Ok, then, if a Paladin can't worship and serve Asmodeous...who does? Who are His Holy Champions, defending his faith (the order and law as well as more insidious and evil sides)? Surly all gods have Holy Champions they can hold up as pillars of faith, not just Clerics, or fervent believers, but Holy Warriors that fight for them, in their name.....or are only LG gods allowed that?...and I guess CE gods as well, because Antipaladin.Don't you mean unholy warriors?
That depends! If you followed and worshipped Asmodeous, then you would see them as Holy Warriors of your faith.
No. If he is honestly following his god's ideals he will fall. If not he is being chaotic and will fall.
|
By acolyte, I meant cleric. Clerics have an alignment aura of their deity, so regardless of how low a level it was, it would detect as evil if a cleric of any evil god.
Aura (Ex): A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity's alignment (see the detect evil spell for details).
Yes, but an evil cleric of a neutral deity also has an evil aura, albeit not an extra-strong one, so an evil aura on a cleric doesn't mean an evil deity. And that's assuming that the paladin hasn't taken the Oath against Chaos, which trades Detect/Smite Evil for Detect/Smite Chaos and would be a very reasonable choice for a paladin who worships a LN deity or "Asmodeus, Prince of Law."
Ordinary laypeople may change religions but a paladin represents a champion and paragon of his religion. The service to the his deity is a fundamental quality of his class.
Wrong by RAW. By RAW a paladin is a champion and paragon of Lawful Good who may choose to also worship a deity. They often are, but are not required to be, paragons of their religion in addition to LG.
I have seen no plausible explanation that the paladin would then be able to himself be a follower of a non-lawful good deity.
You'd think so given the above, but paladins of Sarenrae (NG) and Abadar (LN) are common.
Except that the association rules for a paladin don't stipulate that they only apply if the paladin knowingly violates them. The code of conduct specifically calls out that the paladin must "willingly" commit an evil act to be jammed up but the association rules do not. Especially the portion about the paladin's own henchmen, followers and cohorts are extremely restrictive with no exceptions.
A deity is not a henchman, follower, or cohort, so the more restrictive wording doesn't apply, and the less restrictive "association" rules are clearly not written as an absolute prohibition - they say the paladin "avoids" association, not that the paladin "does not associate." It's almost like the writers wanted to allow a GM to decide whether having a LG paladin teaming up with an evil character to defeat a greater evil would make a good story!
Interestingly, there's a special reason that it might serve good to have a LG paladin in the church of Asmodeus. You're not going to sway Asmodeans by appealing to mercy or calling for humility. If you want to convert them to good, or at least away from evil, you need to speak the language of power.
Except that the association rules for a paladin don't stipulate that they only apply if the paladin knowingly violates them. The code of conduct specifically calls out that the paladin must "willingly" commit an evil act to be jammed up but the association rules do not. Especially the portion about the paladin's own henchmen, followers and cohorts are extremely restrictive with no exceptions.The association rules also don't impose any penalty on a paladin for violating them. So should we conclude that there is some force that physically stops a paladin from, for example, paying a 1st level LE commoner to take care of his horse while the paladin is away?
Suppose Loki appears in disguise to a paladin and says, "I'm the one who gave you your powers. Now I want you to build a temple to me on this spot." What happens if Loki succeeds on his Bluff check?
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Besides, at best the Bluffed paladin need only believe that Loki believes what he says to be true.
Except that the association rules for a paladin don't stipulate that they only apply if the paladin knowingly violates them. The code of conduct specifically calls out that the paladin must "willingly" commit an evil act to be jammed up but the association rules do not. Especially the portion about the paladin's own henchmen, followers and cohorts are extremely restrictive with no exceptions.The association rules also don't impose any penalty on a paladin for violating them. So should we conclude that there is some force that physically stops a paladin from, for example, paying a 1st level LE commoner to take care of his horse while the paladin is away?
Suppose Loki appears in disguise to a paladin and says, "I'm the one who gave you your powers. Now I want you to build a temple to me on this spot." What happens if Loki succeeds on his Bluff check?
So what you are saying is that the explicit statement that a paladin cannot associate with those who offend his moral code and cannot have henchmen, followers or cohorts has absolutely no effect. Because if the paladin does it nothing at all happens.
If there is no penalty then why would it say the paladin is required to do an atonement if he even temporarily allies with an evil creature? Atonement is to redress a wrong or sin, i.e. a violation of the moral code. What happens to a paladin that violates his moral code? He looses his paladin abilities.
You say there is no penalty so what happens if the paladin does not atone? What happens if a paladin disregards the association rule and takes on a chaotic evil follower? It is quite clear that the Ex-Paladins section applies to those who violate any of the paladin's restrictions whether it is the code of conduct restrictions or the association restrictions.
I think it's really quite humorous to see someone named "OldSkoolRPG" really evangelizing in this thread on Paladins.
To put it succinctly, folks want to be able to play a gritty Paladin. Grimdark/Edgy has been in the market for years now. The holier than thou Lawful Goodytwoshoes is an artifact of draconian standards.
