Coredump said:
Isn't this a classic case of the mechanics driving the story? Your character wants to become e cleric, only because you read the rules and saw an advantage. He wants to be a cleric to this god, only because he will get a double bonus. Does not sound much like role-playing to me. Not that it isn't a valid way to approach the game, just seems like something besides role-playing the character.
Role-playing is an inspiration-driven endeavor. Where that inspiration comes from does not affect the quality of the role-playing in the slightest. Some folks find their inspiration in movies or books they've read. "I want to play a brooding anti-hero like Gerald Tarrant!" Or "I want to play a boy slowly slipping into evil like Anakin Skywalker!" This is perfectly valid, but not the only place to find inspiration.
Others can draw inspiration from a set of game mechanics they've never tried before. I once created a character based solely on the fact that I wanted to play a cleric with the Death and War domains. He wound up being one of my favorite characters, from a role-playing perspective. His character was created by looking at the mechanics I had chosen, and developing a personality that fit those mechanics.
You seem to believe that the
source of the persona that a player develops indicates the validity of their role-playing. That a character whose personality is created as a natural fit to a set of mechanics is somehow "less" than a character whose mechanics are chosen as a natural fit to his personality. IMO, this isn't the case.
Fitting Persona + Fitting Mechanics = Excellent Role-playing Character.
Using the Commutative Property of Addition

p), we get:
Fitting Mechanics + Fitting Persona = Excellent Role-playing Character.
Either way, you get a good character.
