19
\$\begingroup\$

I have a character in the Forgotten Realms, Orryn, who is a gnome whose village was burnt down, who forged a pact with a pit fiend to gain Warlock powers. This was all to avenge his people and he is good, albeit chaotic good.

Now, he's been talking with the party's cleric and while the cleric doesn't know he's a warlock (he tells people that he's a wizard), the cleric DOES know that he struggles with "inner demons". Orryn has been connecting with a god, which would be either Baervan Wildwanderer (because he's a forest gnome) or Chauntea (who is the god the other cleric worships), and wants to take a 1st level in cleric to combat that evil inside of him.

My question: Is this possible? From a purely RAW standpoint, I don't think that warlocks can lose their powers, but would his good deity even bother with someone who sold their soul to a devil? And would that pit fiend continue fueling their powers?

NOTE: I'm not stepping on the cleric's toes, he's actually moving away in a couple weeks so we won't have a cleric anymore (though that's not why I am leveling in cleric).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If this is meant as a general question about warlock patrons and clerics' deities getting along, I'm not sure it's FR specific. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 10 at 5:48
33
\$\begingroup\$

My question: Is this possible?

Yes, it's possible, whether or not the fiend and the god/goddess get along. There is no RAW prohibition from the multiclass, no matter how awkward it looks.

From a purely RAW standpoint, I don't think that Warlocks can lose their powers, but would his good deity even bother with someone who sold their soul to a devil?

This depends on how the DM plays out the deity's and the fiend's role. Points to raise as you two flesh this out (a collaborative effort between you and the DM):

  1. How much of a role does redemption play, a deity accepting a lost/troubled soul (bound to a devil) into the fold? The Sword Coast Adevnturer's guide supplement for D&D 5e has some material on FR deities; Baervan gets one sentence of treatment (p. 115) and Chauntea gets a few paragraphs( p. 27). For more detail, you could back up this guidance for Chauntea or Baervan with previously published material and make your case to the DM for why, or why not, either deity fits. Deities thrive on having followers.
  2. Playing an internally conflicted character is rich with role playing possibility. Trying to serve the good, still dealing with evil ... that's a standard story IRL, and an element of stories from many different cultures. This would allow the link with the Pit Fiend to remain -- but there's always a price to be paid! (This could provide DM some fun, occasionally at your expense! :) )

    And would that pit fiend continue fueling their powers?

  3. Why not? Here's a point of view that the Pit Fiend could take:

    "I've got my hooks into this gnome, I won't let him go. So he wants to get in with that goddess/god? Good! I can use him to cause trouble for (chosen deity), and then enjoy his suffering as he realizes that it's his fault -- due to his hunger for the power only I can give him. Muahahahahaahaa!"

    or

    "I don't like (deity), but we both have (unrelated) unfinished business with that #@!^%$ Orcus, and this gnome will serve nicely as a proxy. In the end, I profit! Muahahahaahaa!"

    You and the DM should be able to work out a deal, and some tension, that fits the campaign.

  4. One last point to address as you work with your DM on this multiclass:

    How important is alignment in this campaign?

    Alignment in 5e is a bit different than in previous editions. It is more like an ideal for the character, and a matter of how the player should behave. How well the player character lives up to it, and what the rewards/penalties are, lay in the realm of DM's discretion.

With that in mind, and the two deities to choose from: Chauntea's clerics appear to require a serious commitment, and a decision on being a Pastoral or a True Shaper (the latter looks like a better fit for an adventurer), while Baervan's yoke looks like it is lighter to bear for an adventuring cleric.

Could the pit fiend and the god/goddess get along?

That would require a serious threat that both of them want to counter, something opposed to them both for different reasons ... so that you would be serving both of their interests (roughly) at the same time. Some existential threat to the world itself ... that too lies in the realm of how your DM is running and shaping the campaign.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Published since this answer, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does contain official 5e information on both Chauntea and Baervan Wildwanderer. Baervan seems to merit only one sentence on page 115 while Chauntea gets a few paragraphs on page 27. Nothing I've read there seems to merit any substantial change to this answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Joel Harmon Dec 30 '16 at 15:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JoelHarmon I folded your points and page references in. Thank you. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast May 23 '17 at 12:55
7
\$\begingroup\$

Talk to your GM and figure this out together. There is nothing in the RAW that explains what happens when a Warlock no longer does what his patron wants, this is up to the GM. On the other hand, clerics are bound to receive their powers anew from their god once they spend the spell slot.

Two obvious ways in which this can be handled is that either your patron permanently instilled the power in you and you get to keep your Warlock powers or one could argue that your patron grants your powers 'on the fly', and stepping away from her will cause you to lose your power.

The god herself will probably demand some kind of retribution and proof of commitment before accepting you as a cleric, which is supposed to be an extraordinarily example of the virtues the god stands for.

Its all in the GM's hand.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Since there's no way for us to know the personalities of both the god and the fiend involved in this situation without asking your GM, your question essentially boils down to "How would these two NPCs of opposing alignments each react to someone who deals with the other?"

When you ask a question about how a particular NPC in your GM's campaign will react to a particular event, the answer is always "It's up to your GM."

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast My answer explains why this particular matter is dependent on the GM (i.e.: these are NPCs and most NPC decisions are up to the GM). Neunek's answer does not, and instead speculates about a few judgments the OP's GM might choose to make. \$\endgroup\$ – GMJoe May 25 '17 at 0:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.