🔥 LAIR MAGAZINE & FOUNDRY | Get loads of 5e and PF2e adventures, traps, puzzles, monsters, and other GM resources to help you reduce your prep time and run amazing games with Lair Magazine and our Foundry VTT modules! www.patreon.com/thedmlair
AFAIK, Deathlock is a monster from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes who is literally a warlock who failed to carry out their pact and was turned into undead. So, the DM probably though "this is probably what should be happening to warlocks who do this stuff".
If an archfiend feels like you've wronged him, and you've given your soul to him in exchange for powers, you aren't going to get away with "You just lose your powers". You're dying, horribly in fact, and your soul's getting taken for an eternity.
Exactly. These are not nice beings. And they have resources you cannot dream of matching. They will get you if they want to. And it will not be pretty or pleasant.
And it doesn't even need to be an archfiend man. Any patron worth their salt isn't gonna be a pushover to its warlocks. They will deal with it in a drastic and final way so their other warlocks know not to mess with them.
@feferson492 Like a Cleric or Paladin who turns their back on their oaths and duties, a Warlock *will* be made an example of. Hell, the potential punishments are harsher by comparison.
I think this DM was even merciful What I'd do: First offense: patron gives you a stern warning Second offense: one of your spells whiffs in a critical moment. Then you get another stern warning Third offense: I ask for your character sheet, and return you a commoner statblock. Your class levels are gone for now.
I think the punishment was fair, but to negotiate, I would say that your character's patron is no longer supplying you with power. So, you are either going to have to find a way to make amends with your patron, or quest to seek another patron. But until one of those two things happen, you have no Warlock powers or spells. Then if they threaten to leave, say, "There's the door. Don't let it hit you where the good lord split you."
I think that works for clerics, but the existence of deathlocks makes it clear that warlocks are permanently changed by their pacts. You get the powers and then can try to break the pact. If you are good enough to get away with it then nothing happens in your life but you become a deathlock.
It feels like there are parts of the story missing. Like where there scenarios where the warlock had to choose between the patron and the party or did the warlock go out of his way to betray the patron? Like was the pitfiend an unavoidable boss fight or did the warlock specifically ask for his patron to have a sun and then ask for a sidequest to track down and kill the patron? Why would you omit examples from the story unless they would be evidence you put the warlock in a no-win scenario?
@@schwarzerritter5724 The patron wouldn't really act differently if its own begotten son was an unavoidable boss, though. The character should be looking for ways to free itself from the pact if it was at odds with the patron, not to this shit under its nose.
Spot on. I actually liked that the character turned into a deathlock. But if something like this ever happens in a serious game with mature people there needs to be a lead-up to that. Like the PC being confronted by the Patron and presented with the contract THEY SIGNED TO A DEVIL. And likewise, in a mature group, there can always be a way for the party to find a method of reversing the transformation. Either by finding them a new patron or enlisting the assistance of a god/divine being/whatever.
Depending on the system, Warlocks cut off by their patron no longer gain spells or abilities as they level, but keep the powers they already have. The Patron would for sure send minions (maybe other more loyal Warlocks) to do the killing rather than remote-magicking. Even so the guy sounds like no fun to play with.
This is the correct answer! Warlock patrons are not gods. Once they give a power, it is an innate power and cannot be taken away. Just don't grant new powers. Also, have the patron punish the warlock - and these were great ideas!
This is Correct. Ed Greenwood stated this in a twitter post as well. He said it's like directly just cutting off a phone line after someone teaches you something. They just can't teach you anymore new skills. But you keep the old.
I think this was a proper consequence but he couldve had the patron show up and tell him when they planned to kill this pit fiend (if they did) "You're on your last straw, I don't need you as you are now, I prefer it, but you spit in my face again, I'll have you in a way you won't disobey me."
Whenever I have had a Warlock step out of line (perhaps not to that degree, but going against their patron's wishes), I have disabled certain features of that class (oh, you like your invocation being able to speak to animals? You don't have it anymore. Also having spells fail at critical moments in battle, "You hear the unearthly chuckle of your Patron as you attempt to call upon their magic!" Your spell fails to materialize!) for that player until they started "doing what they were told". Taking away their phone, as the analogy goes. Players are dependent on the Patron for their power, Patrons are well within their right to withhold that power if the Warlock starts going back on the terms of their agreement.
I would have had the patron turn up and intimidate the character - effectively, they would get a final, in-game warning, a humiliation at the hands of their patron and commanded to fulfill a number of tasks for the patron, 12 labours of Hercules style. It would give the other players something to have fun with and serve as a final warning to the player. You can even have the patron day to the warlock 'cross me again and I will turn you into a deathlock'. Essentially, read them the riot act and make them aware of the exact consequences of their actions. If you really want to, you can draw up a copy of the warlock's contract and use that as a warning system.
My DM is kinda ruthless. Our bard decided to argue and challenge an archdemon. The demon cut off one of his arms and broke his instrument. Later, the player argued again and said, 'Either kill me or do what I'm asking.' The demon killed him. It was all done in a fun way, and we all laughed.
I don't know why DMs are afraid of killing their player's character and why the players get so offended, In the real world you wouldn't jump out of the car during an African Safari tour
@@ahsidodna3355 Because that's not a game everybody wants to play. Justifying things by realism is a pretty weak, we play to have fun, not to play a simulation of real life, but in a fantasy world. Some people like gritty realism, or the potential for permadeath. Others don't.
@@ahsidodna3355 To quote Oscar Wilde, "consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative". Don't be consistent for consistency's sake - be consistent for practical reasons. Most stories that put the main characters in danger give them plot armor and for a very good reason - the idea is that we're experiencing an interesting story about certain people and if they all die before the climax, _usually_ you're left with an incomplete and disappointing story. The same can be said of collaborative storytelling. Now, some people enjoy the *risk* of death, of an incomplete story, in service to heightening tension, and you can only have that if _occasionally,_ when it makes the most sense, a character dies. I am one of them, though I'm not fond of the idea of characters dying constantly, since I am first and foremost interested in a good story. Some people have no interest whatsoever in the possibility of their character dying. Some people love the idea that death is behind every corner and will get you unless you play as intelligently as possible. All stances are valid. A group that's made it clear that they have no interest in their characters dying permanently would have a GM who is very reluctant to kill them, and who provides solutions and workaround when they do. A player in that group would rightly get offended if their character just _died_ without opportunity for respite, since that wasn't they game they agreed to play.
@@ahsidodna3355, writes _"I don't know why DMs are afraid of killing their player's character and why the players get so offended",_ Because the players are not interested in having to think, to have to evaluate situations, they just want to roll dice and hang out. No thinking required.
If the player threatens to leave, let him leave. I agree that you can tell him, 'you're welcome to create a new (non-warlock) character or we can part ways' option. I had a player once (in a different RPG) who took a 'fault' for his character of "would not kill." The first time he got into a duel, he killed the guy without remorse. Some people just play against the grain.
What I would have done is that any of their abilities that recharge on a rest(not counting hp) would stop recharging until he either found a new patron or multi classed into another spellcaster.
That's exactly what happened at out table, with a Great Old One patron. Just started stripping our warlock of his powers until the player had to find a new patron.
I'm going to have to disagree a bit with the popular consensus here. The DM is correct IF the patron relationship was established from the beginning and something the player agreed to. However, the mechanics and lore presented in 5e aren't this strict. The class mentions "obligations" to your Patron but there is nothing approaching the "Breaking Your Oath" section for the Paladin. The class itself mentions the potential to have an "uneasy" or "antagonistic" relationship with your patron. The Fiend subclass as well states the patron is "aims are evil even if your strive against those aims." Wyll from BG3 is a good example of this character. He has the potential to use his abilities to act directly against his patron throughout the story although at cosmetic/reward sacrifice. A player acting against their Patron in such a way can be good RP. Killing the player outright without any form of in game mechanic and just writing them out is a bit absurd IMO. Have the patron send assassins after him, Have another being working against the patron make a counter-offer, A rival Fiend, a Celestial, etc. Having the outcome happen if/when the player character died normally would be fine, but this comes across as the DM taking personal revenge against the player because he didn't like his RP.
Using Wyll as an example and that this player's patron was a fiend, it's quite likely there's a similar "default on promise" in the pact, just like Wyll could die right away if the party refused to rescue his patron from the Illithid container.
just a reminder that while your patron is rarely a god, they are always yours, the more of your levels are in warlock compared to another class, the closer your ties are to your patron's power, this was a single classed warlock, and it took them murdering their patron's favorite child for this to happen, this was an incredibly patient warlock patron, the being said, immediately before the killing blow, I would have placed the patron's hand gently around the warlock's throat as a clear sign that if they go through with this there will be vital consequences of a literal sense, and let my player choose to let their warlock become a deathlock and roll up a new character a warlock takes power from their patron in exchange for deeds, no more deeds, no more power, at the most merciful the contract would be severed, the connection would be lost, and either they'd have to make a new pact with a different fiend(unlikely as while fiends hate each other there's nothing they hate more than someone they expect to break a deal, demons are at least wise enough to not make them in the first place), or they'd have to divert their levels somewhere else
So, the player has full responsibility for their character's actions and their resultant death. They went against their patron, an archdevil, in an incredibly severe way -- they're lucky they were only turned into a Deathlock. The DM is not innocent, at least from the information they gave. It's good they gave the player warnings, and it's clear this isn't the first thing the player did against their patron's desires, but in addition to warnings they DM should have been dolling out consequences proportional to their other offenses. The first time they experience consequences for their actions shouldn't be getting turned into an undead.
