|
Even so, I would limit that to acknowledging that he serves a necessary function in the world (which he does, by virtue of keeping safe the key to Rovagug's prison) and not in relishing a partnership role in any way. Much in the same way that a paladin would acknowledge that devils at least serve a vital function in fighting demons, but would still limit his alliance with one as much as possible and avoid calling on one unless it was absolutely necessary.
So to conclude, I still see a difference between this order and actually saying "my paladin worships Asmodeus specifically, readily and indefinitely."
Just your daily reminder that people are defending the paragons of Lawful Good worshiping Evil gods.
Carry on.
Not to mention that they're even trying to weasel in "Well, if they don't know what Asmodeus stands for," etc. etc., ignoring the whole Detect Evil at-will, innate knowledge of when you have broken one of the rules of your class, and everything else on the table, to attempt to hang their hats on a very, very bad part of a single adventure module, and Cheliax, which is a Golarion-specific region that, frankly, doesn't make sense to have Paladins in their armed forces in the first place, to try and make their point.
Man, that was a long run-on sentence to basically state 'If your Paladin is dumb as dirt, totally ignorant of what said god stands for (No, polytheism doesn't really get around this, Ares wouldn't have Paladins, especially as ATHENA is in the same pantheon), and never uses any of their abilities to actually learn what kind of teachings/people they're willingly associating themselves with...'
just make a Warpriest of (insert evil deity here) and be done with it, problem solved:)
If they're following Greek religion like it was practiced, they're also up for the occasional human sacrifice, whenever the gods decide they want someone punished terribly.
You don't want to go down that path.
Design Manager
|
Not to mention that they're even trying to weasel in "Well, if they don't know what Asmodeus stands for," etc. etc., ignoring the whole Detect Evil at-will, innate knowledge of when you have broken one of the rules of your class, and everything else on the table, to attempt to hang their hats on a very, very bad part of a single adventure module, and Cheliax, which is a Golarion-specific region that, frankly, doesn't make sense to have Paladins in their armed forces in the first place, to try and make their point.
I don't think quoting Sean Reynolds, one of the guys who was driving force in ushering Pathfinder as we know it today, or pointing out the multiple instances in lore and canon where it's shown as a possibility is "weaseling", and frankly if you have to result to name-calling because you can no longer refute the substantial evidence supporting the argument you're against, it doesn't reflect well in the strength of your argument.
It's okay that you don't like that RAW supports a paladin who venerates Asmodeus being able to exist. It's not okay to call people names because you're unhappy about it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, no one is disputing SKR's claim that it is possible (at least, I'm not.) But SKR's quote says nothing about the duration of such allegiance or what the end result would be. So the question is what lies at the end of that road. Asmodeus is too savvy to get the Paladin to do anything that would make him fall before his usefulness can be fully wrung out/exploited - but once that is done, he will do everything he can to make sure that paladin ends up in Hell at the end of the day.
|
Design Manager
|
Just checking, but is this the same reference that was later edited out of existence?
There is no such reference. If you're referring to the Council of Thieves reference, that still exists, just as it has since its release. You can go download the .pdf and read it there today. The only thing that has changed is James Jacobs' personal opinion on the matter, and what he's allowed into Golarion lore since.
More importantly though, is drill down to the specific section of SKR's Paladins of Asmodeus section, which is not Golarion-specific, but rather goes in to extended detail on why the idea was able to happen within the rules in the first place. Those rules have not changed from then to now, and are all exactly the same today as they were then.
The specific reasons, as listed by SKR and quoted several times already, are:
1)Asmodeus can have clerics who are lawful neutral rather than lawful evil; these clerics walk a fine line that avoids outright evil while still promoting order, and therefore in theory a paladin can do the same.
2)The nature of evil does not require one to always be evil; an evil person who doesn’t rob, murder, or torture at every opportunity is not at risk of becoming less evil—in fact, an evil person can perform good acts every day, making it entirely possible (though exceedingly rare) for a servant of Asmodeus to be good, having never done an evil act.
3) The deceptions of Asmodeus are subtle and deft, and it’s potentially possible for a paladin to believe his efforts and the orderly god’s will serve a greater good, though ultimately he serves nothing more than the god of tyranny’s cruel agendas.
Those are Sean Reynolds' specific reasons on how you can have a paladin of Asmodeus, as laid out in "Mother of Flies". Nothing about those reasons has been changed.
