[4E] Help with a player acting completley out-of-character

[Gamerlord]

So, our group has never cared much about roleplaying, we have laughed at the people who say "Story comes before rules!" However, we all have acted in-character,which was rather simple, but now one guy is acting completely out of character. He calls his cleric "A honorable good-aligned human cleric of Pelor, who stays calm whenever possible, and dislikes violence" however, then I say his character sheet, his character name is "Sir Harry of hacknslash" and his character portrait appears to be that of a hairy barbarian smashing in a goblin's face. During the game, his character acts more like a barbarian then a cleric,constantly running towards his opponent and then going SMASHSMASHSMASH, and he acts chaotic stupid.

What do I do? I don't want to force him to act in-character, but I can't bear this much longer.

[Xyk]

Looks like his character is acting consistently and is simply a liar. He is acting in character, that character is just not what he said it was.

[LibraryOgre]

Gotta agree with Xyk. He's not behaving out of character. His character is just acting like the jerk he is.

[Tyndmyr]

If his character is acting like a jerk, have NPCs that are aware of it treat him as a jerk.

At least make him be a SMART chaotic evil.

[Fhaolan]

Are you the DM?

If not, what's happening is what Xyk said, the *character* is telling you he's a priest of Pelor when in fact he's a chaotic beserker. Possibly a deluded chaotic beserker, or the character is deliberately lying. This is reasonable, and not something to get worked up over.

If you *are* the DM... then you have a problem because players should not be telling fibs to the DM about what character they're playing. The DM is not the opponent, you're not trying to 'beat' him, so you don't need to lie to him to do so. This is, in effect, cheating and needs to be dealt with. In which case, have a quick conversation with the player, and make sure this isn't just the player being an idiot.

[Alejandro]

Sounds like you have a stupid player.

Why don't you have Pelor start denying him spells? After all, deities CAN do that if their followers displease them or do not act in a way they want. This is clearly true in this case.

[mostlyharmful]

he is now Chaotic Neutral. he loses his Pelor granted powers and instantly there's a dozen guys from the church of Chaotic Neutral Smashi-Smachanator God. Who offer to do an attonement for him on the previso that he goes on a quest for them that involves much smashing and possibly some hacking and of course, copious quantities of loot.

[Gamerlord]

Sounds like you have a stupid player.

Why don't you have Pelor start denying him spells? After all, deities CAN do that if their followers displease them or do not act in a way they want. This is clearly true in this case.

In 4e, the gods cannot stop granting spells.

[DabblerWizard]

he is now Chaotic Neutral. he loses his Pelor granted powers and instantly there's a dozen guys from the church of Chaotic Neutral Smashi-Smachanator God. Who offer to do an attonement for him on the previso that he goes on a quest for them that involves much smashing and possibly some hacking and of course, copious quantities of loot.

^^ I approve of the above, sans typos.

The player may very well want to be a good aligned Pelor-loving cleric, but he's certainly not acting that way.

Either: (1) he doesn't care to act good aligned, (2) he doesn't know how to act that way, (3) he's got conflicting motives for his character that he can't reconcile: (i.e. smashing vs. petting)

[Kallisti]

Does it say anywhere that they are specifically prohibited? Does it say anywhere that the DM is not, in fact, the DM and allowed to do whatever he damn well wants to, including have gods deny spells?

If you answered no to either of the above, then you've found a reasonable solution.

If you answered yes to both of the above, wait, what? 4e keeps the DM from rule-0'ing?!

[Swordgleam]

In 4e, the gods cannot stop granting spells.

I think what you mean is that there's no specific mechanic for "falling" and that sort of thing. That doesn't mean it can't happen. The gods in my game talk to their followers on a daily basis; there's no mechanic for that, either.

[Tyndmyr]

Sounds like you have a stupid player.

Why don't you have Pelor start denying him spells? After all, deities CAN do that if their followers displease them or do not act in a way they want. This is clearly true in this case.

