Don't get me wrong - I think it's grand when a DM takes the time to inform a player that he doesn't feel his PC cleric's behaviour is consistent with the chosen religious dogma. However, when does a "suggestion" cease to be a suggestion, and crosses over into "ramming your opinion down someone's throat"?
Telling a player that he HAS to be a buff-whore battle-priest or a pacifistic support healer is a bit much. I mean, 2-3 paragraphs from FoF isn't enough to go and tell someone that his diety's dogma REQUIRES him to be one or the other. There simply isn't enough written in FoF to define how one should or shouldn't play a priest.
Sure - some things are pretty obvious - lying, cheating, stealing, human sacrifice and all that. But how one behaves when fighting with a party - well, very few religions FORCE you to behave in a certain manner. A cleric of Uthgar, for example, might buff the fighters and hang back chanting out loud to incite their religious fervour - even a priest of a god of blood & battle isn't REQUIRED to buff himself and run into the melee.
So, I think it's rather narrow-minded to tell a player, "do it my way or get spell-stripped".
I think it would be far better to: 1. ask the player to submit a PC bio for the DMs, so they might understand his behaviour and motivations better. I'd guess that the DMs probably haven't a clue for the most part as to why a player does one thing or another. Wouldn't it be better to find out if you're curious, rather than jump to conclusions based on observing a PC for a few minutes here and there? 2. Ask the player to explain his actions (which the DM sees as questionable) in a written summary. If the DMs are considering handing out punishment, the player should at least have the opportunity to defend himself, no?
That said, I suppose it's better than some DMs method of dealing with people that they take a dislike to (ie: drop an uber spawn on them for no apparent IC reason). But it's a big step down from popping them into the DM-only area and asking them why whey did something, as a question and not an accusation.
*edit* To put this in perspective, consider the Muslims and terrorism. You have some priests who scream for suicide bombers and death to the infidel. And you have those who call for peace and say that blowing yourself up in a crowd really isn't what Allah had in mind... and you have a whole bunch inbetween. Essentially what the DM was telling me was that "you're one or the other" - is that really reasonable?