Just before the killing blow, the warlocks patron should’ve showed up and held a figurative sword of Damocles against the characters neck. Then said choose your next action carefully. I don’t remember the exact context for the sort of Damocles, but you get The gist.
I think this is awesome. My kids are smart enough to know not to do something like this because they know something horrible will happen. Maybe I just raised them better. I can see this situation creating and awesome story arc.
A Warlock that lost their powers would still have their HP and Proficiencies... They'd just not have any class features 😬 Though, if they reverted to a level 1 Sorcerer... at least they'd level up faster 😲
The players have Agency, because they are writing their story, the DM sets the rules, which the player willingly pushed the boundaries to see how far they could get and when the player reached the limit and killed the son of his patron, just like Sonny Corleone was killed in The Godfather I and the killers suffered death for it. Now it's up to the player to make up a new character or leave.
It feels like that player didn't actually want a warlock pact, just warlock powers. Which, you know, is valid. A reflavouring of the reason the character has magic (perhaps by revealing the fiend didn't actually grant them the powers, just tricked them into believing that) could have saved this. A player who was actually interested in playing with a warlock pact would _probably_ not have reacted like this, since pushing the boundaries and then being punished for doing so is part of that fantasy. This may even be too heavy handed for that situation, though. Them facing real (if less extreme) consequences beforehand would have been a better lead-up, not just warnings. Them losing their powers for some time before, or them being tormented by bad dreams (not getting everything from a long rest every time), or some other creative idea. The player did seem rather immature, though.
I assume that theh reaction was so heavy handed because, after MANY infractions, the warlock did the unforgivable, and in that, it is justifiable. the DM should have given the player the talk, and retaliated with lesser punishments LONG before the character was at a high enougjh level to kill a pit fiend.
I gotta agree. Any player that doesn't respect your boundries and then expects carte blanche is not someone you need at the table. At the very least that character should loose all their magical abilities until they complete some kind of major "I'm sorry I F'd up Patron, please accept my apology" quest
7:45. I had a DM once that said magic was fickle, especially if given from a deity or patron. If you played in a certain way, you lost spells. I was the tank. At one point I didn’t get hp from a Cure Wounds spell. I had offended the healer’s goddess. The player wanted me to be a damage sponge. The goddess /DM didn’t.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of comments here. When you look at lit, arch fiends aren’t known for measured responses or to be especially forgiving. The mistake this DM made was not bringing in consequences sooner. You make a deal with an arch fiend, it’s going to be very one sided.
I wonder why the player was ignoring the patron? Was the DM going too far with the patron's demands? Did the player feel he was losing too much player agency?
Depends is all this patron lore and repercussions pure DM driven? Does the rogue have repercussions from stealing? Does the pally have to worry about breaking his oath because of a morally dubious situation? Fair is fair. Killing the bad guy shouldn’t only have repercussions for one player.
I prefer the "patron cuts warlock loose" option, but he wouldn't become a 1st-level sorcerer or anything else; hed still be a warlock of the same level, with the same hit points, proficiencies, skills, and feats, but would be completely without any magical abilities until he finds a new patron (which, at this point, would almost have to be a slaad lord).
I had the same situation. An immature player testing boundaries and patience and being a jerk to everyone. No amount of talking and in-game punishment worked. He kept crying that everyone is unfair, but it stopped working quite fast. His character suffered final consequences (wasn’t even killed off) and he was removed from the group after the final talk. Everyone else was happy. The player is still whining around for years.
I am wondering what the circumstances were that caused the Pit Fiend to show up in the first place. Did the Warlock seek them out for some reason, or was it part of the normal campaign that the party was up against a devil that just happened to be the patron's son? Because it kinda sounds like the DM was setting the Warlock up in a no-win scenario -- i.e., either you betray your party or you betray your patron. Which is not cool.
I agree with this. There are almost no circumstances that really justify DM-imposed instant death without a saving throw, an attack roll, or similar Appeal to the Fates. On the other hand, the patron cutting the warlock off from spells is certainly the minimum consequence here, and may still be too lenient; I think the patron would at least send a group of devils after the character or even attack him personally (and, if the warlock died in that battle, then maybe he would be reanimated as a deathlock). But now that the mistake has been made, I would encourage this DM to stand by his decision. You don’t want to be the DM who can be bullied into changing his decision by threats and tantrums. And while I do agree that player and DM were “both in the wrong,” the player here is so much more in the wrong that he should have to abide by the DM’s heavy-handed action.
This is why I like to actually hammer out a Contract as opposed to just winging it. For one Patrons like this are not going to want to just wing it. There will be a document that is binding to both parties and outline exactly what will happen if either tries to break the contract and what does break the contract. And it will all be in the Patron's favor. Because that's how deals with the devil work. Now Fey are more whimsical and may just have an oath or promise given. But if they feel like you have wronged them, then expect a lot of bad luck and mishaps. Like disadvantage on every roll you make for anything is you tick them off really bad. Or wild magic surges happening when you do cast spells. They have powers you know nothing about and are not afraid to use them. And never make any pacts with the Great Old Ones. You will eventually go mad. You don't actually make a pact with them so much as you manage to become connected to one of them and syphon off knowledge. That link however takes a toll on you mental capacity (Wisdom in particular) reducing it over time depending on how much knowledge you glean from that connection.
If anything, the DM was too easy on him, up until that point. Back in the day, when a character did something stupid, he died. In fact, death was pretty common in general. If the player couldn't handle it, especially after what amounts to poking a bear with a short stick, he shouldn't have been there to begin with.
I think there’s a chance this individual watches Critical Role and wanted to do the whole “I’m stuck with a patron I don’t like and don’t want to serve” story arc. Perhaps offering to have them switch patrons and get out of that bargain as an in game story quest to a patron that better aligned with their character’s morality would’ve fixed the situation. If this wasn’t the issue, I would just straight up pull my player to the side and explain how playing a Warlock in my game works and offer for him to switch his class or make a new character and then inform him of the types of consequences his character could expect to receive if the behaviors he is engaging in continue. That would allow the player to express how he feels about that and then you could have a conversation about it and possibly reach a middle ground. I don’t know, it’s impossible to know if this would’ve worked, but that’s what I would’ve tried.
I'd argue the issue here, was not punishing him before this, the the DM's mind the player just kept pushing it despite warnings, but in the players mind this was the first time he got punished for this, so character death feels like way too much. After the first warning the DM should have given punishments, like, temporarily losing magic, spells becoming weaker, or failing at a crucial moment. Specially since the patron is an Archdevil, their contracts should be nearly bullet proof, and the first slight against them should come with consequences, that's what an lawful evil patron is about. Demons might be more capricious but Devils are extremely strict. By not punishing him he was letting the player keep pushing it, until it broke.
Actually, it's not a bad idea for a warlock subclass: a warlock that pissed off his parton somehow, and the character suffers consequences. It's a kind of "contract-breaker warlock", to be compared with the oathbreaker paladin. Does anybody have an idea of what the subclass would be like ?
To play the devil's advocate: there is no rule about a warlock being able to loose a pact. If you as a DM want to give the patron a major role and let it influence the pact and the PC's powers, mention this in slot 0, especially how much power both creatures in the pact have. There is a reason why alignment restrictions and deity influence has been severely reduced in 5e.
Okay, I'm curious on what memorization technique you used to learn 3 different languages? I know it's not what this video is about, but you mentioned that in an offhanded fashion and I'm really curious.
The DM shouldn't have just given warnings. They could've slowly (and temporarily, but increasingly) limited the warlock's magic, reduced their max HP, etc. The patron can put them in timeout immeditately.
Depends on patron and session 0 discussion on how that patron views going against their will. So, to me, it feels both are in the wrong to various extremes without knowing further details. Then again, depending on the fiend, despite having a favorite child, that child could still have a plot to usurp the fiend. So I would be inclined to agree there could be a pause where the ex warlock looses their powers as punishment, and potentially regain new powers at level up with the patron fiend finding out the plot against them. Maybe even a magic item as a boon for the assist.
I'm wondering what the warnings were. If he'd been telling the player this would happen I agree the DM didn't do anything wrong And even if this was a surprise consequence then I agree the "what do you think the punishment would be" conversation would be a better path, but I don't think that makes the perma-dead path wrong, just not the best.