Even if Pelor can't be bothered to revoke spells, he certainly CAN alienate his church. Pelor is a pretty big name, I'd guess he isn't the only follower of Pelor around, and I'll bet the others don't like the idea of someone claiming to be one of them hacking and slashing at everything.

[Hashmir]

I think what you mean is that there's no specific mechanic for "falling" and that sort of thing. That doesn't mean it can't happen. The gods in my game talk to their followers on a daily basis; there's no mechanic for that, either.

Yeah, depending on how sneaky you want to be about it, you could just start making him roll a d% every time he tries to cast a spell. You could even start at a negligible "fail on a 1," but the point is that he's on notice from his god. He starts feeling Pelor's displeasure -- and you don't want to feel Pelor's displeasure.

If he continues, bump it up to 2% failure chance, 5%, 10% 25%, 50%, 75%, etc. All you really have to do to keep people in-character is make the world react to their characters the way they are.

[Inyssius Tor]

Why don't you have Pelor start denying him spells? After all, deities CAN do that if their followers displease them or do not act in a way they want. This is clearly true in this case.

Actually, no, by RAW they explicitly can't. Divine PCs don't work that way in 4e. They're invested with their power at their, uh, investiture, and after that it is inherent to their character and can't be taken away from them by anyone.

Irrelevant in-setting and narrative reasons aside, this removes the temptation for DMs to use in-game power as a bludgeon when what they ought to be doing is talking it over with the player out-of-game.

Which is what you should do.

[Bibliomancer]

In 4e, the gods cannot stop granting spells.

Really? Why?

Actually, no, by RAW they explicitly can't. Divine PCs don't work that way in 4e. They're invested with their power at their, uh, investiture, and after that it is inherent to their character and can't be taken away from them by anyone.

Irrelevant in-setting and narrative reasons aside, this removes the temptation for DMs to use in-game power as a bludgeon when what they ought to be doing is talking it over with the player out-of-game.

Which is what you should do.

Ah. This is an excellent example of why I distrust 4e.

What you're saying is that Divine characters are normal humans + a divine "seed" that might or might not grow into an epic level adventurer? And that thus a god both a) cannot take it away and b) must invest this amount of epic power for every low level cleric? That is absurd. *Cue demons eating the weakened gods and the Material Plane falling into the Nine Hells of Baator the Elemental Plane of Eivl "the Elemental Chaos."*

[zoobob9]

In 4e, the gods cannot stop granting spells.

No, I guess they cant, BUT they CAN sned an angel to revoke their powers, or something like that, and then the become a dark cleric or something! You know, do necrotic damage instead of radiant, do stuff like that. It says nowhere that you cant do that. And give them something else wierd, like there attacks do half damage against agels of Pelor as punishment. If he doesn't like it then he can stop acting like that and get redemption.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Actually, no, by RAW they explicitly can't. Divine PCs don't work that way in 4e. They're invested with their power at their, uh, investiture, and after that it is inherent to their character and can't be taken away from them by anyone.

I wouldn't say that's completely true. Yes, a character has their power invested in them at a particular point. That doesn't mean that Pelor doesn't, for instance, have some other means of denying them power, even when they keep it.

Say, for instance, sticking the equivalent of a Divine Challenge on the guy...if he takes actions utterly contrary to the spirit of Pelor, then he gets zapped. That ought to clear things up pretty quick.

Irrelevant in-setting and narrative reasons aside, this removes the temptation for DMs to use in-game power as a bludgeon when what they ought to be doing is talking it over with the player out-of-game.

RPGs shouldn't be concerned with "removing temptations" for DMs. This is clearly not a valid reason, and certainly never what 4E was intended for. A DM is presumed already to be wanting to run a fun, interesting game, and not to abuse his power. There's no rules in the game to prevent a DM from abusing power.

I don't have the book on me, but I know there's a section of the DMG (and possibly the PHB) which specifically mentions DM fiat. The DM is allowed to do whatever necessary in order to make the game enjoyable.