There's also my personal argument, that since paladins are not reliant on deities for their power in the first place, choice of deity is largely irrelevant and has no more impact on their choices and abilities than a fighter. If I am a lawful good paladin empowered by the forces of Law and Good, and I worship Asmodeus as the Lord of Law and an emobdiment of one of those fundamental forces, it isn't a conflict of interest. If I support an asmodean cleric in performing an act that breaks my code, that could cause me to fall, but worshipping a god under an aspect that differs from the one that some others may understand is not going to impact my paladinhood at all.
Again, no one is disputing SKR's claim that it is possible (at least, I'm not.) But SKR's quote says nothing about the duration of such allegiance or what the end result would be. So the question is what lies at the end of that road. Asmodeus is too savvy to get the Paladin to do anything that would make him fall before his usefulness can be fully wrung out/exploited - but once that is done, he will do everything he can to make sure that paladin ends up in Hell at the end of the day.
Note that I'm not debating this either. I'm sure that Hell throws a kegger every time a paladin falls, and Asmodeus likes nothing better than sinking his claws into such deluded fools. I'm just saying the existence of said deluded fools in the first place is entirely possible, and there's any number of reasons Asmodeus might even encourage their recruitment and training, and even go out of his way to try and ensure they stay pure and untempted until such time as he's ready to throw that wrench their way, which could be years away.
|
|
Then I suppose the disconnect here is that you are saying they probably won't fall right away, or even tomorrow or next week or potentially next year for doing it, depending on what they actually do while venerating in this way.
But that doesn't actually contradict the Code, which gives few guidelines on when exactly you can consider it "violated." Indeed, the Code does explicitly allow alliance with Evil to accomplish what the paladin deems to be a greater good.
But while there is a certain amount of leeway here, that's exactly what it is - leeway, and in the absence of such a specific purpose or a clear endpoint in mind, I would say the paladin is putting his status and powers at risk. And this would be a risk that grows with every passing day, even every hour.
Honestly, if you're going to argue that paladins can't worship evil deities, then a paladin couldn't follow any member of the greek pantheon.
I mean, c'mon, HERA, the goddess of freaking marriage, got pissed at her husband for cheating. So she distracted zeus, and the used her divine freaking power to strike Hercules with madness and drive him to kill his entire family, wife, children and all. And then the gods had Hercules punished with the freaking 12 labors for this!
You literally could not find a greek god that wasn't a murderous/rapist/genocidal psychopath.
Yeah, but in D&D there are actually capital-G Good gods. You would never find someone like Shelyn or Ilmater in Greek myth.
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
however if they do then it has to be a deity within one stepThat's a JJ houserule, unsupported by any actual rules. JJ is like the GM for the Pathfinder nation, and like any GM, he has houserules that don't always jive with the actual rules. He actually makes that disclaimer a few times himself.
JJ saying paladins don't need gods is backed up by the rules. His statement about alignment steps is not. Clerics and Inquisitors are specifically called out as having alignment restrictions related to their deity; these restrictions do not apply to other classes, except perhaps in the context of JJ's houserules for Golarion.
I'm more than the "GM for the Pathfinder nation."
I'm the Creative Director for Paizo. That includes the rulebooks. It's my job to keep the so-called creative direction for the company going in one unified direction... but we produce a lot of content. More than one person can personally oversee. And so rather than vet every single word that we print, I do the best I can and help to guide everyone else who works at Paizo to help out and to keep an eye out for things that take the products we produce in directions we don't want to go.
Sometimes things slip through. More so in the earlier days, when we didn't even have a Creative Director (remember... at the time the Asmodeus article went through, I was only the Editor-in-Chief). The hope to combat erroneous information, such as what appeared in the article about Asmodeus, is one of the reasons management promoted me to the position of Creative Director.
Paladins must be lawful good. The problem is that, as an alignment, no two GMs can seem to ever agree as to what exactly lawful good means. It doesn't help when game companies accidentally muddy the waters and print errors, as we did in that article, and I really regret adding to the problem in that manner. It was an error, and one that it seems like has done some permanent damage to the paladin's intended role, which is really unfortunate.
GMs are, of course, free to make whatever changes or interpretations to the rules they wish. But when I say there are no paladins of Asmodeus, that means MORE than "In my home games." That means in Golarion, in the rulebooks, in anything you'll ever see us publish. Unless/until we make another mistake, I suppose.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
MY MESSIAH
TEACH US O TEACHER
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
No offense, JJ but this is the rules forums. As such, I agree it probably should be in the rules. But it isn't. And thus it is false.
