That IS assuming such pacts are antagonistic (something that celestial, genie, and archfey warlocks don't necessarily have to worry about) but I don't accept that a warlock's powers are given by their patron, but rather taught or gained but unrevokable by either party. If a patron could just turn off a warlock's power, then the warlock is powerless against them. There are dozens of examples of people who sell their soul and then turn on their patron (Ghost Rider being a good example). I find it far more interesting that warlocks can peace out on their patron and the patron can be antagonistic, but the deal was already made, and the patron can't takeback their gift.
I agree with a caveat.
Warlock's should be able to peace out
within the constraints of their agreements. I don't want a warlock to just be able to say no, I want them to be able to say "Our pact said I would retrieve the lost crown of Aganar, you didn't specify that I had to give it to you once I had done so." or "Our deal said I could not harm you as long as my sister lived, but I had two sisters."
I like the idea that neither the warlock or the patron [regardless of phenomenal cosmic power] can break the pact. It makes pacts dangerous for both sides of the equation, and so for a warlock to defy their patron it is either in regards to things NOT part of the pact or in regards to rules lawyering the pact.
I also am a fan of clerics not losing their powers when they betray their faith because it allows there to be hypocrites, false prophets, and other corruption in priesthoods. If Pelor knows when a cleric is thinking impure thoughts and strips him of his power for it, then you can never tell stories where you need to weed out bad actors in a church or deal with schisms in belief because the easy way to figure out who is acting on Pelor's behalf is to ask them to cast Cure Wounds.
I agree, but I also disagree. I want it to be possible to have bad actors in the power structures of churches (how do you have a fiend corrupting priests if they can't infiltrate the church) but I also don't want to discount the possibility of a bad actor being revealed... and then smited to dust by the God.
I think... if I was going to make this into a setting rule, I would do one of two things. Either A) The God's cannot act unless they are asked to act. And even a false priest asking them to act in the way they wish to act, like healing the sick, will result in them healing the sick, even as they slip in omens that something is wrong. Because they way the cost of not acting against the cost of the prophets lies. B) there are specific locations, rituals, or artifacts that suss out the falsely faithful from the true. C) Some combination.
I think it might also be fair to play into the fact that the Gods are not omniscient, they can be unaware of the true thoughts or schemes of their followers. As long as the false priest is being careful not to be too egregious, and do their secret work away from the church, they might slip notice. I don't know. It would need to be handled case by case.
And on a broader scale, I don't like the everwatching eye of Deities and Otherworldly beings always threatening to take character's powers. Mostly because it enables Jerk GM's and has for most of D&D's lifespan. I am fully content with never having Big Brother crippling my character because the DM and I don't agree completely on the tenants of a made-up faith, pact, or oath.
Agreed