Now, would divine intervention against the PC be valid in this case? Yes, I believe so, because he's not "bludgeoning" the PC with power to get a point across. It's a simple matter of natural consequence: if you abuse the alignment of your god, then you suffer the consequences. Abusing the alignment of your god is not only disrespectful to your god, it's also slandering the good reputation of your god.

Now, if in your world, the gods really don't care less about their believers, than a divine intervention is out-of-place. But that's not what I see in the default setting, and I doubt most people want to play with jerk-gods like that.

[Reluctance]

Jeebus, the advice in this thread is horrible. The player finds that he enjoys playing his character differently than envisioned? We must smite, and keep him in a narrow role.

What I don't get is, is this an issue with the party leader having the tactical sense of a grapefruit (best to let the party talk it out, with you serving to moderate if things get too heated), is this an issue with the character in-play working differently than the character as envisioned (allow/encourage the player to rebuild their character slightly to match how they're currently enjoying things), or is it a case of the player trying to sneak around your restrictions (if you said "no chaotics", so the player bait n' switched)? No matter which, beating the player over the head with "your god makes you suck" is pointlessly heavy-handed, and is basically a fiat-kill.

[randomhero00]

Is he going SMASHSMASH in character or saying it out of character as a joke? In my games we do that a lot but its obvious we aren't being in character roleplay about it. And do you have a problem because he isn't roleplaying what he said his character is or because its annoying?

If for whatever reason you're still just looking for a reason to punish him in game (and don't want to talk to him about it...) I would do it through NPCs and group member roleplay. If he's acting evil, then have him attract evil, and evil slayers. Distrust him in character and start splitting the loot behind his back every chance you get (assuming you aren't lawful). Etc. Simply questioning him in character is often embarassing enough to get people to stop acting stupidly. Ask him if he's been possessed by an evil item and insist on a full strip search :) Then insist on holding onto any magic items or throwing away any magic items he may have just in case (then send a note to the DM that you go back and pick it up to sell it or give it back if he changes his ways depending on your own alignment).

[Tiki Snakes]

Yeah, this hardly warrants a DM Fiat smackdown. He's acting contrary to what he claimed he was aiming for, and what the world would expect of a cleric of pelor.

So simply the world should react normally. Perhaps rumours of a False Cleric start circulating, perhaps NPC's start treating him as a dangerous madman.

Perhaps word gets to the local Church of Pelor, and appropriate measures are taken to protect their reputation, such as hiring mercenaries, or sending out elite members of their militant order to do away with him, perhaps in the name of Pelor, perhaps more quietly.

Instead of punititive "Ner! You're playing it wrong!" response, it becomes a legitimate source of plot hooks and may even be seen as a good and enjoyable turn of events by the player, even if he doesn't 'mend his ways'.

Just seems so much more constructive than heavenly nerf-bat or passive aggressive DM fury.

[Raz_Fox]

Ah. This is an excellent example of why I distrust 4e.

What you're saying is that Divine characters are normal humans + a divine "seed" that might or might not grow into an epic level adventurer? And that thus a god both a) cannot take it away and b) must invest this amount of epic power for every low level cleric? That is absurd. *Cue demons eating the weakened gods and the Material Plane falling into the Nine Hells of Baator the Elemental Plane of Eivl "the Elemental Chaos."*

Yep, direct divine intervention for every low level cleric is much more plausible than granting a worthy mortal a small portion of your divine essence and letting his heroism and devotion increase it. Heck, if he's particularly pious, you might get ten times as much power from the interest on your original investiture when he passes on, plus the prayers of thanks from those mortals that said worthy mortal helped. Now having to grant his every prayer and wish, even if you're trying to focus on something like repelling demons - not only his prayers, but every low level cleric's - is absurd. *Cue gods using mortal spirit and heroism to keep the demons in the Elemental Chaos*


ANYWAY! To address the OP - just talk to him, whatever your role in the game is. He may be doing it on purpose, trying to go for irony. He may just be rubbish at roleplaying the character he made. Understanding what the root of the problem is will allow you to find a solution.