@@jwmmitch the guy killed the son of a arch devil…. The vary arch devil that has control over his soul… what did he think was gonna happen? You think the devils gonna be cool about it?
@@culliganator 😂😂😂 I guess if we were just playing mental gymnastics sure. If you’re just gonna defy your patron and not expect consequences, don’t bother being a warlock.
My main question is how did the player get the chance to kill their patrons son in the first place? If killing that NPC was instadeath for the warlock then before initiative is even rolled that should be spelled out. Not to defend this player but I can see a situation in which the warnings the DM is giving were vague enough that a player could think that betraying their patron is what they’re supposed to be doing. E.g. part of my characters personal quest is going to involve confronting my patron and this is a step along the way. I’ve been at tables where GMs don’t clearly explain the difference between “heroic and challenging quest” and “this is suicide you’re supposed to find another way” I walked away from a table where we accused a royal advisor of treason and he tpk’d the party only for the DM to say “well obviously you were supposed to take this evidence to the king. I warned you this advisor was a dangerous powerful mage”
if i'm not trying to kill my character and the DM is not trying to kill me, but my character die for some reason, i'm very ok with it, and don't mind creating another one
Lol, the irony of this one. Warlock kills the favorite son of his parton, patron gets mad. After that, on the meta level, DM kills the character of the player, and the player gets mad. Same stuff on different levels, and the dude is mad because someone in the game reacted EXACTLY how he reacted IRL to the situation. Lmao
the only bit of context i feel is needed is why the lock killed the pit fiend. Like, was he put in a position where he felt he had to, or was he just testing the waters. If its the latter, I dont think the DM did anything wrong. If you dont want to obey your patron, dont play a warlock
Player should have taken the hints. DM should have had a conversation out of game about the Warlock vs patron situation. It should have been agreed in advance how integral the player wanted their Patron to be. Not every Warlock player wants to be constantly forced to make certain decisions because their patron says so. Some Warlock players do. But the conversation should have happened well in advance. Instakilling a player for fighting devils and being a hero is not good DMing. It punishes the Warlock player vs the rest of the party. The druid isn't at risk of being instakilled if they stray from nature. The Cleric isn't going to be smited by their God for disobeying them. The Wizard isn't going to just die because they choose to do magic in a certain way. This was careless DMing tbh. If he had said "if you kill this Pit Fiend, you know that your Patron will kill you for it" and the Warlock player went ahead anyway, then yeah sure. But I doubt it was telegraphed in this way. I'd love to hear this story from the player's point of view. I think there's an alternate version here where the DM continually tries to force the player to act in a certain way, and then as a "punishment", he had them face a Pit Fiend and only after they killed it did he do the smug reveal of "oh btw Warlock, that was your Patron's son you just killed. And now he turns you into a Deathlock."
The op was really at fault for 2 reasons: 1) The buck stops with the DM 2) The op had clearly made a bunch of empty threats over 2 1/2 years. But if you let the player keep the character, they'll see it as just another empty threat. So they HAVE to lose the character, no matter what. This is the eternal struggle of leaders throughout history. What is the right balance of demanding, and compassion. I don't have the right answer, but I do know that in this particular situation, the player must lose the character.
I would have given the player another warning in a different way inside the game, but I would not have permanently killed his character. Maybe he just loses his abilities and spells for a specified period of time, but will be eventually be able to regain them through a long period of adventure.
You are all over the place in this response. First you say they're both wrong. Then you explain that you would take the player aside and talk to them. Then you say that wouldn't work. Then you suggest two possibilities for resolution. Then you say that too many GMs just allow players to do whatever and it makes their game a "crap show". Then you say you feel it's a good idea to have consequences and just let the player leave. Which is what the GM did in the first place. Is this really the quality of content that has gotten you to 160k subs?
Good point. When that happened to me on occasions. Two things happen 1 pcs kill the character. 2. Nature plays out, specifically in game the character does something stupid they end up killing their on character for pushing my rules
For lighter offenses, this makes sense. But killing off the patron's favorite son is the kind of act that a player roleplaying a fiend-following Warlock should expect from a cruel, evil patron. Hell, they don't even have to be evil or cruel. A warlock who killed their fey patron's favorite daughter should expect a similar outcome. If the previous warnings didn't register, they should have been given a warning at the start of the fight with the pit fiend ("don't do this, there will be fatal consequences") and before the pit fiend was killed off ("maybe I didnt make myself clear: I WILL kill you where you stand if he's killed.") At that point, the player who kills the pit fiend has nobody to blame but themselves.
Nah, I'm totally on board with this. It's an Arch-Devil. They're not exactly known for being light handed or forgiving. They're not just going to take their power and leave, they're going to bring hellish retribution upon them for this betrayal. If the player had any respect for you as the GM and the narrative integrity of the world, they would know not to do that or would accept the outcome. They clearly don't respect either the GM or the world and did not rejected the logical outcome in a very immature way and so should be ejected. The GM was fine to offer a chance to change after it all, but the GM was perfectly justified in the initial call to kill the character.
Both are in the wrong IMO. Sounds like an "are you sure?" moment where the players should have understood the consequences. I don't see warlocks like clerics, where they continuously have to serve their patron or lose their powers. Don't devils ascend to power by defeating other devils? Maybe the archfiend would see it as a promotion.
The DM gave multiple warnings. The player got what he asked for and earned. This isn’t a both wrong situation. No, not every conflict is “both sides are kind of wrong.” I don’t see how you feel that a justified player death is overkill after that lengthy tangent about a month long punishment over a failed test.
While I'm all for killing off characters, and also for getting rid of problem players, I really don't like the heavy handed way the DM dealt with it. Even if the character was a cleric, I wouldn't ever permanently kill off a PC in a cutscene. In the DMs shoes, I'd have the Archfiend send a bunch of goons after them. Not as a regular encounter the players are meant to fight and bead, but probably some devils that would attack and kill off the warlock when it was alone or otherwise exposed. I wouldn't really do it this way to give the player a chance to keep the character, but as a way to express I'm not gonna use an omnipotent NPC as an excuse to break the rules of the game and take away their stuff. And on taking away his walorck levels, I'm gonna be honest, there's no real difference between that and killing the character off, except narrative. And for a patron, an Archfiend on top of that, to have such a mild response "Oh! Now you've done it! I'm not gonna activelly help you anymore!", is just weak. They would have the warlock dead as soon as they could.
“If they were at all mature”… if they were at all mature, they wouldn’t go down that path to begin with… so the first things is yes, loss of powers… but, not just that… make it interesting… leave him in the game but, the loss of power isn’t the worst… the player loses a level per day, every day that he doesn’t make amends and therefore hit points by equivalent die rolls and could conceivably lose more HP than he actually had… if this happens life is forfeit (obviously) and the character is no more… tortured in hell for all eternity… or he reaches lvl 0 and survives… only now can he/she attempt another class… but, they are cursed and all things that do, are actively resisted all die rolls are at a negative (something) the only “cure” is the amends or slaying of the former Parton or forced release of his soul/recovery of his sole… to do all that likely the player would just say himself “kill the character”… too much work… lol. But, I’ll bet he doesn’t do that stupid sh-stuff again and he can’t complain because you gave him an out… a fair one an in-game appropriate fix…
Agree with you Luke 100% It's much better to remove the problem player than to even try to continue especially after giving several warnings. Most likely your other players will respect you a tad more, and in the end will appreciate the problem no longer exists.
I wouldn't bash the dm for killing the player. It definitely was to much (depending on the amout of warnings). If they tested the waters against the dm, i want know if they did that to the other players as well. I would have taken away their powers and given them a choice to switch class or find a way to amend. If they then complain and threatening to leave i would just say bye bye.
I think this is one of those problems that's more a cause of the 5E rules having no real teeth when it comes to patrons. Since as written, the patron really has no actual power over the warlock, so I think it leads to a lot of players thinking the patron is toothless. Hell, as written the patron can't even cut you off from your powers that he supposedly grants, there's just no actual rules for it. Same with clerics and their gods.
@@davidstone9624 That attitude is fine if you're running an OSR style game, but most modern D&D players are going to be very upset with a DM who just random creates rules on the fly, especially if they're major ones like totally stripping a character of their life or class abilities.
@@davidstone9624 While I personally like the flavor of having a warlock's patron do that sort of thing, I think it's something best established early in the game when the PC first makes the warlock, because the player's handbook does a poor job of this. A player that reads the class doesn't really have any indication they have a patron that has a ton of power over them. If you want players classes to have a code of conduct, like the AD&D 2nd edition paladin for instance, it's best to have the rules spell it out in the class itself and warn them that violating their code or angering their patron will have real mechanic side effects beyond just in-game social consequences like "the cults of the archdevil don't like you anymore."
