moment, the Warlock and his patron seem to have reached detente - the player stopped taking Warlock Levels long ago. Not sure if that's due to the conflict with the patron or the desire for higher level / more spell slots.

[Evaar]

If you want a way to explain an antagonistic relationship between Warlock and Patron without losing levels or shifting to another class - spoilers for the Black Company series of novels:

Spoiler

Show

In the later novels of the series, the character of Lady has lost her talent for sorcery because she was subjected to a binding ritual invoking her true name. She can no longer use magic on her own. However, after traveling across the world, she begins to recover some of her powers.

As it turns out, this is because the goddess Kina has taken an interest in her (or seemingly her - it turns out to be her unborn child that Kina wants). What Kina didn't anticipate was that Lady was more cunning and learned in the arcane than Kina would have preferred - once Kina established the link through which she hoped to funnel power and eventually take control over Lady, Lady was able to exploit that link. I believe at one point Lady describes herself as like a parasite, feeding off Kina's power. So even when actively fighting Kina and her cults, Lady is still able to utilize Kina's power.

And that's how you can explain a Warlock remaining a Warlock while having an antagonistic relationship with their patron.

[BerzerkerUnit]

The player handles the motivations of their character’s patron and determines the nature of the relationship. At most I might throw in a subplot about a patron that has multiple operatives that may sometimes be at odds or a patron that engages Xanatos gambits at the PC’s possible expense.

[Sorinth]

I don't like taking away a players abilities so whether it's warlock, paladin, cleric or whatever the power the character gains is theirs to do with as they like. Even if they started out just channeling someone else's power, that channeling has left it's mark on the person and changed them such that they have power all on their own.

That said, if you want to continue to advance in power and have an antagonistic relation we'll need to work together for some sort of explanation. That explanation might very well be similar to the whole Drizzt as Lolth Chosen where they are actually using your rebellion to further some other aims that won't become obvious until much later. Or that they don't think the PC will/can actually harm them out of arrogance and if the player traded their soul, well there's value in the player becoming more powerful and even turning good as the the fiend will still get the soul in the end and it will be a more valuable soul.

[Sorinth]

I'll also say it's something to discuss with the player before hand. If the player wants to be a warlock because they just like the mechanics but fluff/background wise want to be a regular wizard then let them be a warlock and basically never bring up the patron. Whereas if the player is intentionally building a character that will end up in conflict with the patron then ask them how they see it going and try to work with that, with maybe a few surprises in store. At the end of the day it's the player's story as much as the DM's story.

[Elves]

What if someone else kills their patron? Is that an effective way of kneecapping a warlock, or not?

A warlock whose patron dies should be able to seek another one, but shouldn't be able to advance as a warlock until they do. Whether they lose their warlock spells in the meantime is DM's call, as is whether the new patron must be of the same type as the last or whether this is a "rebuild" opportunity.

[tokek]

There are a couple of examples of how a warlock might be in trouble if they mess with their patron or revoke their pact.

The Deathlock is one clear example of where that might get you. I'm not sure that killing a fiend necessarily ends the pact, it depends on whether that pact included a clause where ownership transfers to a more senior fiend.

Also in the Domains of Delight they have some stuff on what happens if you break a pact with an archfey, that can be a lot worse than losing your magic. Killing a fey might mean inheriting all their existing debts and pacts, i.e. suddenly having a load more fey to worry about.

Whereas some other patrons might not notice or care unless the warlock directly attacks them. So many possible answers which is why so many players (and DMs) love the Warlock class.

[Psyren]

What if someone else kills their patron? Is that an effective way of kneecapping a warlock, or not?

A warlock whose patron dies should be able to seek another one, but shouldn't be able to advance as a warlock until they do. Whether they lose their warlock spells in the meantime is DM's call, as is whether the new patron must be of the same type as the last or whether this is a "rebuild" opportunity.

Bold of you to assume that dying gets you out of upholding your end of a warlock pact

Less jokingly I would handle that using Tasha's "dramatic transformation" retraining rules, letting you swap subclasses without time or cost (and decide whether you want to avenge your patron or hide from whatever took them out at all costs.)

[Unoriginal]

What if someone else kills their patron? Is that an effective way of kneecapping a warlock, or not?

A warlock whose patron dies should be able to seek another one, but shouldn't be able to advance as a warlock until they do. Whether they lose their warlock spells in the meantime is DM's call, as is whether the new patron must be of the same type as the last or whether this is a "rebuild" opportunity.

Again, it depends on the specific relationship between Warlock and Patron.

The default is that killing the Patron does nothing, because the Warlock was already given a spark of pow, witer, and from there it's theirs to cultivate (or not), with the Patron no longer required from intervening in that.

You could also say that the Patron added a "you can only use that so long as I'm alive" clause, or that killing the Patron inherently depower the Warlock, or that if you kill this specific Patron their Warlock slowly transform into the Patron, or that the Warlock stays themselves but inherit the job, or something else.

In the campaign I just started, a Warlock NPC is close to death, and I tried to carry the implication that while they're genuinely friend with their Patron and grateful to them, the Warlock also don't want to find out what would happen to them if they died while their Patron is missing.