[Yakk]

Instead of saying "you lose your power", you now have the church of Pelor going after you.

If you are sufficiently important, you might have angels hunting you down.

Remember that the Divine powers don't have free reign in the mortal realm -- the Gods and the Primal Spirits have bargains and oaths that the Gods may fear to break, just to hunt down one short term mortal fleck who went crazy.

[Inyssius Tor]

Ah. This is an excellent example of why I distrust 4e.

What you're saying is that Divine characters are normal humans + a divine "seed" that might or might not grow into an epic level adventurer? And that thus a god both a) cannot take it away and b) must invest this amount of epic power for every low level cleric? That is absurd. *Cue demons eating the weakened gods and the Material Plane falling into the Nine Hells of Baator the Elemental Plane of Eivl "the Elemental Chaos."*

... there was an Elemental Plane of Evil?

Seriously?

That's hilarious.

Anyway, I parse that as an inquiry about the in-setting justifications? Well...

The In-Setting Justifications:

Spoiler

Show

In 4e's implied setting, the history of the universe is pretty much dominated by the Dawn War, fought between the gods and primordials at the beginning of time. Back then, your sort-of-Vancian style of divine empowerment was impractical for two reasons.

1. If a cleric's power can be cut off by a god, it could be cut off by many of the significantly-more-powerful enemies of the gods.
2. If a cleric's god dies, which was pretty likely in the Dawn War, the cleric would cease being useful altogether. You can't just take a suddenly powerless host of former Moradin-worshippers and tell them that they have to rededicate themselves in body and mind to the dark serpent Zehir, because he's the only local Power with power to spare.

Now, the primordials are no longer an issue. But there are four reasons why a god might not change his method of investiture. First, the Dawn War was fought on a hell of a scale in time and space alike. The gods spent a lot of time and a lot of power empowering a lot of their servants in the line of fire, and as such they are now very good at doing it this way. Second, time was young and malleable then. 4e's implied setting is big on mythic resonance; echoes of the Dawn War still reverberate today, shaping the strands of fate all the way down the line, and that's a source of power in itself. Third, all of the gods collaborated in the Dawn War, including many who are now dead or diminished. The traditional "template" may well have been worked on by the best and brightest of everybody--even the most contrary of gods might be inclined to stick with a spell like that. And fourth, again, what can be undone by one being might be undone by another. And that would suck.

"But wait!" I hear you cry. "That means investing a cleric must take a really ludicrous amount of power, since that one divine 'seed' has to tide them over into epic levels! And since clerics don't usually make it into epic levels, that's also hilariously wasteful! This ill-conceived model should never work!"

Not so fast, friend! I'll take the low-hanging fruit first, and wonder if you have the same objection about living things in real life. A giant sequoia might grow hundreds of feet tall and dozens of feet wide, and sequoia trees produce seedlings in huge numbers every single year. It must take astonishing amounts of energy to grow from a tiny seedling to the arboreal titan any of those seeds might one day become. Does each seed therefore contain petawatts of untapped power? Could we solve the energy crisis by switching from oil to sequoia-seed? Must adult sequoias harness the power of cold fusion to pack that much energy into that many seedlings?

No. Stop being silly, hypothetical dude.

Likewise, gods don't need to pump multiple demigods' worth of power into each new cleric. That "seed" will grow on its own, fed on the virtue and dedication of its host; on the subtle ambient magic of the world, and the subtle-as-an-elephant ambient magic of the planes; on the strands of fate, and mythic resonance, and all the temporal shenanigans that a preordained Glorious Destiny will inflict on you; and on the steady flow of that kinda-ridiculous not-completely-metagame resource we call XP.

[Inyssius Tor]

Jeebus, the advice in this thread is horrible. The player finds that he enjoys playing his character differently than envisioned? We must smite, and keep him in a narrow role.