Which is why if Paizo ever makes a Grayguard equivalent, many, many people will rejoice.
A deity is not a henchman, follower, or cohort, so the more restrictive wording doesn't apply, and the less restrictive "association" rules are clearly not written as an absolute prohibition - they say the paladin "avoids" association, not that the paladin "does not associate." It's almost like the writers wanted to allow a GM to decide whether having a LG paladin teaming up with an evil character to defeat a greater evil would make a good story!
1) The definition of a cohort is an associate or companion. A deity who grants to a paladin divine powers is certainly an associate. In return for the paladin's service he provides a reward.
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
Therefore, they cannot accept a deity who is not lawful good.
2) The sentence immediately following the one about avoiding evil characters explains the exception. It says he may ally with evil associates ONLY under exceptional circumstances to defeat a greater evil and must regularly atone for such an act indicating the act is a violation of his moral code.
3) It may indeed make a good story and thus a GM may choose to allow it and it certainly won't break the game to do so. However, whether or not breaking the rules makes for a good story, fun game, or whatever isn't relevant to determining what the rules actually are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's really quite humorous to see someone named "OldSkoolRPG" really evangelizing in this thread on Paladins.
To put it succinctly, folks want to be able to play a gritty Paladin. Grimdark/Edgy has been in the market for years now. The holier than thou Lawful Goodytwoshoes is an artifact of draconian standards.
Which is why if Paizo ever makes a Grayguard equivalent, many, many people will rejoice.
It is fine if people want to play those types of characters. If you want to play an edgier, grittier paladin that worships an evil deity and your GM approves and your group has fun with it great! That is irrelevant to ascertaining what the rules are.
If you scroll up to the top of the screen you will see that this forum is not entitled "Really Interesting Story Questions" or "Subverting Traditional Tropes Questions" or "What Modern Gamers Really Want To Play Questions". It is named "Rules Questions" where people discuss the actual rules.
That doesn't matter to the question at hand, which was : Can a Paladin knowingly worship an evil god?
No.
If you want to go through the torturous logic of making the even dumber brother of the Lawful Stupid Paladin, the Awful Stupid Paladin, to attempt to edge case this, you've already gone off the reservation, and are firmly into house rules territory. There, it's fine, heck there's a Paladin in the game I'm in right now who is Chaotic Good, but that's an understood change from the base rules.
What if you're tricked into service? Evil gods can be very manipulative. Posing as another god (or messenger for such) is totally in keeping with being a tricksy evil person, tricking them to sign (literally) themselves over into service to be your Champion, only to eventually have them realize (through gaming) that they've been tricked...seems like one of the most classic ways to have something happen.
Also, so this means non-LG gods simply don't have a Paladin equivalent? Feels like, in the grand scene, that gives LG gods a huge power boost.
And in any case, what's wrong with the good gods being more powerful?
Then there would be no need for the conflicts, if good always won, because it's re powerful...where's the tension, the need for any of it.
As I see it, the gods are all nominally the same power wise, some may have more but weaker followers to do their bidding, while others have fewer stronger followers, or survive by finding loopholes in the deals and bargains they've all made, etc, but on the whole, they're all pretty similar in power.
Sorry if I hit on something already covered...
First read through of RAW and RAI, there is no way to do it and keep abilities so I agree with the statement "yes, but you lose your paladin abilities."
I'm not a fan of the twisting of words and hard core break down of legalese that is going on to justify the worship of an evil deity. Clearly it was meant to be a class that worships lawful good deities. I would argue that a paladin would realize he's in the wrong when he detects evil in the first major temple he visits and is blinded by all other holy servitors radiating evil.
As an aside to the original post, but in response to the original poster that he isn't into the role play but mechanics of the game:
In my opinion, you are breezing by an amazing rp experience here that is far outside the normal "Dudley Doright" role.
I, as a GM, would allow you this if you justified it in background and role played the internal conflict of being LG but worshiping an Evil god. I play the role of deity, thus the one granting you powers. I see it as entirely feasible for an "Asmodeus" style/type of god to give the abilities of a paladin to further their goals.
Is there anything preventing a paladin from worshiping an evil deity?
Yes.
Common sense.
While not openly allowing for the worship of Asmodeus, the Order of Chaos flavor text explicitly says that most of the paladins who find themselves becoming Hellknights follow this path in Cheliax.
If I were DM and I had a player who's paladin took this oath and went Hellknight with it I wouldn't exactly say that a paladin's respect for the authority and power of Asmodean law, and his defeat of Rovagug would be out of the question.
Not that it is a very strong case, but perhaps the one scenario where one could role play it off.
Is there anything preventing a paladin from worshiping an evil deity?Yes.
Common sense.
Sorry, I forgot this thread is in the Rules section.
I always look at these things from a PFS PoV, and I'm pretty sure in PFS all Paladins need to actually worship a deity (just as clerics do in PFS).
So in PFS, no way, as you can't LG and one step away from an evil deity.