Kill the son, loose the standing, try to cast something, cant cast. Why? No more magical powers. Now you are just a regular dude with nice equipment and zero spellcasting abilitys. Just make sure there is some hint in the original contract which means that the warlock has to do the missions of the archdevil. And so the warlock broke the contract and loose his magic in reverse. Done.
You gotta use Reverse Psychology and ask the player what he thinks his Patron would do. Perhaps this become a Hunt for the party by devils. Then he loses his powers for a bit, then maybe they come across a Celestial or KiRin or something, and decides to swear a new oath for Good. Etc. But you gotta start asking the player to get him involved. Maybe the pact with the devil was not his own choice but the GMs?
This is one of the reasons that in My Campaign World Of MIDORIS that a Warlocks power is ALWAYS in the hands of The Patron!! As I understand it, WOTC ruled that once a Patron bestows power that it can't be removed but it's just another reason to have extensive "House Rules"!!! Patron holds the Powers, PERIOD. Most Patrons give a great deal of latitude in their servants use their of power, but there are boundaries which Most Patrons will have let their servant know by that point of potential loss of powers. Players who've been warned, have been warned. Don't let the door 🚪 hit you on the way out!!
I don't know how this culture of unaliveing PC's in a game with about 90% combat has become so taboo but it needs to stop. Like yeah, don't be an unfair DM, but at the same time, it SHOULD be challenging, the DM SHOULD stick to lore appropriate responses.
If a player told me that if their character had to be re-instated or they would leave, I would just wave them goodbye, mind you, I tend not to play D&D with seven year old kids. Taking the power from a warlock in that situation would be a given, first point on the scale, what eles woud the player expect, and if they are not mature enough to understand that, they are not mature enough to be playing the game. A character death should never be an impossibility, in fact if it is not a possibility, and players don't feel as if it will ever happen, then the likelyhood is that they will not really enjoy the game as much as they would if there is a frisson of doom around them. If a player puts themself in the position where the big bad comes after them, death should not a be a sure thing, but I would play that out to the max ability of the big bad, and if death occurred, it is just part of the game. Deciding that they have reached the point, where they are dying should be in the play, not an automatic choice.
Their patron is a devil. They're not just going to cut the character off. Maybe a neutral patron would, but not a devil. A devil would pull out the contract, show it to the wayward soul, and direct him to the fine print. And then make him scream until the devil is bored. And then turn him into something that will freaking obey. Or maybe a hood ornament. The problem here is that consequences should have come the first time the player did something stupid. And the second. So they would have either learned or.. and here's the big one... The DM should have warned the player in no uncertain terms that violating his contract by killing the patron's son absolutely *will* end his PC. That, I believe, is where the DM fell short. The DM can point to Wyl in BG3 as an example of consequences flowing.
Ok. Honestly need more info here. (Ignoring the 'im leaving thing' because thats just childish. Has the player been pushing back on just thier patron, is the charecter wanting out of their patrons contract and the patron is ignoring them. Because if the charecter is trying to get hold of the patron, and being ignored. I really dont blame em. On the other hand. If op is being 100% transparent here, yeah, just let him leave.
No, the dm was absolutely in the right. I've delt with way to many ridiculous passive-aggressive players exactly like this and just keep going "no-no that's bad" will do nothing. This dude would freak out at any consequence. Getting your powers stripped is something you should do if they refuse a patrons order. Deliberately attacking and killing their family? An archfiend? Yeah your dead. The fun of this game is consequences, good and bad. If a player can't handle punishment for being pointlessly antagonistic towards the dm and the spirit of dnd then nothing was lost this day
The real question is how, exactly, the player was put into a position to kill the pit fiend. If he sought him out then fine, I agree. But if the DM made the pit fiend a central enemy of the party then he was pretty much baiting the player into doing what he did. I feel like we need the other side of this story in order to make any real decision on the matter.
Although I agree with Luke 85% of the time in this case I have to side with the player. As the warlock class is written the doctor needs no further benefits from the patron. The characters power has already been received from the patron and will continue to grow over time without any additional interaction. This has been confirmed by the designers multiple times over the years. The PC can literally kill their patron and there will be no mechanical repercussions. Of course if the player wanted that sort of interaction between character and patron then it's fine. However that would require the player to design such a backstory. Since this whole incident was a surprise to the player, clear player had no hand in designing such a story. This kind of punishment should never be a surprise.
Correct punishment would be cutting off warlocks powers after he started crossing lines. After killing pit guest, it’s not “you dead, create new character” (I’m not sure patron can transform warlock into deadlock at will, I think warlock needs to die first), it’s “well, you are now cut off from your magic abilities, deal with it”. What can warlock do to regain his patrons blessing? Or maybe he will try to find new patron. I totally get desire of killing disruptive characters, but “rock falls” is not very good answer.
I would have another approach, a curse. The Patron would get a member of the player's body to build his son back. At first the player's arm would be replaced by a magical cursed one. For every encounter, there would be one automatic fumble, most likely when the player needed most. Probably bringing the player's hp to zero. Whenever the player gets to zero he would encounter the patron in another plane, the patron would take another member, put in his son's body and replace the player's by another magical cursed one. Now the player has 2 automatic fumbles and so on. For every encounter with the patron, it would lose a member, the torso and in the end, the head.
I commonly say that the player and DM need to negotiate the terms of the pact between PC and Patron for a Warlock. This way both know the terms the PC is expected to comply with in exchange for the powers the Patron is granting. Note the Devils like to stick in fine print and if the player, acting as PC signs without reading... well, that's just how a Devil would like it, with the fine print clause being something the PC (and player) won't be happy with being included in the contract. A pact is a contract. Contracts are: Benefit in exchange for payment.
It feels like there are parts of the story missing. Like where there scenarios where the warlock had to choose between the patron and the party or did the warlock go out of his way to betray the patron? Like was the pitfiend an unavoidable boss fight or did the warlock specifically ask for his patron to have a sun and then ask for a sidequest to track down and kill the patron? Why would you omit examples from the story unless they would be evidence you put the warlock in a no-win scenario?
You don't go to level 1 as a warlock or wizard if you go against your patron. You keep what you have and will have to make a new pact with another entity or RP multiclassing into something else. Ed Greenwood stated this in a twitter post as well. He said it's like cutting off a phone line directly after someone teaches you something. They can't teach you any more new skills. But you keep the old.
I'm all for the heavy handed consequences, but would probably have gone with removing powers. And, also there are now factors in the world that are after that character to drag them off plane to the patron's wrath. But all said, a player that "screams" at the table is best off leaving.
one of your better vids bud, thank you. i agree both parties were basically in the wrong, emotions got in the way fo the GM and they killed the pc so be it, the player is def. immature so ya bye bye charlie, and dont come back. Hard to go through especially if that is a close friend that you didnt realize would play this way. Now you may not have that close friend anymore, but youve realized their true nature and i personally believe you will be the better for it. Again, great vid. Cheers, Keep 'em Rollin'
You advice is all based on the assumption that the player is testing the boundaries. Probably true, but we have no confirmation. I would pull the player aside and ask how they want their character to evolve from this point. Don't negotiate the "punishment," it's a game, just explain that the character's arc as a warlock ends here and ask what they would like to do with the character. If they complain that they want to continue as is, then ask them how to explain the new position, with the understanding that the previous arc can go on no longer. If they are immature about it, then as you say, they can just leave. But it may be possible that they find an even more exciting way to play the character, like their contract was actually stolen by a lesser devil who has been allowing their shenanigans all along, and now their plan moves into a new stage. Leave it to the player but make sure they understand that there are boundaries they must stay within.
🔥 LAIR MAGAZINE & FOUNDRY | Get loads of 5e and PF2e adventures, traps, puzzles, monsters, and other GM resources to help you reduce your prep time and run amazing games with Lair Magazine and our Foundry VTT modules! www.patreon.com/thedmlair
AFAIK, Deathlock is a monster from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes who is literally a warlock who failed to carry out their pact and was turned into undead. So, the DM probably though "this is probably what should be happening to warlocks who do this stuff".
I’m might steal this now that I know about it for my warlocks. This is such a cool concept. Then you can bring the character back as a villain.
If an archfiend feels like you've wronged him, and you've given your soul to him in exchange for powers, you aren't going to get away with "You just lose your powers". You're dying, horribly in fact, and your soul's getting taken for an eternity.
Ya this is like the wh40k level death in dnd
Exactly. These are not nice beings. And they have resources you cannot dream of matching. They will get you if they want to. And it will not be pretty or pleasant.
And it doesn't even need to be an archfiend man. Any patron worth their salt isn't gonna be a pushover to its warlocks. They will deal with it in a drastic and final way so their other warlocks know not to mess with them.
@feferson492 Like a Cleric or Paladin who turns their back on their oaths and duties, a Warlock *will* be made an example of. Hell, the potential punishments are harsher by comparison.