What I don't get is, is this an issue with the party leader having the tactical sense of a grapefruit (best to let the party talk it out, with you serving to moderate if things get too heated), is this an issue with the character in-play working differently than the character as envisioned (allow/encourage the player to rebuild their character slightly to match how they're currently enjoying things), or is it a case of the player trying to sneak around your restrictions (if you said "no chaotics", so the player bait n' switched)? No matter which, beating the player over the head with "your god makes you suck" is pointlessly heavy-handed, and is basically a fiat-kill.

This. Very much this.

I wouldn't say that's completely true. Yes, a character has their power invested in them at a particular point. That doesn't mean that Pelor doesn't, for instance, have some other means of denying them power, even when they keep it.

Speaking purely in-setting: Oh, certainly. He's a greater god. You're, like, level three, and he's been killing things and taking their stuff since the beginning of time. It's not at all implausible that he actually could come over and personally rip your magic out. But, you know, that would be a bit heavy-handed, and that sort of power might be better spent on saving lives and killing demons and making sure the sun comes up in the morning; a really stern look or a silver-tongued envoy or a portentous dream visited on someone who can cast Mark of Justice might be more productive anyway.

(...but, setting aside, I say you should talk to the guy out of game before you decide to get Pelor involved.)

RPGs shouldn't be concerned with "removing temptations" for DMs. This is clearly not a valid reason, and certainly never what 4E was intended for. A DM is presumed already to be wanting to run a fun, interesting game, and not to abuse his power. There's no rules in the game to prevent a DM from abusing power.

I don't have the book on me, but I know there's a section of the DMG (and possibly the PHB) which specifically mentions DM fiat. The DM is allowed to do whatever necessary in order to make the game enjoyable.

Perhaps I misspoke. I agree with you on that, and I'm pretty sure the people who wrote 4e do as well. But the default rules of 4e do encourage certain things that the designers thought were fun, and discourage certain things that the designers thought could be... otherwise. The magic item mechanics discourage PCs from keeping dozens of magic items for their daily powers. The multiclassing restrictions discourage PCs from really splitting themselves between multiple roles. The monster design discourages DMs from having really short, really deadly fights. And the way divine investment works discourages DMs from pulling the "your god doesn't approve, so you can't use your powers" card.

You can still do all of those things if your group wants. They're just not the default, and there's a reason why that is.

[Bibliomancer]

... there was an Elemental Plane of Evil?

Seriously?

That's hilarious.

I believe so. I've heard of an old module that revolves around invading the Temple of Elemental Evil.

The In-Setting Justifications:

Spoiler

Show

In 4e's implied setting, the history of the universe is pretty much dominated by the Dawn War, fought between the gods and primordials at the beginning of time. Back then, your sort-of-Vancian style of divine empowerment was impractical for two reasons.

1. If a cleric's power can be cut off by a god, it could be cut off by many of the significantly-more-powerful enemies of the gods.
2. If a cleric's god dies, which was pretty likely in the Dawn War, the cleric would cease being useful altogether. You can't just take a suddenly powerless host of former Moradin-worshippers and tell them that they have to rededicate themselves in body and mind to the dark serpent Zehir, because he's the only local Power with power to spare.

Now, the primordials are no longer an issue. But there are four reasons why a god might not change his method of investiture. First, the Dawn War was fought on a hell of a scale in time and space alike. The gods spent a lot of time and a lot of power empowering a lot of their servants in the line of fire, and as such they are now very good at doing it this way. Second, time was young and malleable then. 4e's implied setting is big on mythic resonance; echoes of the Dawn War still reverberate today, shaping the strands of fate all the way down the line, and that's a source of power in itself. Third, all of the gods collaborated in the Dawn War, including many who are now dead or diminished. The traditional "template" may well have been worked on by the best and brightest of everybody--even the most contrary of gods might be inclined to stick with a spell like that. And fourth, again, what can be undone by one being might be undone by another. And that would suck.

