Badly-behaved clerics keep Power Investiture and spells?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Dalin

In most campaigns, if a cleric got themselves to a point where they were excommunicated, I would strip them of their spells. But I can't really imagine that happening without plenty of communication between the player and the GM ahead of time.

Well, yeah ex-whatevers really only happen under three circumstances:

1. Player wants a redemption arc, or makes a sacrifice for solid role-playing choices.
2. It's backstory for a PC or NPC
3. It's a punative response to player behavior.

The first two are fine, but the last is a failure of communication and no fun for anyone. If the player and the GM can't reconcile, you are better off just booting them then stripping them of powers.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If the player and the GM can't reconcile, you are better off just booting them then stripping them of powers.

Exactly. I still recall a DM (long, long ago) who assiduously graphed all of our alignments on ye olde AD&D alignment chart, though his sense of alignment did not align with any of his players. That made for a divisive table!

[Taneli]

If a cleric in my campaign were to turn to the dark side, they'd lose access to their clericy abilities, probably in an appropriately epic moment, where their magic is needed, but it doesn't flow.

Then I would have a discussion with the player whether they want the cleric to have an atonement and regain their abilities, or fully commit to the dark side and replace their current nonworking abilities over some sessions with the Powers of the Dark Side.

This is of course a great roleplaying opportunity, and I would probably give them a few extra character points over the sessions for this, if roleplayed well.

[Michael Thayne]

Note that it seems pretty clear a cleric needn't go full-evil to lose holy abilities. Consider, for example, a cleric who chose Honesty as their mandated disadvantage and is in fact the only PC in the party with Honesty. It could very easily become difficult to stay capital-H Honest in that situation. The question is whether such moral "slipping" would threaten spells/Power Investiture, or just holy abilities.

[sir_pudding]

I think that wise thieves don't threaten their divine support, but besides that this kind of intraparty conflict rarely makes good games.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Well, yeah ex-whatevers really only happen under three circumstances:

1. Player wants a redemption arc, or makes a sacrifice for solid role-playing choices.
2. It's backstory for a PC or NPC
3. It's a punative response to player behavior.

The first two are fine, but the last is a failure of communication and no fun for anyone. If the player and the GM can't reconcile, you are better off just booting them then stripping them of powers.

4. The GM wants a redemption arc and assumes that it is their prerogative as Master to decide unilaterally on one.

Also a failure of communication and not fun.

[Michael Thayne]

Note: I didn't post this because I'm trying to trouble-shoot a specific at-table issue, I just was reading the rules and thought "hey, that's odd". I find the answer "it shouldn't matter if you're a good GM" unsatisfying, since the rules are perfectly clear on how required disadvantages and holy abilities interact.