I think this DM was even merciful
What I'd do:
First offense: patron gives you a stern warning
Second offense: one of your spells whiffs in a critical moment. Then you get another stern warning
Third offense: I ask for your character sheet, and return you a commoner statblock. Your class levels are gone for now.
I think the punishment was fair, but to negotiate, I would say that your character's patron is no longer supplying you with power. So, you are either going to have to find a way to make amends with your patron, or quest to seek another patron. But until one of those two things happen, you have no Warlock powers or spells. Then if they threaten to leave, say, "There's the door. Don't let it hit you where the good lord split you."
I think that works for clerics, but the existence of deathlocks makes it clear that warlocks are permanently changed by their pacts. You get the powers and then can try to break the pact. If you are good enough to get away with it then nothing happens in your life but you become a deathlock.
It feels like there are parts of the story missing. Like where there scenarios where the warlock had to choose between the patron and the party or did the warlock go out of his way to betray the patron? Like was the pitfiend an unavoidable boss fight or did the warlock specifically ask for his patron to have a sun and then ask for a sidequest to track down and kill the patron?
Why would you omit examples from the story unless they would be evidence you put the warlock in a no-win scenario?
@@schwarzerritter5724 The patron wouldn't really act differently if its own begotten son was an unavoidable boss, though. The character should be looking for ways to free itself from the pact if it was at odds with the patron, not to this shit under its nose.
Well, he gave him many warnings, how many I don't know, but I feel like it was warranted in this case.
Patron: you killed my son, but you forgot an important detail. I own your soul and now its time to collect
Spot on. I actually liked that the character turned into a deathlock. But if something like this ever happens in a serious game with mature people there needs to be a lead-up to that. Like the PC being confronted by the Patron and presented with the contract THEY SIGNED TO A DEVIL. And likewise, in a mature group, there can always be a way for the party to find a method of reversing the transformation. Either by finding them a new patron or enlisting the assistance of a god/divine being/whatever.
Depending on the system, Warlocks cut off by their patron no longer gain spells or abilities as they level, but keep the powers they already have. The Patron would for sure send minions (maybe other more loyal Warlocks) to do the killing rather than remote-magicking. Even so the guy sounds like no fun to play with.
This is the correct answer! Warlock patrons are not gods. Once they give a power, it is an innate power and cannot be taken away. Just don't grant new powers.
Also, have the patron punish the warlock - and these were great ideas!
This is Correct. Ed Greenwood stated this in a twitter post as well. He said it's like directly just cutting off a phone line after someone teaches you something. They just can't teach you anymore new skills. But you keep the old.
Deathlock is an NPC/Monster. Narratively, it's a consequence for failing to serve your patron, you continue to serve them in undeath.
Get hunted from clerics and paladins afterwards. I like the idea.
I think this was a proper consequence but he couldve had the patron show up and tell him when they planned to kill this pit fiend (if they did) "You're on your last straw, I don't need you as you are now, I prefer it, but you spit in my face again, I'll have you in a way you won't disobey me."
Whenever I have had a Warlock step out of line (perhaps not to that degree, but going against their patron's wishes), I have disabled certain features of that class (oh, you like your invocation being able to speak to animals? You don't have it anymore. Also having spells fail at critical moments in battle, "You hear the unearthly chuckle of your Patron as you attempt to call upon their magic!" Your spell fails to materialize!) for that player until they started "doing what they were told". Taking away their phone, as the analogy goes. Players are dependent on the Patron for their power, Patrons are well within their right to withhold that power if the Warlock starts going back on the terms of their agreement.
Let him leave, even when you make a mistake, you shouldn't tolerate screaming. You can't maintain a table with indignant players.
I dealt with a player like that. The pcs ended up killing his character
I would have had the patron turn up and intimidate the character - effectively, they would get a final, in-game warning, a humiliation at the hands of their patron and commanded to fulfill a number of tasks for the patron, 12 labours of Hercules style. It would give the other players something to have fun with and serve as a final warning to the player. You can even have the patron day to the warlock 'cross me again and I will turn you into a deathlock'. Essentially, read them the riot act and make them aware of the exact consequences of their actions. If you really want to, you can draw up a copy of the warlock's contract and use that as a warning system.
My DM is kinda ruthless. Our bard decided to argue and challenge an archdemon. The demon cut off one of his arms and broke his instrument. Later, the player argued again and said, 'Either kill me or do what I'm asking.' The demon killed him. It was all done in a fun way, and we all laughed.
I don't know why DMs are afraid of killing their player's character and why the players get so offended, In the real world you wouldn't jump out of the car during an African Safari tour
@@ahsidodna3355 Because that's not a game everybody wants to play. Justifying things by realism is a pretty weak, we play to have fun, not to play a simulation of real life, but in a fantasy world. Some people like gritty realism, or the potential for permadeath. Others don't.
@MalloonTarka not realism, but consistency with the world the DM created, you know?
@@ahsidodna3355 To quote Oscar Wilde, "consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative". Don't be consistent for consistency's sake - be consistent for practical reasons. Most stories that put the main characters in danger give them plot armor and for a very good reason - the idea is that we're experiencing an interesting story about certain people and if they all die before the climax, _usually_ you're left with an incomplete and disappointing story.
The same can be said of collaborative storytelling.
Now, some people enjoy the *risk* of death, of an incomplete story, in service to heightening tension, and you can only have that if _occasionally,_ when it makes the most sense, a character dies. I am one of them, though I'm not fond of the idea of characters dying constantly, since I am first and foremost interested in a good story.
Some people have no interest whatsoever in the possibility of their character dying. Some people love the idea that death is behind every corner and will get you unless you play as intelligently as possible. All stances are valid.
A group that's made it clear that they have no interest in their characters dying permanently would have a GM who is very reluctant to kill them, and who provides solutions and workaround when they do. A player in that group would rightly get offended if their character just _died_ without opportunity for respite, since that wasn't they game they agreed to play.
@@ahsidodna3355, writes _"I don't know why DMs are afraid of killing their player's character and why the players get so offended",_
Because the players are not interested in having to think, to have to evaluate situations, they just want to roll dice and hang out. No thinking required.
If the player threatens to leave, let him leave. I agree that you can tell him, 'you're welcome to create a new (non-warlock) character or we can part ways' option. I had a player once (in a different RPG) who took a 'fault' for his character of "would not kill." The first time he got into a duel, he killed the guy without remorse. Some people just play against the grain.
What I would have done is that any of their abilities that recharge on a rest(not counting hp) would stop recharging until he either found a new patron or multi classed into another spellcaster.
That's exactly what happened at out table, with a Great Old One patron. Just started stripping our warlock of his powers until the player had to find a new patron.
I want to learn his memorization technique!!
I'm going to have to disagree a bit with the popular consensus here.
The DM is correct IF the patron relationship was established from the beginning and something the player agreed to.
However, the mechanics and lore presented in 5e aren't this strict.
The class mentions "obligations" to your Patron but there is nothing approaching the "Breaking Your Oath" section for the Paladin.
The class itself mentions the potential to have an "uneasy" or "antagonistic" relationship with your patron. The Fiend subclass as well states the patron is "aims are evil even if your strive against those aims."
Wyll from BG3 is a good example of this character. He has the potential to use his abilities to act directly against his patron throughout the story although at cosmetic/reward sacrifice.
A player acting against their Patron in such a way can be good RP.
Killing the player outright without any form of in game mechanic and just writing them out is a bit absurd IMO. Have the patron send assassins after him, Have another being working against the patron make a counter-offer, A rival Fiend, a Celestial, etc.
Having the outcome happen if/when the player character died normally would be fine, but this comes across as the DM taking personal revenge against the player because he didn't like his RP.
Using Wyll as an example and that this player's patron was a fiend, it's quite likely there's a similar "default on promise" in the pact, just like Wyll could die right away if the party refused to rescue his patron from the Illithid container.
just a reminder that while your patron is rarely a god, they are always yours, the more of your levels are in warlock compared to another class, the closer your ties are to your patron's power, this was a single classed warlock, and it took them murdering their patron's favorite child for this to happen, this was an incredibly patient warlock patron, the being said, immediately before the killing blow, I would have placed the patron's hand gently around the warlock's throat as a clear sign that if they go through with this there will be vital consequences of a literal sense, and let my player choose to let their warlock become a deathlock and roll up a new character
a warlock takes power from their patron in exchange for deeds, no more deeds, no more power, at the most merciful the contract would be severed, the connection would be lost, and either they'd have to make a new pact with a different fiend(unlikely as while fiends hate each other there's nothing they hate more than someone they expect to break a deal, demons are at least wise enough to not make them in the first place), or they'd have to divert their levels somewhere else
No actions have consequences.
What was the reaction of the rest of the party to this situation before it escalated that far?
So, the player has full responsibility for their character's actions and their resultant death. They went against their patron, an archdevil, in an incredibly severe way -- they're lucky they were only turned into a Deathlock.