Spoiler

Show

Well, first, there's conservation of energy. If a god is destroyed, that energy has to go somewhere, often thus creating a surge of energy that empowers their most powerful servant, if not quite to the same level as the orignal god. Since the two sides were polar opposites, the primordials would not have been able to harness this wellspring of divine energy, since they used Rock Power or whatever the setting terms as their power source (Primal?). Thus, the clerics could transfer their worship to another god, especially if the scenario was do-this-or-the-universe-will-end. Also, it's unlikely that a primordial could interfere with Divine energy if it were truly a different power type. Third, clerics with the ability to act as miniature avatars of their diety would be far more useful (as mobile faucets, if nothing else) than clerics with some second-rate copy of their god's abilities. Fourth, if you can be invested, you can be uninvested, so that argument doesn't apply. All of these don't fully explain why the gods picked that method to begin with.

"But wait!" I hear you cry. "That means investing a cleric must take a really ludicrous amount of power, since that one divine 'seed' has to tide them over into epic levels! And since clerics don't usually make it into epic levels, that's also hilariously wasteful! This ill-conceived model should never work!"

Not so fast, friend! I'll take the low-hanging fruit first, and wonder if you have the same objection about living things in real life. A giant sequoia might grow hundreds of feet tall and dozens of feet wide, and sequoia trees produce seedlings in huge numbers every single year. It must take astonishing amounts of energy to grow from a tiny seedling to the arboreal titan any of those seeds might one day become. Does each seed therefore contain petawatts of untapped power? Could we solve the energy crisis by switching from oil to sequoia-seed? Must adult sequoias harness the power of cold fusion to pack that much energy into that many seedlings?

No. Stop being silly, hypothetical dude.

Likewise, gods don't need to pump multiple demigods' worth of power into each new cleric. That "seed" will grow on its own, fed on the virtue and dedication of its host; on the subtle ambient magic of the world, and the subtle-as-an-elephant ambient magic of the planes; on the strands of fate, and mythic resonance, and all the temporal shenanigans that a preordained Glorious Destiny will inflict on you; and on the steady flow of that kinda-ridiculous not-completely-metagame resource we call XP.

An interesting metaphor, but that seed is receiving near-constant energy input from the source of the original tree's energy. Thus, a seed would be more like a 3.5e cleric, constantly basking in the warmth of the overdiety, than a 4e cleric, who receives power and advancement from within. This is my primary objection. In 3.5, a cleric channels divine power. As you describe it, in 4e a cleric channels Divine Power Brand Heart of the Cards Moon Prism Power Mortal Spirit. Thus, both a fighter and a cleric channel their own inner power, but a cleric happened to get a Divine Symbiont that changes the appearance (note that I say appearance, as all 4e characters get the same number of dailies, and a Divine Defender is functionally identical to a fighter, minus fluff) of those powers. I wouldn't call that person a cleric, I'd call them an overly religious human (who apparently, all have the potential to ascend to godhood without any outside power input).

[FoE]

Here's a thought: ask him why he's playing a cleric and not a barbarian. Then ask him if he's happy with being a cleric. If he replies that he's not, suggest he make a barbarian character.

And that's all you can do, aside from making fun of him. There is no right or wrong way to play a character, especially in a group that apparently scoffs at roleplaying.

[AFS]

Here's a thought: ask him why he's playing a cleric and not a barbarian. Then ask him if he's happy with being a cleric. If he replies that he's not, suggest he make a barbarian character.

And that's all you can do, aside from making fun of him. There is no right or wrong way to play a character, especially in a group that apparently scoffs at roleplaying.

This is probably one of the better replies simply because people are ignoring that the group scoffs at rping. I'm not saying the other replies are wrong, in fact most of them are awesome....For a group of Roleplayers.

My few games of 4e I had a Raven Queen follower with some Raven Queen powers. Simply talk to him and say your palor powers don't make sense with your actions, do you want to change it to something closer to how you invisioned the character?

I think I'm just requoting face here, what was I saying again? Oh yea, I agree with him.

[Sir Homeslice]

In 3.5, a cleric channels divine power. As you describe it, in 4e a cleric channels Divine Power Brand Heart of the Cards Moon Prism Power Mortal Spirit.

