There is a huge difference between "A path to make your PC a functional party member again" and not taking away their functionality.
I am going to assume therefore that everything you have stated round entitled players being the problem is stated deliberately to get people angry - because that is your opinion and obviously you are getting buried in responses indicating that your view isn't the only one.
It was me mocking your attitude towards DMs when I responded to you that one time.
However ENWorld is a forum which is roughly 90% DMs from memory. There are way more DMs here than there are non-DMs. (Possibly more perma-DMs than exclusive players). And the DM has far more ability to break the game than any player. I therefore come in here DM critical.
Obviously, and I'd never let you within sniffing distance of one of my games. But I dispute that is a DM heavy zone in absolute numbers. There may be a greater ratio of DMs than the ratio at a table which is like 1 to 5 or 1 to 6. But more DMs in absolute numbers? No.
The entire first chapter is about running the game. You can go into worldbuilding first - but you do not have to. Worldbuilding is an entirely orthoganal skill to DMing.
It's central to any game I run. If I sniff out a DM who is a setting lightweight I don't return to that game.
I am not combining spellcasting with priestly ordination. I am saying that becoming a cleric is a sacrament - and then as a cleric recovering your spells is a rite. Being a cleric can not be withdrawn. It was a terrible and anti-religious rule for the first 35 years of D&D's existence and has rightfully been left on the dustbin of history.
So when they perform the rite to get their spells the Deity refuses to some degree. I don't start with you lose everything unless it is really really extreme.
I'm not saying that mine is the only possibility - but I am saying that it is the correct one and that D&D started off on the wrong path.
Of course you say that and you don't even caveat it with "for my style of game".
But an apostate is still ordained.
You do know that in all the protestant dominations of which there are many you are not. But what does in world religion concerning ordination have to do with receiving spell powers from a fantasy Deity. If I had your view I'd just get rid of divine power as a source. You want divine power, God knows why (pun intended), but you don't want any of the trappings or responsibillity to the God.
Would it be more appropriate if the Deity just zapped the player with permanent feeblemind until they atoned. That would be "in game" I suppose. You see what is in game is up for debate. That is the issue.
And I'm saying that they are making the right decisions from both a religious perspective (as they are both from a Christian-centred one as I have shown and a polytheistic one as
@Paul Farquhar has mentioned) and a gameplay perspective. Such versimilitude as there is that can be tied to the actual world is entirely on my side. You meanwhile seem to have nothing supporting you other than the ability to control bad players.
And all of this religious argument you are making is just way off the beaten path and should be dropped. If the God of the Catholic church gave out spell powers, I don't imagine priests who've fallen from the faith receiving them. Until you have an example of that in real life we will just have to drop this nonsense.
You couldn't take away the class or the features in either 4e or 2014's version of 5e other than through house rules. It's been over 15 years since the default changed to my way - and when they did not one single thing of value was lost. And the only people complaining are long standing DMs who are used to having arbitrary authority.
I don't have the rules for 4e in front of me. Can you quote anything from 4e to prove your point? Not that I'd care that much as I despise 4e. It would just be another datapoint in that editions coffin.
So you have surveyed everyone?