The DM is not innocent, at least from the information they gave. It's good they gave the player warnings, and it's clear this isn't the first thing the player did against their patron's desires, but in addition to warnings they DM should have been dolling out consequences proportional to their other offenses. The first time they experience consequences for their actions shouldn't be getting turned into an undead.
Just before the killing blow, the warlocks patron should’ve showed up and held a figurative sword of Damocles against the characters neck. Then said choose your next action carefully. I don’t remember the exact context for the sort of Damocles, but you get The gist.
I think this is awesome. My kids are smart enough to know not to do something like this because they know something horrible will happen. Maybe I just raised them better. I can see this situation creating and awesome story arc.
There's never an illegitimate reason to kill off a Warlock.
A Warlock that lost their powers would still have their HP and Proficiencies... They'd just not have any class features 😬
Though, if they reverted to a level 1 Sorcerer... at least they'd level up faster 😲
He did a lil trolling
The players have Agency, because they are writing their story, the DM sets the rules, which the player willingly pushed the boundaries to see how far they could get and when the player reached the limit and killed the son of his patron, just like Sonny Corleone was killed in The Godfather I and the killers suffered death for it. Now it's up to the player to make up a new character or leave.
It feels like that player didn't actually want a warlock pact, just warlock powers. Which, you know, is valid. A reflavouring of the reason the character has magic (perhaps by revealing the fiend didn't actually grant them the powers, just tricked them into believing that) could have saved this. A player who was actually interested in playing with a warlock pact would _probably_ not have reacted like this, since pushing the boundaries and then being punished for doing so is part of that fantasy.
This may even be too heavy handed for that situation, though. Them facing real (if less extreme) consequences beforehand would have been a better lead-up, not just warnings. Them losing their powers for some time before, or them being tormented by bad dreams (not getting everything from a long rest every time), or some other creative idea.
The player did seem rather immature, though.
I assume that theh reaction was so heavy handed because, after MANY infractions, the warlock did the unforgivable, and in that, it is justifiable. the DM should have given the player the talk, and retaliated with lesser punishments LONG before the character was at a high enougjh level to kill a pit fiend.
I gotta agree. Any player that doesn't respect your boundries and then expects carte blanche is not someone you need at the table. At the very least that character should loose all their magical abilities until they complete some kind of major "I'm sorry I F'd up Patron, please accept my apology" quest
7:45. I had a DM once that said magic was fickle, especially if given from a deity or patron.
If you played in a certain way, you lost spells.
I was the tank. At one point I didn’t get hp from a Cure Wounds spell. I had offended the healer’s goddess.
The player wanted me to be a damage sponge.
The goddess /DM didn’t.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of comments here. When you look at lit, arch fiends aren’t known for measured responses or to be especially forgiving.
The mistake this DM made was not bringing in consequences sooner. You make a deal with an arch fiend, it’s going to be very one sided.
I wonder why the player was ignoring the patron? Was the DM going too far with the patron's demands? Did the player feel he was losing too much player agency?
Depends is all this patron lore and repercussions pure DM driven? Does the rogue have repercussions from stealing? Does the pally have to worry about breaking his oath because of a morally dubious situation? Fair is fair. Killing the bad guy shouldn’t only have repercussions for one player.
I prefer the "patron cuts warlock loose" option, but he wouldn't become a 1st-level sorcerer or anything else; hed still be a warlock of the same level, with the same hit points, proficiencies, skills, and feats, but would be completely without any magical abilities until he finds a new patron (which, at this point, would almost have to be a slaad lord).
I had the same situation. An immature player testing boundaries and patience and being a jerk to everyone. No amount of talking and in-game punishment worked. He kept crying that everyone is unfair, but it stopped working quite fast. His character suffered final consequences (wasn’t even killed off) and he was removed from the group after the final talk. Everyone else was happy. The player is still whining around for years.
I am wondering what the circumstances were that caused the Pit Fiend to show up in the first place. Did the Warlock seek them out for some reason, or was it part of the normal campaign that the party was up against a devil that just happened to be the patron's son? Because it kinda sounds like the DM was setting the Warlock up in a no-win scenario -- i.e., either you betray your party or you betray your patron. Which is not cool.
forggert about the "killing a player" thing, i ned the memory technique!
I agree with this. There are almost no circumstances that really justify DM-imposed instant death without a saving throw, an attack roll, or similar Appeal to the Fates. On the other hand, the patron cutting the warlock off from spells is certainly the minimum consequence here, and may still be too lenient; I think the patron would at least send a group of devils after the character or even attack him personally (and, if the warlock died in that battle, then maybe he would be reanimated as a deathlock).
But now that the mistake has been made, I would encourage this DM to stand by his decision. You don’t want to be the DM who can be bullied into changing his decision by threats and tantrums. And while I do agree that player and DM were “both in the wrong,” the player here is so much more in the wrong that he should have to abide by the DM’s heavy-handed action.
This is why I like to actually hammer out a Contract as opposed to just winging it. For one Patrons like this are not going to want to just wing it. There will be a document that is binding to both parties and outline exactly what will happen if either tries to break the contract and what does break the contract. And it will all be in the Patron's favor. Because that's how deals with the devil work.
Now Fey are more whimsical and may just have an oath or promise given. But if they feel like you have wronged them, then expect a lot of bad luck and mishaps. Like disadvantage on every roll you make for anything is you tick them off really bad. Or wild magic surges happening when you do cast spells. They have powers you know nothing about and are not afraid to use them.
And never make any pacts with the Great Old Ones. You will eventually go mad. You don't actually make a pact with them so much as you manage to become connected to one of them and syphon off knowledge. That link however takes a toll on you mental capacity (Wisdom in particular) reducing it over time depending on how much knowledge you glean from that connection.
If anything, the DM was too easy on him, up until that point. Back in the day, when a character did something stupid, he died. In fact, death was pretty common in general. If the player couldn't handle it, especially after what amounts to poking a bear with a short stick, he shouldn't have been there to begin with.
I think there’s a chance this individual watches Critical Role and wanted to do the whole “I’m stuck with a patron I don’t like and don’t want to serve” story arc. Perhaps offering to have them switch patrons and get out of that bargain as an in game story quest to a patron that better aligned with their character’s morality would’ve fixed the situation. If this wasn’t the issue, I would just straight up pull my player to the side and explain how playing a Warlock in my game works and offer for him to switch his class or make a new character and then inform him of the types of consequences his character could expect to receive if the behaviors he is engaging in continue. That would allow the player to express how he feels about that and then you could have a conversation about it and possibly reach a middle ground. I don’t know, it’s impossible to know if this would’ve worked, but that’s what I would’ve tried.
I agree with Luke's final verdict: The player leaving isn't as effective a threat as it is the promise of an optimal solution.
I'd argue the issue here, was not punishing him before this, the the DM's mind the player just kept pushing it despite warnings, but in the players mind this was the first time he got punished for this, so character death feels like way too much. After the first warning the DM should have given punishments, like, temporarily losing magic, spells becoming weaker, or failing at a crucial moment.
Specially since the patron is an Archdevil, their contracts should be nearly bullet proof, and the first slight against them should come with consequences, that's what an lawful evil patron is about. Demons might be more capricious but Devils are extremely strict.
By not punishing him he was letting the player keep pushing it, until it broke.
Actually, it's not a bad idea for a warlock subclass: a warlock that pissed off his parton somehow, and the character suffers consequences.
It's a kind of "contract-breaker warlock", to be compared with the oathbreaker paladin.
Does anybody have an idea of what the subclass would be like ?
warlocks depending on setting are gifted their abilities and the transaction doesn't reverse like a paladin. the patron just gets even
To play the devil's advocate: there is no rule about a warlock being able to loose a pact. If you as a DM want to give the patron a major role and let it influence the pact and the PC's powers, mention this in slot 0, especially how much power both creatures in the pact have. There is a reason why alignment restrictions and deity influence has been severely reduced in 5e.
Okay, I'm curious on what memorization technique you used to learn 3 different languages? I know it's not what this video is about, but you mentioned that in an offhanded fashion and I'm really curious.
The DM shouldn't have just given warnings. They could've slowly (and temporarily, but increasingly) limited the warlock's magic, reduced their max HP, etc. The patron can put them in timeout immeditately.
Player effed around and found out. Kharma.
Depends on patron and session 0 discussion on how that patron views going against their will. So, to me, it feels both are in the wrong to various extremes without knowing further details.
Then again, depending on the fiend, despite having a favorite child, that child could still have a plot to usurp the fiend. So I would be inclined to agree there could be a pause where the ex warlock looses their powers as punishment, and potentially regain new powers at level up with the patron fiend finding out the plot against them. Maybe even a magic item as a boon for the assist.
I would have them lose their powers and let the olayer know that demons would be hunting them now.
Want a Warlock, don't mess with your Patron.
I don’t understand how you could say the DM was in the wrong at all here. He’s just honouring his his players decisions no matter how poor they are.