Claiming that isn't the way it should be does not change the fact that that is not the way it is.
It is false until it is added to the rules.
No offense taken. Just trying (perhaps foolishly) to give folks contents and to hopefully encourage people that it's okay to change rules that don't work for them without feeling like they're doing it wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, JJ but this is the rules forums. As such, I agree it probably should be in the rules. But it isn't. And thus it is false.
Claiming that isn't the way it should be does not change the fact that that is not the way it is.
It is false until it is added to the rules.
No offense, but I hate this line of thinking.
This is the line of reason that says Shield Master allows you to dual wield two shields with absolutely no penalties for iteratives, or for being blind, or for any reason whatsoever.
This is terrible logic, and needs to stop.
The rules are not intended to be read through some super legalistic parsing to get at the true meaning.
Language is complicated. Sometimes human cannot help but make errors. However, more often than not the intent of things is clear, even if not explicit. Arguing that "because it's not written it's wrong" is silly.
Realize that the intent of the rules is more important RAW. Now, when questions of intent arise sure, lets have a discussion. But when I see a 500 post thread discussing whether paladins, the mortal paragons of virtue and goodness, can worship evil gods....I have to wonder what is wrong with some people.
Are you just arguing to argue? Playing devils advocate? Do you simply wish to "stick it" to someone and be "right" that paladins can worship evil?
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
Are you going to revise the PH and PRD? Put up an official errata to note this requirement that is not actually in the rules?
Otherwise I think a LG paladin powered by divine forces of Good who worships CG Desna or Cayden Cailean or undead hating N Pharasma (using the default pantheon and not Golarion or PFS specific game) is a rules valid character concept according to the PH that makes for an interesting character concept that is not nonsensical.
Similarly a drunken master archetype monk who worships Cayden Cailean or a CG barbarian who is into hunting woshipping Erastil even though those are alignment restricted classes as well.
Yes, but those two classes you mentioned don't use divine magic, and, while alignment restricted, don't have restrictions on what god they can worship.
|
So we basically come down to this.
The creative director of Paizo says that the intention of pathfinder is that this is not something that is allowed. There is no direct rule for it but that's the intention.
You at home can invoke rule 0 and that's fine but every bit of printed Pathfinder material works with that assumption.
When someone posts a question on the Paizo boards they are looking for an official line. Well there, you got it from JJ himself (thanks by the way.)
In short you have got as good an answer as you can possibly get. Everything else is an opinion.
Sure you could argue that JJ's answer is only opinion too and technically you'd be correct. But really of course JJ's opinion holds more weight than about 99.99999% of the people involved in the game. Unless Lisa turns up with a differing opinion I think you are safe to assume that is the Paizo stance...
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, personally, I am satisfied that JJ has come in and stated that paladins do not have a restriction on the alignment of the deity they can worship, but they really should have. The intent of the team and the scope of that intent is known, and the fact that there is a (fairly substantial) gap between RAI/RAW has also been acknowledged.
I think that says pretty much everything that needs to be known on the subject and I'm good with leaving it at that.
Thanks for chiming in JJ, and thanks for being part of such an accessible and involved team :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, JJ but this is the rules forums. As such, I agree it probably should be in the rules. But it isn't. And thus it is false.
Claiming that isn't the way it should be does not change the fact that that is not the way it is.
It is false until it is added to the rules.
No offense, but I hate this line of thinking.
This is the line of reason that says Shield Master allows you to dual wield two shields with absolutely no penalties for iteratives, or for being blind, or for any reason whatsoever.
This is terrible logic, and needs to stop.
The rules are not intended to be read through some super legalistic parsing to get at the true meaning.
Language is complicated. Sometimes human cannot help but make errors. However, more often than not the intent of things is clear, even if not explicit. Arguing that "because it's not written it's wrong" is silly.
Realize that the intent of the rules is more important RAW. Now, when questions of intent arise sure, lets have a discussion. But when I see a 500 post thread discussing whether paladins, the mortal paragons of virtue and goodness, can worship evil gods....I have to wonder what is wrong with some people.
Are you just arguing to argue? Playing devils advocate? Do you simply wish to "stick it" to someone and be "right" that paladins can worship evil?
No, the rules here are arbitrary and can work either way creating different story possibilities depending on which way the rules go.