Funny thing, in 3.5e, Clerics can get their divine powers through worship in gods, or belief in an ideal. In 4e, Clerics can get their divine powers through worship in gods, or beleif in an ideal, yet somehow to you, the 4e Cleric is just a Fighter with a Divine Coating, simply because the existence of a Fall Mechanic is missing and the fact that they both use the same chart to acquire powers.

I guess the hallmark of divine powers is not that it's been granted by the gods, but it's granted by the gods and is apparently so precious and special that it has to be put on a chain to be yanked away whenever they have a crisis of faith, or anything that doesn't directly follow their sugar daddy. In addition, it has to have a seperate system from the people who don't have divinely invested powers, because we all know, if they share the same system, they're obviously the same exact thing as the other thing!

[Inyssius Tor]

(note that I say appearance, as all 4e characters get the same number of dailies, and a Divine Defender is functionally identical to a fighter, minus fluff)

Spoiler

Show

"--note that I say appearance, as all 3e base classes use the same XP advancement scale, and a Fighter is functionally identical to a Warblade, minus fluff."

Speaking as someone who has played both a Divine Defender and a fighter, your statement is little more than nonsense for anything but a reeeeeally abstract definition of "functionally". And it deserves an equally small amount of attention, so I'll leave it at that.

Well, first, there's conservation of energy. If a god is destroyed, that energy has to go somewhere, often thus creating a surge of energy that empowers their most powerful servant, if not quite to the same level as the orignal god.

True. But it doesn't help, as I'll explain two paragraphs from now.

Since the two sides were polar opposites, the primordials would not have been able to harness this wellspring of divine energy, since they used Rock Power or whatever the setting terms as their power source (Primal?).

Elemental, actually, and that's not how it works in 4e. Or before, for that matter, given Vecna, who attained godhood via arcane power. Generally speaking, power can be taken by anyone with sufficient will and knowledge; the goddess now known as the Raven Queen was just a powerful (Arcane) sorceress before she usurped Nerull's (Divine) mastery over the dead and used it to kill him, then harnessed the resultant wellspring of (Divine) energy to ascend to godhood herself. In the present day, the (Elemental/Abyssal) demon prince Orcus plots to kill her and take her (Divine) power for himself.

--and that means that, if Mual-Tar the Thunder Serpent were to swallow Pelor whole, the great serpent could leverage her vast powers to keep the sun god's divinity in his body while she digests it.

Thus, the clerics could transfer their worship to another god, especially if the scenario was do-this-or-the-universe-will-end.

Suppose St. Cuthbert dies and is eaten by some primordial or another, leaving his second-in-command, Ordinate Enforcer McGee, suddenly powerless in the middle of a delicate situation. The only god who's been paying enough attention to poor Mr. McGee's current situation to be able to pick up the slack with any speed is Tharizdun.

Now, I guess the Ordinate Enforcer, nearly the physical embodiment of law himself personality-wise, might understand that rededicating himself in body and soul to the chaotic evil god-king of treason would be in the universe's long-term best interests. But do you really think he'll adapt to his new situation very well? When Tharizdun starts granting him spells with names like flaying chaos rape and your delicious betrayal, you think he'll really wring the last drop of effectiveness out of them even if he could bring himself to cast them?

You may note that 3e-model clerics must have a similar alignment to their god. In the conduit model, it takes some essential similarity between the two for a god to be able to open a large enough flow of power to a given cleric, and for that cleric to channel the power effectively.

Third, clerics with the ability to act as miniature avatars of their diety would be far more useful (as mobile faucets, if nothing else) than clerics with some second-rate copy of their god's abilities.

Clerics in 4e have that ability. It's just that when their god is locked in mortal combat with the Fire King of Burning Hell Mountain Land and doesn't have any power to spare on them, they don't lose all their other abilities.

Fourth, if you can be invested, you can be uninvested, so that argument doesn't apply.

The clock on my bedside table receives energy from an external power cord. If I wanted to cut off power to my clock, it would take me no more than five seconds to reach behind it and pull the cord out.