I'm wondering what the warnings were. If he'd been telling the player this would happen I agree the DM didn't do anything wrong
And even if this was a surprise consequence then I agree the "what do you think the punishment would be" conversation would be a better path, but I don't think that makes the perma-dead path wrong, just not the best.
@@jwmmitch the guy killed the son of a arch devil…. The vary arch devil that has control over his soul… what did he think was gonna happen?
You think the devils gonna be cool about it?
@@johnnnysaint01 Yup. Reward the player with more power for destroying his most powerful bastard. That's what devils do.
@@culliganator 😂😂😂 I guess if we were just playing mental gymnastics sure. If you’re just gonna defy your patron and not expect consequences, don’t bother being a warlock.
Agreed
My main question is how did the player get the chance to kill their patrons son in the first place? If killing that NPC was instadeath for the warlock then before initiative is even rolled that should be spelled out.
Not to defend this player but I can see a situation in which the warnings the DM is giving were vague enough that a player could think that betraying their patron is what they’re supposed to be doing.
E.g. part of my characters personal quest is going to involve confronting my patron and this is a step along the way.
I’ve been at tables where GMs don’t clearly explain the difference between “heroic and challenging quest” and “this is suicide you’re supposed to find another way”
I walked away from a table where we accused a royal advisor of treason and he tpk’d the party only for the DM to say “well obviously you were supposed to take this evidence to the king. I warned you this advisor was a dangerous powerful mage”
if i'm not trying to kill my character and the DM is not trying to kill me, but my character die for some reason, i'm very ok with it, and don't mind creating another one
Lol, the irony of this one. Warlock kills the favorite son of his parton, patron gets mad. After that, on the meta level, DM kills the character of the player, and the player gets mad. Same stuff on different levels, and the dude is mad because someone in the game reacted EXACTLY how he reacted IRL to the situation. Lmao
the only bit of context i feel is needed is why the lock killed the pit fiend. Like, was he put in a position where he felt he had to, or was he just testing the waters. If its the latter, I dont think the DM did anything wrong. If you dont want to obey your patron, dont play a warlock
I had an entire party of players who kept trying to push and push and push and it eventually blew back in their faces when I quit running the game.
Player should have taken the hints. DM should have had a conversation out of game about the Warlock vs patron situation. It should have been agreed in advance how integral the player wanted their Patron to be. Not every Warlock player wants to be constantly forced to make certain decisions because their patron says so. Some Warlock players do. But the conversation should have happened well in advance. Instakilling a player for fighting devils and being a hero is not good DMing. It punishes the Warlock player vs the rest of the party. The druid isn't at risk of being instakilled if they stray from nature. The Cleric isn't going to be smited by their God for disobeying them. The Wizard isn't going to just die because they choose to do magic in a certain way.
This was careless DMing tbh. If he had said "if you kill this Pit Fiend, you know that your Patron will kill you for it" and the Warlock player went ahead anyway, then yeah sure. But I doubt it was telegraphed in this way.
I'd love to hear this story from the player's point of view. I think there's an alternate version here where the DM continually tries to force the player to act in a certain way, and then as a "punishment", he had them face a Pit Fiend and only after they killed it did he do the smug reveal of "oh btw Warlock, that was your Patron's son you just killed. And now he turns you into a Deathlock."
The op was really at fault for 2 reasons: 1) The buck stops with the DM 2) The op had clearly made a bunch of empty threats over 2 1/2 years.
But if you let the player keep the character, they'll see it as just another empty threat. So they HAVE to lose the character, no matter what. This is the eternal struggle of leaders throughout history. What is the right balance of demanding, and compassion. I don't have the right answer, but I do know that in this particular situation, the player must lose the character.
I would have given the player another warning in a different way inside the game, but I would not have permanently killed his character. Maybe he just loses his abilities and spells for a specified period of time, but will be eventually be able to regain them through a long period of adventure.
You are all over the place in this response. First you say they're both wrong. Then you explain that you would take the player aside and talk to them. Then you say that wouldn't work. Then you suggest two possibilities for resolution. Then you say that too many GMs just allow players to do whatever and it makes their game a "crap show". Then you say you feel it's a good idea to have consequences and just let the player leave. Which is what the GM did in the first place. Is this really the quality of content that has gotten you to 160k subs?
Friendly reminder that warlocks aren't Clerics. Patrons can't just take stuff away, the pact was already completed. That's how you become a warlock.
Depends.. and depends now how viciously you as a GM dispatch a problem player
Good point. When that happened to me on occasions. Two things happen 1 pcs kill the character. 2. Nature plays out, specifically in game the character does something stupid they end up killing their on character for pushing my rules
The better solution is simply to strip the warlock of his magical abilities as opposed to killing the warlock or taking the warlock away.
Them going to lvl 1 in a (presumably) tier 4 campaign (I'm assuming this as he was able to kill a pit fiend) might as well be character death anyway.
For lighter offenses, this makes sense. But killing off the patron's favorite son is the kind of act that a player roleplaying a fiend-following Warlock should expect from a cruel, evil patron. Hell, they don't even have to be evil or cruel. A warlock who killed their fey patron's favorite daughter should expect a similar outcome.
If the previous warnings didn't register, they should have been given a warning at the start of the fight with the pit fiend ("don't do this, there will be fatal consequences") and before the pit fiend was killed off ("maybe I didnt make myself clear: I WILL kill you where you stand if he's killed.")
At that point, the player who kills the pit fiend has nobody to blame but themselves.
Nah, I'm totally on board with this. It's an Arch-Devil. They're not exactly known for being light handed or forgiving. They're not just going to take their power and leave, they're going to bring hellish retribution upon them for this betrayal. If the player had any respect for you as the GM and the narrative integrity of the world, they would know not to do that or would accept the outcome. They clearly don't respect either the GM or the world and did not rejected the logical outcome in a very immature way and so should be ejected. The GM was fine to offer a chance to change after it all, but the GM was perfectly justified in the initial call to kill the character.
Both are in the wrong IMO. Sounds like an "are you sure?" moment where the players should have understood the consequences.
I don't see warlocks like clerics, where they continuously have to serve their patron or lose their powers.
Don't devils ascend to power by defeating other devils? Maybe the archfiend would see it as a promotion.
A good punishment would be...use all your Warlock spells..but take damage every time, until you perform a task of dedication.
The DM gave multiple warnings. The player got what he asked for and earned. This isn’t a both wrong situation. No, not every conflict is “both sides are kind of wrong.” I don’t see how you feel that a justified player death is overkill after that lengthy tangent about a month long punishment over a failed test.
While I'm all for killing off characters, and also for getting rid of problem players, I really don't like the heavy handed way the DM dealt with it. Even if the character was a cleric, I wouldn't ever permanently kill off a PC in a cutscene. In the DMs shoes, I'd have the Archfiend send a bunch of goons after them. Not as a regular encounter the players are meant to fight and bead, but probably some devils that would attack and kill off the warlock when it was alone or otherwise exposed.
I wouldn't really do it this way to give the player a chance to keep the character, but as a way to express I'm not gonna use an omnipotent NPC as an excuse to break the rules of the game and take away their stuff.
And on taking away his walorck levels, I'm gonna be honest, there's no real difference between that and killing the character off, except narrative. And for a patron, an Archfiend on top of that, to have such a mild response "Oh! Now you've done it! I'm not gonna activelly help you anymore!", is just weak. They would have the warlock dead as soon as they could.
“If they were at all mature”… if they were at all mature, they wouldn’t go down that path to begin with… so the first things is yes, loss of powers… but, not just that… make it interesting… leave him in the game but, the loss of power isn’t the worst… the player loses a level per day, every day that he doesn’t make amends and therefore hit points by equivalent die rolls and could conceivably lose more HP than he actually had… if this happens life is forfeit (obviously) and the character is no more… tortured in hell for all eternity… or he reaches lvl 0 and survives… only now can he/she attempt another class… but, they are cursed and all things that do, are actively resisted all die rolls are at a negative (something) the only “cure” is the amends or slaying of the former Parton or forced release of his soul/recovery of his sole… to do all that likely the player would just say himself “kill the character”… too much work… lol. But, I’ll bet he doesn’t do that stupid sh-stuff again and he can’t complain because you gave him an out… a fair one an in-game appropriate fix…
There were several updates to this story.
The player F'd around and found out.
Agree with you Luke 100% It's much better to remove the problem player than to even try to continue especially after giving several warnings. Most likely your other players will respect you a tad more, and in the end will appreciate the problem no longer exists.
Justified
I wouldn't bash the dm for killing the player. It definitely was to much (depending on the amout of warnings). If they tested the waters against the dm, i want know if they did that to the other players as well.
I would have taken away their powers and given them a choice to switch class or find a way to amend. If they then complain and threatening to leave i would just say bye bye.