Having paladins be one step away alignment wise from their gods as a requirement can make sense and create certain stories. Classic Iomedaen/Charlemagne/Sir Galahad paladins fit here. The link between a Good god and the faithful paladin is emphasized.
Having paladins be powered by Goodness and not gods and have it unrelated to their church attendance and participation in worship services can make sense and allow for different stories. The Godclaw type ones fit better here. A paladin is a special [GOOD] individual, without the focus being on the Good from his church or god in this type of story.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the rules here are arbitrary and can work either way creating different story possibilities depending on which way the rules go.Having paladins be one step away alignment wise from their gods as a requirement can make sense and create certain stories. Classic Iomedaen/Charlemagne/Sir Galahad paladins fit here. The link between a Good god and the faithful paladin is emphasized.
Having paladins be powered by Goodness and not gods and have it unrelated to their church attendance and participation in worship services can make sense and allow for different stories.
I have no issue with a Paladin that worships a "one-step-away" deity. But LE is more than one step away from LG, and it is evil besides. While I think that a paladin could feasibly work with or even serve such an entity for a period of time, even a long period - I think the term "worship" implies a great deal more fervor/volition/enthusiasm for Asmodeus than any Paladin should be allowed to get away with. "qui cum canibus concumbunt," etc.
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It keeps power gamers from breaking in-world logic by saying their character is an exemplar of everything that is good and just while making human sacrifices to honor the king of hell.
|
|
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
The same way any other restriction improves the game - by preventing incongruous concepts and enforcing thematic consistency in the world. Such as, say, preventing a holy warrior from worshiping an unholy entity, or punishing a code of conduct class that strays too far from the deity or ideal empowering it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
By making paladins special and not muddying the waters about what a lawful good character can do.
Warpriest is our solution for folks who want a holy warrior type class to serve a deity of any alignment.
I'd like to see someone justify this is a PFS game.
The QQ will be glorious.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, this has nothing to do with power gamers, so why would you even bring that in. Arguments like that are ridiculous at best because this offers not one bit of power over simply avoiding the issue altogether and not worshiping anyone.
A real power gamer wouldn't worship anyone because you don't have to.
I think it's one of those cases of "power gamers = evil scum, and people who have badwrongfun (according to me) = evil scum, ergo, all people who like something I don't = powergamers."
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
By making paladins special and not muddying the waters about what a lawful good character can do.
Warpriest is our solution for folks who want a holy warrior type class to serve a deity of any alignment.
Just making sure that I understand this correctly:
1. A paladin doesn't even have to worship a deity, even in Golarion.
2. If a paladin does worship a deity, it must be within one step of LG, or else paladins aren't special.
3. Rule 2 applies even outside of Golarion.
4. If you deviate from these rules, paladins aren't special.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
As I've said before, I don't understand the extent of this debate.
JJ has spoken, that pretty much settles the issue for PF/Golarian players.
Do you want to home-brew something like a "Paladin" of Admodeous? Go for it. In your own game, if everyone agrees, there is not such thing as bad-wrong-fun that we here on the Paizo Discussion Boards can gainsay you with.
I would submit though that the strange and logic-defying work of making such a campaign setting has been disably done already and it is called "Eberron". Just use that and save yourself some time. ;)
He said what was intended, but has flat out admitted that it is not in the rules. Aka, it is allowed by the rules but not intended, by his own admission.
Edit: He also outright stated that he was attempting to assure people that it was ok to change rules and not feel like thy were doing it wrong.
The feeling I get from these posts is that not adhering to these particular principles--even outside of Golarion--isn't necessarily wrong, but it is somehow less right.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
By making paladins special and not muddying the waters about what a lawful good character can do.
Warpriest is our solution for folks who want a holy warrior type class to serve a deity of any alignment.
Just making sure that I understand this correctly:
1. A paladin doesn't even have to worship a deity, even in Golarion.
2. If a paladin does worship a deity, it must be within one step of LG, or else paladins aren't special.
3. Rule 2 applies even outside of Golarion.
4. If you deviate from these rules, paladins aren't special.Is that a fair summary of your position?
Not really. More like:
1. A paladin doesn't even have to worship a deity, even in Golarion.
2. If a paladin does worship a deity, it must be within one step of LG, or else paladin is not behaving in a lawful or good manner.
3. Rule 2 applies even outside of Golarion.
4. If you deviate from these rules, the paladin you're playing is fundamentally different than the one assumed by the core rules.