The watch on my wrist receives energy from an internal battery. If I wanted to cut off power to my watch, it would take me no less than half an hour to get up, find and assemble my electric drill, and completely dismember my watch in order to remove said battery. Since my watch is stainless steel, this might severely damage my electric drill as well.

Both timepieces are used for the exact same function. And if someone were to blow up a transformer, or bomb the local power plant, the watch would last until its wristband or display wears out.

An interesting metaphor, but that seed is receiving near-constant energy input from the source of the original tree's energy. Thus, a seed would be more like a 3.5e cleric, constantly basking in the warmth of the overdiety, than a 4e cleric, who receives power and advancement from within. This is my primary objection. In 3.5, a cleric channels divine power. As you describe it, in 4e a cleric channels Divine Power Brand [...] Mortal Spirit.

The giant redwoods of Sierra Nevada are nurtured by the sun above them, and the soil and water around them.

So they ought to be composed of sunlight and dirt, no?

No. They're composed of wood.

Likewise, the font of Pelor's divine radiance which empowers a cleric of Pelor is not composed of mortal spirit or fate or ambient magic or virtue or sunlight or XP or anything else except the divine radiance of Pelor. Even in the magical world of D&D, you are not the sum of your parts.

Also. Do you really think Pelor, in the default 3.5 cosmology, derives his power from worship of some nebulous overdeity? Because he totally doesn't.

human (who apparently, all have the potential to ascend to godhood without any outside power input)

Well... yeah, they kind of do. This was different in 3e? Vecna used to have been a cleric of some god or another before his apotheosis?

I'll answer that for you, since I apparently also know more about 3e's cosmology than you do: No. He didn't.

[Yakk]

An interesting metaphor, but that seed is receiving near-constant energy input from the source of the original tree's energy. Thus, a seed would be more like a 3.5e cleric, constantly basking in the warmth of the overdiety, than a 4e cleric, who receives power and advancement from within. This is my primary objection. In 3.5, a cleric channels divine power. As you describe it, in 4e a cleric channels Divine Power Brand Heart of the Cards Moon Prism Power Mortal Spirit. Thus, both a fighter and a cleric channel their own inner power, but a cleric happened to get a Divine Symbiont that changes the appearance (note that I say appearance, as all 4e characters get the same number of dailies, and a Divine Defender is functionally identical to a fighter, minus fluff) of those powers. I wouldn't call that person a cleric, I'd call them an overly religious human (who apparently, all have the potential to ascend to godhood without any outside power input).

A 4e cleric channels divine power -- divine power from the seed of divine energy in them.

In 4e, gods are not presumed to be able to do arbitrary stuff at arbitrary ranges. Gods are more traditional mythic -- they are mortals, writ large.

That seed may grow -- or it may not. Probably the seed is a limited resource. Maybe it will "want" to return to it's source when the host is slain -- but maybe it can be kept away.

And yes, the cleric's power comes from that Divine Seed. Not from their mortal self. Other beings have other sources of power -- the Martial character from ridiculous amounts of training, the Arcane character from knowledge of how to manipulate the universe (however gained), the Primal character from the Primal Spirits of this world.

There is a path to failure for a 4e cleric. But it doesn't involve the God withdrawing the divine seed via fiat: the God has to spend effort to take it away from the Cleric. The mortal church of that God, the Angels of that God, an Avatar of the God itself, or the God itself, could all try to take it back.

Past the moral servants, this has impliciations with the post-Dawn war truce with the Primal Spirits of this world if done in the world. And the God has to spend effort tracking down that lost Divine Seed (admittedly with much better resources).

You are presuming that Gods in 4e are beings who can 'just do stuff'; Gods in 4e are very powerful beings, but they are not arbitrary beings able to make up the rules by which they do stuff. Quite possibly it is impossible or difficult to create an autonomous mortal that directly channels the power of the God in the 4e cosmology; such a being would require the presence of the God, and the God's presence means an Avatar, which is very different than a Mortal.