I think this is one of those problems that's more a cause of the 5E rules having no real teeth when it comes to patrons. Since as written, the patron really has no actual power over the warlock, so I think it leads to a lot of players thinking the patron is toothless. Hell, as written the patron can't even cut you off from your powers that he supposedly grants, there's just no actual rules for it. Same with clerics and their gods.
"rules" are for players ...not the DM.
@@davidstone9624 That attitude is fine if you're running an OSR style game, but most modern D&D players are going to be very upset with a DM who just random creates rules on the fly, especially if they're major ones like totally stripping a character of their life or class abilities.
@@taragnor i agree...it is Overkill to undo everything....but levels of madness, exhaustion, or a curse would fit within a patron 's punishment.
@@davidstone9624 While I personally like the flavor of having a warlock's patron do that sort of thing, I think it's something best established early in the game when the PC first makes the warlock, because the player's handbook does a poor job of this. A player that reads the class doesn't really have any indication they have a patron that has a ton of power over them. If you want players classes to have a code of conduct, like the AD&D 2nd edition paladin for instance, it's best to have the rules spell it out in the class itself and warn them that violating their code or angering their patron will have real mechanic side effects beyond just in-game social consequences like "the cults of the archdevil don't like you anymore."
Kill the son, loose the standing, try to cast something, cant cast. Why? No more magical powers. Now you are just a regular dude with nice equipment and zero spellcasting abilitys. Just make sure there is some hint in the original contract which means that the warlock has to do the missions of the archdevil. And so the warlock broke the contract and loose his magic in reverse. Done.
You gotta use Reverse Psychology and ask the player what he thinks his Patron would do. Perhaps this become a Hunt for the party by devils. Then he loses his powers for a bit, then maybe they come across a Celestial or KiRin or something, and decides to swear a new oath for Good. Etc. But you gotta start asking the player to get him involved. Maybe the pact with the devil was not his own choice but the GMs?
This is one of the reasons that in My Campaign World Of MIDORIS that a Warlocks power is ALWAYS in the hands of The Patron!! As I understand it, WOTC ruled that once a Patron bestows power that it can't be removed but it's just another reason to have extensive "House Rules"!!! Patron holds the Powers, PERIOD. Most Patrons give a great deal of latitude in their servants use their of power, but there are boundaries which Most Patrons will have let their servant know by that point of potential loss of powers. Players who've been warned, have been warned. Don't let the door 🚪 hit you on the way out!!
I don't know how this culture of unaliveing PC's in a game with about 90% combat has become so taboo but it needs to stop. Like yeah, don't be an unfair DM, but at the same time, it SHOULD be challenging, the DM SHOULD stick to lore appropriate responses.
If a player told me that if their character had to be re-instated or they would leave, I would just wave them goodbye, mind you, I tend not to play D&D with seven year old kids. Taking the power from a warlock in that situation would be a given, first point on the scale, what eles woud the player expect, and if they are not mature enough to understand that, they are not mature enough to be playing the game.
A character death should never be an impossibility, in fact if it is not a possibility, and players don't feel as if it will ever happen, then the likelyhood is that they will not really enjoy the game as much as they would if there is a frisson of doom around them. If a player puts themself in the position where the big bad comes after them, death should not a be a sure thing, but I would play that out to the max ability of the big bad, and if death occurred, it is just part of the game. Deciding that they have reached the point, where they are dying should be in the play, not an automatic choice.
Their patron is a devil.
They're not just going to cut the character off. Maybe a neutral patron would, but not a devil.
A devil would pull out the contract, show it to the wayward soul, and direct him to the fine print.
And then make him scream until the devil is bored. And then turn him into something that will freaking obey. Or maybe a hood ornament.
The problem here is that consequences should have come the first time the player did something stupid. And the second. So they would have either learned or.. and here's the big one...
The DM should have warned the player in no uncertain terms that violating his contract by killing the patron's son absolutely *will* end his PC.
That, I believe, is where the DM fell short.
The DM can point to Wyl in BG3 as an example of consequences flowing.
Ok.
Honestly need more info here.
(Ignoring the 'im leaving thing' because thats just childish.
Has the player been pushing back on just thier patron, is the charecter wanting out of their patrons contract and the patron is ignoring them.
Because if the charecter is trying to get hold of the patron, and being ignored.
I really dont blame em.
On the other hand.
If op is being 100% transparent here, yeah, just let him leave.
No, the dm was absolutely in the right. I've delt with way to many ridiculous passive-aggressive players exactly like this and just keep going "no-no that's bad" will do nothing. This dude would freak out at any consequence. Getting your powers stripped is something you should do if they refuse a patrons order. Deliberately attacking and killing their family? An archfiend? Yeah your dead. The fun of this game is consequences, good and bad. If a player can't handle punishment for being pointlessly antagonistic towards the dm and the spirit of dnd then nothing was lost this day
The real question is how, exactly, the player was put into a position to kill the pit fiend. If he sought him out then fine, I agree. But if the DM made the pit fiend a central enemy of the party then he was pretty much baiting the player into doing what he did. I feel like we need the other side of this story in order to make any real decision on the matter.
Kids should never have a phone
Although I agree with Luke 85% of the time in this case I have to side with the player. As the warlock class is written the doctor needs no further benefits from the patron. The characters power has already been received from the patron and will continue to grow over time without any additional interaction. This has been confirmed by the designers multiple times over the years. The PC can literally kill their patron and there will be no mechanical repercussions. Of course if the player wanted that sort of interaction between character and patron then it's fine. However that would require the player to design such a backstory. Since this whole incident was a surprise to the player, clear player had no hand in designing such a story. This kind of punishment should never be a surprise.
Let the player leave. That kind of attitude will just bring down the table.
Correct punishment would be cutting off warlocks powers after he started crossing lines. After killing pit guest, it’s not “you dead, create new character” (I’m not sure patron can transform warlock into deadlock at will, I think warlock needs to die first), it’s “well, you are now cut off from your magic abilities, deal with it”.
What can warlock do to regain his patrons blessing? Or maybe he will try to find new patron. I totally get desire of killing disruptive characters, but “rock falls” is not very good answer.
I would have another approach, a curse.
The Patron would get a member of the player's body to build his son back. At first the player's arm would be replaced by a magical cursed one. For every encounter, there would be one automatic fumble, most likely when the player needed most. Probably bringing the player's hp to zero.
Whenever the player gets to zero he would encounter the patron in another plane, the patron would take another member, put in his son's body and replace the player's by another magical cursed one. Now the player has 2 automatic fumbles and so on.
For every encounter with the patron, it would lose a member, the torso and in the end, the head.
I commonly say that the player and DM need to negotiate the terms of the pact between PC and Patron for a Warlock. This way both know the terms the PC is expected to comply with in exchange for the powers the Patron is granting.
Note the Devils like to stick in fine print and if the player, acting as PC signs without reading... well, that's just how a Devil would like it, with the fine print clause being something the PC (and player) won't be happy with being included in the contract.
A pact is a contract. Contracts are: Benefit in exchange for payment.
It feels like there are parts of the story missing. Like where there scenarios where the warlock had to choose between the patron and the party or did the warlock go out of his way to betray the patron? Like was the pitfiend an unavoidable boss fight or did the warlock specifically ask for his patron to have a sun and then ask for a sidequest to track down and kill the patron?
Why would you omit examples from the story unless they would be evidence you put the warlock in a no-win scenario?
You don't go to level 1 as a warlock or wizard if you go against your patron. You keep what you have and will have to make a new pact with another entity or RP multiclassing into something else.
Ed Greenwood stated this in a twitter post as well. He said it's like cutting off a phone line directly after someone teaches you something. They can't teach you any more new skills. But you keep the old.
I'm all for the heavy handed consequences, but would probably have gone with removing powers. And, also there are now factors in the world that are after that character to drag them off plane to the patron's wrath.
But all said, a player that "screams" at the table is best off leaving.
Why the thumbnail with Clovin Belview though?
one of your better vids bud, thank you. i agree both parties were basically in the wrong, emotions got in the way fo the GM and they killed the pc so be it, the player is def. immature so ya bye bye charlie, and dont come back. Hard to go through especially if that is a close friend that you didnt realize would play this way. Now you may not have that close friend anymore, but youve realized their true nature and i personally believe you will be the better for it. Again, great vid. Cheers, Keep 'em Rollin'
You advice is all based on the assumption that the player is testing the boundaries. Probably true, but we have no confirmation. I would pull the player aside and ask how they want their character to evolve from this point. Don't negotiate the "punishment," it's a game, just explain that the character's arc as a warlock ends here and ask what they would like to do with the character. If they complain that they want to continue as is, then ask them how to explain the new position, with the understanding that the previous arc can go on no longer. If they are immature about it, then as you say, they can just leave. But it may be possible that they find an even more exciting way to play the character, like their contract was actually stolen by a lesser devil who has been allowing their shenanigans all along, and now their plan moves into a new stage. Leave it to the player but make sure they understand that there are boundaries they must stay within.