[Temperjoke]

This is my opinion, but I think that once the patron has granted the initial power via the pact, then the magic itself can't be taken away and would progress like normal. Where the relationship comes into play, I think, are later abilities and spells that specifically involve the patron. For example, the Pact Boon says that the Patron has given them a gift. Okay, so it's been given, but the Pact of the Tome states that if you lose your book you can perform a ceremony to get a replacement from your patron. So, that would be a moment that could be affected by your current relationship. Why would they give you a replacement book if you are currently in a bad relationship?

It would also depend on the nature of the Pact too. A strict contract that the warlock has perfectly upheld their end of would require the patron to also uphold to the limits specified in the contract.

Honestly, it probably creates more problems than it's worth to even involve the patron too much.

[Willie the Duck]

I consider being granted the warlock class is like the sheriff getting their gun and badge -- once given, the person given them can continue to use them, grow in skill in the gun's use, and declare themselves agents of said badge. Unless someone goes and checks that the patron is still alive and standing behind the badge, no one will know otherwise (unless the patron get so mad that they send other agents after a misbehaving agent, which is a story hook).

[Demonslayer666]

So, I have been thinking of the RP implications of warlocks. The big one being what if a warlock attempts to kill their patron or in fact actually succeeds.
How would you handle the situation as DM?

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

If a warlock attacks/kills their patron, I would most likely not change anything with the warlock's existing abilities, and I would allow them to continue advancing as a warlock. I see the warlock abilities more like a wizard than a cleric (as in learned not granted). The patron unlocked the pathway so to speak, and the rest is up to the warlock.

I would not have the patron get involved with revoking a contract or suing the warlock.

[neonchameleon]

So, I have been thinking of the RP implications of warlocks. The big one being what if a warlock attempts to kill their patron or in fact actually succeeds.
How would you handle the situation as DM?

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

RAW patrons and deities can't directly revoke the powers they've given you. You're changed permanently as either a warlock or a cleric. This includes if you commit deicide. This doesn't mean there aren't things they can do to you. They are after all immensely powerful and influential.

[Kane0]

Also, can a patron revoke a contract? Or sue a warlock for not fulfilling an obligation?
What stuff has come up in your games?

I usually err on the side of the player unless theyre doing something obviously suicidal (like a cleric openly challenging their god). Not all classes have that built in foil, so I tend to use them as interesting background and 'texture' rather than an active NPC antagonist.

[Naanomi]

We had a GOOlok banish their patron from contacting the world. They expected their powers to fade. They didn't. It wasn't a good thing.

[Warder]

Keep the powers you have, can't take more levels in the class is what we run at our table. Which is in contrast to clerics and paladins who can lose stuff.

[ATHATH]

My head canon is that the difference between a Cleric and a Warlock is that a Cleric directly channels the power of their patron to prepare their spells and activate their Channel Divinities, while a Warlock gains their powers from a process not unlike the enchantment of a magic item. Thus, a Cleric can't regain their spell slots or Channel Divinity if they don't have a patron to channel the power of, but a Warlock only needs a patron to level up (although some subclass abilities that require the direct intervention of your patron or the direct, Cleric-like channeling of their power might cease to function if you lack a patron as a Warlock). I have no idea if this interpretation is the official/default one, though.

[Sigreid]

Reading these responses makes me think the Warlock is the new Paladin. Meaning it used to be there was a subset of DMs that really punished players for the audacity of play a paladin by making them perform certain actions on threat of losing their powers if they don't. I'm not down with that unless it's spcecifically what the player wanted when they made the character.

[Spiritchaser]

Reading these responses makes me think the Warlock is the new Paladin. Meaning it used to be there was a subset of DMs that really punished players for the audacity of play a paladin by making them perform certain actions on threat of losing their powers if they don't. I'm not down with that unless it's spcecifically what the player wanted when they made the character.

Many years ago… heck, decades now (yikes!) I pretty much did this. I wanted tension in the relationship but didn’t think through the possible consequences of the power imbalance between the player and their patron… and if that player would find any of it fun.

I think it was the worst thing I have ever done as a DM, and I don’t think it’s particularly close.

Unless I had an almost inconceivably unusual player, a warlock’s patrons can offer carrots and be deceitful, duplicitous and manipulative with half truths, but can almost never directly threaten the player or negatively impact them, and they certainly don’t have the capacity to remove a warlock’s power (notwithstanding some profoundly odd player who actually wanted something like that)

There has been a case where a patron enticed another NPC warlock to “deal with” a PC, but I feel that was fair game.

[Witty Username]

What contract? That's from a previous edition.

Um.. "A Warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
- PHB 105 under Sworn and Beholden
There is even language over what you patron demands of you, in later sections. It is definitely a thing in 5th edition.


I am not sure I care for the idea of warlocks having no consequences for their actions which is how some of this thread is reading to me. I agree that the limits of those consequences should have the tone of the game and the fun of the player in mind. But, I would have questions for a player that expects to be able to do whatever they will.

Reading these responses makes me think the Warlock is the new Paladin. Meaning it used to be there was a subset of DMs that really punished players for the audacity of play a paladin by making them perform certain actions on threat of losing their powers if they don't. I'm not down with that unless it's spcecifically what the player wanted when they made the character.

I doubt it as 5e warlocks don't have the "Party police" clause paladins had. Much of the animosity towards paladin was that it gave one player license to dictate actions of the rest of the party, so some DMs started harshly treating paladin players for no good reason believing all paladin players were doing it to control the rest of the party. The design of Paladin promoted adversarial play between players and DMs in a way that no other class has done.