The nature of clerics and their gods?

[Sayer_of_Nay]

There was a bit of a verbal dispute between two characters in a game I'm in which escalated to some name-calling. During the fight, the rogue said something about the cleric that got me thinking. He called the cleric: "an arrogant fool who stupidly sold his soul and enslaved himself to an overgrown celestial taskmaster for the sake of power." The cleric in question was a follower of the Sun deity in a homebrew game.

Now, I've never really thought of it that way, but from a certain point of view, the rogue was right. A cleric (and indeed, any other divine caster) relies solely on a patron or divine concept to power some or all of their abilities. In a way, a cleric is willfully binding themselves to a god in order to receive the benefit of that gods favor (spells). In exchange for this, the cleric is all tied to the gods agenda; he must, broadly, work towards his gods ends. From a certain perspective, the clerics sovereignty is forever curtailed by his master, whom ultimately decides what the cleric does.

Now I think the rogues view point is extreme, but can't help but acknowledge a few grains of truth in it. What is the real deal with clerics and gods? Just how much freedom does the cleric enjoy, and how much control does the god exert? Is the cleric really just a dope who sold his soul for the ability to work magic? And in the end, what makes a cleric so special compared to the vast majority of mortals? What is it that allows him to receive divine favor when others do not?

Thoughts?

[LazarX]

One should ask the rouge. "Have you thought about who will be looking after your soul when you die?" Depending on the campaign world, it can be a serious question. Dying either as an atheist or one who has betrayed their god has some serious consequences in the Forgotten Realms, for instance.

One might also ask the player if he's bringing a bit too much of 20th century materialism into his character's perspective.

[Deadmanwalking]

What if the Cleric serves his Deity because he already believes in what the deity espouses. Or serves a (Neutral Aligned) deity who doesn't care what he does (for the most part)?

In either case, he's getting cool powers without changing his agenda in the least, so where's the slavery? In fact, I'd say those are pretty much how the vast majority of followers of Good or Neutral gods operate. I mean, Good gods don't even want people to serve them unless they already espouse the same beliefs (though they do want to talk people around to their way of thinking).

Now, Evil Gods often do enslave their worshippers in one sense or another...but that's what makes them Evil.

[Dubiousnessocity]

thats a decent summary of all of the divine classes. whether or not its sided against them. the only problem i see is calling the act of devotion to the god "stupid." Remember in fantasy the acts of gods are relatively common and there is ample proof to the existance of the gods, as well as to the power they provide their most dedicated. why is that dumb?
the cleric should have responded with "you have sold your soul to a quick buck in this mortal realm. i hope you are happy in your existance, for without the support of those "taskmasters," it will certainly be short!"

[Magnu123]

I've got to agree with the above two, Gods in Pathfinder are very real and powerful beings who have a symbiotic relationship with their followers. Deities, as I understand it, will lose their powers if they don't have worshippers. It's a personal and free choice to actively follow one deity over another. Pantheistic societies have been around for a long time. Think of the Greeks and Romans. The fishermen and sailors would go to the temple of Poseidon or Neptune because that was the God most directly tied to their existing lifestyle.

If the person would be in line to become a cleric of a deity, they likely would end up in that God's care after death anyways because their personality and actions would already be aligning properly to that God's desires.

That being said, the rogue is very much in his right for disagreeing with the way the cleric runs his life. There is a certain level of commitment that the cleric's marriage to a deity requires. THe rogue is more of a free spirit, and tends to live in the moment. Devotion to one individual (read: deity) is simply unappealing or downright repulsive to a character like that.

[Jiggy]

If the cleric has allegedly sacrificed some freedom in exchange for power (in the form of spells), then where did the rogue get HIS power? Sure, it's not spellcasting, but he's able to do things that other people can't (uncanny dodge, sneak attack, talents, etc). Did he get those for free? Or did he have to practice, learn, and work? In order to gain power (in the form of rogue abilities), he sacrificed some freedom by spending time and effort developing those abilities - time and effort that could have been spent doing other things. The rogue has made the exact same exchange as the cleric, with the only difference being the lack of a face across the table. Obviously, the same goes for wizards spending their time studying arcane lore ("rather than, say, jogging") or any other class gaining their abilities. They had to willingly exchange some amount of their personal freedom for the power granted by a regimen of training, study, or faith.