If you're playing in a game where worshiping a lawful evil deity does not impact your alignment and allows you to remain lawful good, then yes, you can play a paladin of a lawful evil deity. That's not something we'll be supporting in any of our products (the rulebooks included) or in Pathfinder Society, though.
How does this restriction--especially outside of Golarion (!)--improve the game?
2) A Paladin must worship a deity whose alignment is within one step of their own.Once again, THIS IS FALSE.
That rule specifies only clerics and inquisitors. No one else has to follow that rule. It has been shown, quoted, linked to, and specified so many times it is becoming irksome. Stop bringing it up people. That rule does not apply to paladins.
It's not false. It's not in the rules, and that's a shame, but it's not false.
It should indeed apply to paladins. Moreso than any other class, in fact, since no other class has as strict an alignment restriction as do paladins.
By making paladins special and not muddying the waters about what a lawful good character can do.
Warpriest is our solution for folks who want a holy warrior type class to serve a deity of any alignment.
Just making sure that I understand this correctly:
1. A paladin doesn't even have to worship a deity, even in Golarion.
2. If a paladin does worship a deity, it must be within one step of LG, or else paladins aren't special.
3. Rule 2 applies even outside of Golarion.
4. If you deviate from these rules, paladins aren't special.Is that a fair summary of your position?
Not really. More like:
1. A paladin doesn't even have to worship a deity, even in Golarion.
2. If a paladin does worship a deity, it must be within one step of LG, or else paladin is not behaving in a lawful or good manner.
3. Rule 2 applies even outside of Golarion.
4. If you deviate from these rules, the paladin you're playing is fundamentally different than the one assumed by the core rules.
I see. It comes down once more to your idea of what constitutes lawful or good behavior. I've found your previous assertions on the subject . . . unique, but hey, it's your game.
Since this isn't the time or place for that discussion, and since I'm pretty confident neither of us will influence the other in any meaningful manner, I withdraw.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see. It comes down once more to your idea of what constitutes lawful or good behavior. I've found your previous assertions on the subject . . . unique, but hey, it's your game.
Since this isn't the time or place for that discussion, and since I'm pretty confident neither of us will influence the other in any meaningful manner, I withdraw.
Fair enough.
That said... someone at Paizo needs to be the person who makes the decision on how alignments work and what behaviors constitute those various alignments. That person happens to be me, as the company's Creative Director. Part of what I get paid for is to provide these baselines for the game.
Thanks James. I know it's gen con week and you guys are super busy, thanks you taking the time, to give us an answer and the reasons for that that answer to our question.
I see. It comes down once more to your idea of what constitutes lawful or good behavior. I've found your previous assertions on the subject . . . unique, but hey, it's your game.
Since this isn't the time or place for that discussion, and since I'm pretty confident neither of us will influence the other in any meaningful manner, I withdraw.
Fair enough.
That said... someone at Paizo needs to be the person who makes the decision on how alignments work and what behaviors constitute those various alignments. That person happens to be me, as the company's Creative Director. Part of what I get paid for is to provide these baselines for the game.
Glad you're doing it. Game design is hard, and you can't make everybody happy all of the time. : D Keep on doing that thing you do, and I'll keep playing it!
No offense, JJ but this is the rules forums. As such, I agree it probably should be in the rules. But it isn't. And thus it is false.
Claiming that isn't the way it should be does not change the fact that that is not the way it is.
It is false until it is added to the rules.
No offense, but I hate this line of thinking.
This is the line of reason that says Shield Master allows you to dual wield two shields with absolutely no penalties for iteratives, or for being blind, or for any reason whatsoever.
This is terrible logic, and needs to stop.
The rules are not intended to be read through some super legalistic parsing to get at the true meaning.
Language is complicated. Sometimes human cannot help but make errors. However, more often than not the intent of things is clear, even if not explicit. Arguing that "because it's not written it's wrong" is silly.
Realize that the intent of the rules is more important RAW. Now, when questions of intent arise sure, lets have a discussion. But when I see a 500 post thread discussing whether paladins, the mortal paragons of virtue and goodness, can worship evil gods....I have to wonder what is wrong with some people.
Are you just arguing to argue? Playing devils advocate? Do you simply wish to "stick it" to someone and be "right" that paladins can worship evil?
To me that is different since common sense say that shield master does not work that way. JJ is right in that it should be written, but it is a lot less obvious than the shield master quote or even the TWF quote which lead to ignoring penalties if someone is being silly enough about it.
Basically a badly written rule is not the same as one that is not written at all.