[Dubiousnessocity]

to be a rogue is to be a jerk. its the law of the land.

[The Shaman]

The cleric has devoted himself/herself to the deity and its cause. It is, as already said, a symbiotic relationship - the cleric spreads the cause of the deity, and it bestows a measure of its power.

Now, WHY did the cleric do that? That depends on the character. Yes, there are those who would do it for the power, and there are deities that accept such servants. Other clerics do it out of respect for tradition ("our family has always devoted its firstborn daughter to the service of Sarenrae"), personal conviction, penitence, perhaps even to escape their lot in life... the reasons are many.

However, I'd say by far the most clerics devote their lives to their deity because they believe that the way it proposes is the right way to live and, on a larger scale, the right way for society to function. It is the way they would follow regardless. Their soul is going where it would be going anyway. If anything, the rogue might appreciate getting something for what you'd do anyway ;) .

And what of our rascally friend - what is s/he doing with their own soul? Is it better to squander one's gifts in the pursuit of trinkets? Who is to say this way is any better.

[CalebTGordan]

There are two questions I have not yet seen asked here.

What does the cleric gain in return for his devotion outside of the spell casting ability?

What does the god gain out of all of this?

Because we are talking general terms and not specific campaign setting here, I think it would be safe to use my own home brew world as an example.

The gods of one of my worlds already had everything they needed, and thus they would gain nothing from followers. They did not gain or lose power as they gained or lost followers, so their power was constant. They didn't really need minions to do stuff because they could easily create anything they wanted and had powers to do anything they wanted. So why followers?

In this world, they wanted to see if they could train people to become gods themselves. Now this was not a well known fact. In fact, they wouldn't tell the clerics until they were certain that the cleric was totally faithful to them and that they wouldn't tell everyone about attaining godhood. Also, it wasn't just the clerics who were to be awarded godhood in the future, but anyone who followed them faithfully and did all that was commanded. At first, the promise is that they will be able to live side by side with the god they follow. As they grow in their status with the god more rewards are revealed.

So why give clerics power? They needed people who could act in their place in the world and who had a portion of their authority to perform holy acts, stuff like baptism or last rites. If a cleric performed those acts it was as if the god did it. A side effect of that was that the cleric gained spell casting abilities as a sign that they were who they claimed they were. Clerics also had a heavy responsibility to preach the doctrine of the god, and to be an example of how their god wanted them to live.

So what did the gods gain? The cleric is really the one who will gain the most from this relationship. The cleric will eventually become a god. That promise wont be broken as long as the cleric is obedient. The god gains the satisfaction of a job well done, and if he did things right he will also have created more gods then his rivals.

I will return to post more. Sorry for the long winded stuff, but this has my juices flowing.

[Sayer_of_Nay]

Great replys all, thanks!

Some background for those interested. The initial argument between the rogue and cleric began over their difference in alignment. The cleric is a lawful good follower of the sun god, and the rogue is chaotic good. Now, of the two, the rogue is the more generous one; he is modeled after Robin Hood, and so spends much of his time (when not adventuring) robbing from the morally bankrupt wealthy, and giving to the needy; much of his share of the treasure goes to the poor. The cleric doesn't approve, due to his lawful alignment; he has said to the rogue "while I feel for the plight of the poor, and do what I can to aid them, I won't steal the possessions of others. You shouldn't either." Basically, it comes down to a difference in alignment, philosophy, and morality.
It escalated when the cleric stated that his deity would not allow him to pillage for the sake of others; the sun deity is lawful good, and encourages his priests to do good, help the needy, etc, while also obeying the laws of the land. The rogue took issue with this, saying that the sun deity doesn't truly care for the poor, and that he shackles dopes such as the cleric to his laws. From there it got ugly. My wizard conjured popcorn and a comfy sofa to watch.

Spiritually, the rogue is fine; athiests and those who don't follow the gods aren't punished when they die. Rather, since no god has a claim on their soul, they reincarnate. So there is no worries on the rogues part that snubbing the gods will get him into too much trouble.

[LilithsThrall]

I see an awful lot of one sided arguments above.

Consider that the original poster's world may not be Golorian and, in many fantasy settings, the existence (let alone nature) of the gods is uncertain.

The gods could be similar to the Ori of Stargate. The "soul" may not be immortal. It could be just a giant con game.