Now in a home game, you could have some really interesting role-playing with this, especially if you follow a heretical interpretation of an evil faith, which underplays (or eliminates) the evil aspect of that deity.
The best example where this would easily work in Golarion would be the already cited Asmodeus as LN. You would have to tinker with the rules a bit, as your LN cleric of Asmodeus still has an evil aura (which would make it homebrew), but it could be done.
From what I remember in the 3.5 Eberron setting, clerics were not obliged to follow the alignment of their deities at all, and in fact continued to receive spells even if the violated the tenants of their faith. Which led to some really juicy heresy-laded campaigns if you were that way inclined...
But without the heretical off-shoot of an evil faith thing, I really can't see a way you could do it. Why not just play a Neutral Warpriest of the deity and have done with it??
A misnomer if ever there was one.Is there anything preventing a paladin from worshiping an evil deity?Yes.
Common sense.
sadly, very true.
Is there anything preventing a paladin from worshiping an evil deity?
Yes.
Common sense.
A misnomer if ever there was one.
sadly, very true.
Actually, I thought that was the most sensible thing said since the beginning of this thread. Why is it that every week or two somebody tries to beat the paladin & alignment horse to death again? Is it because alignment is the most loosely-defined system in the game, that nevertheless has major consequences for certain character classes?
I mean, if we were looking for a RAW answer, it's right there in the core rulebook.
Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
Paladins. Serve. Virtuous. Deities.
Virtuous by definition implies at least good, if not lawful good.
But I do understand players who want all the cool paladin abilities (very cool compared to a vanilla fighter!) without the constraints of being lawful good, honorable, virtuous and so on. Just like I'd love to play a full 9-spell level wizard with d10 hit dice and full BAB.
The game is all about choices. There are quite a number of classes that can stand in for holy warriors of other alignments, let's just leave paladins in the LG camp.
Is there anything preventing a paladin from worshiping an evil deity?Yes.
Common sense.A misnomer if ever there was one.sadly, very true.Virtuous by definition implies at least good, if not lawful good.
Actually the books have paladins who worship Lawful neutral deities such as Abadar.
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.Therefore, they cannot accept a deity who is not lawful good.
2) The sentence immediately following the one about avoiding evil characters explains the exception. It says he may ally with evil associates ONLY under exceptional circumstances to defeat a greater evil and must regularly atone for such an act indicating the act is a violation of his moral code.
3) It may indeed make a good story and thus a GM may choose to allow it and it certainly won't break the game to do so. However, whether or not breaking the rules makes for a good story, fun game, or whatever isn't relevant to determining what the rules actually are.
They most certainly can have a deity who is not Lawful Good. Abadar, a LN god has paladins, Sarenrae who is a NG god has paladins, Shelyn. All of the paladin codes for these gods can be found in Inner Sea Gods. You can also find Sarenrae and Shelyn's code in Faiths of Purity and Abadar's in Faiths of Balance.
Also, the Associates clause is not part of the Code of Conduct. It is a separate section of the paladin.
The rules on clerics seem to suggest that paladins can serve a deity one step removed from LG. I even recall in DD3.5 there was a specific exception to allow paladins to serve a CG Faerun deity.
This does not, however, appear to be in the PF core rulebook RAW.
I'm not surprised at all to find paladins serving LN or CN or even CG deities in PF, since many writers are doubtless harkening back to their DD3.5 days.
But wanting them to serve (or "worship") evil gods... that's just too much.
Inner Sea Gods has the rules for paladins of pretty much all the core deities.
A long time ago (in a country far, far away - I live in NZ now), I wrote a 3.5 OGL book for Postmortem studios which rewrote the Paladin so that it became a 20 level "holy warrior" class for any deity. I wrote class abilities based off domains, and swapped smite evil for smite infidel, or something like that, it's been ages since I wrote it.
Each deity's "paladin" looked very different, and they all fitted their deity nicely. It was a bugger to write, and I've no idea how many of the Postmortem sold. Thinking about it, it was quite similar to the Warpriest without the 6 level spellcasting (I stuck to a minor 4 level progression).
If you want paladins for everyone, that's the kind of thing you should be using, the Warpriest. Wheldrake had it right upthread. Just leave the Paladin as written be. How can a character be forbidden from associating with evil mortals except when absolutely necessary, but be allowed to pledge their soul to an evil deity?? Really?
Here in France, I am struggling to find some PFS players in my region. Is it as hard in NZ?
The thing that makes any discussion about alignment so entertaining to watch is that people have such diametically opposed views, and the strong desire that their views prevail over lesser entities. <g>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW: Nothing happens.
RAI: If the association is intentional, the paladin risks falling.
If I'm GM: A paladin who unknowingly has chaotic or evil associates will start receiving omens and veiled warnings as clues that everything is not as it seems.
Your answers contradict the RAW, even the one where you claim it is RAW.
RAW: The entire section entitled Ex-Paladins states what happens if a paladin violates ANY of the restrictions on his or her class. That includes both the code of conduct and the association restrictions. You have offered no evidence to support limiting that section to just the code of conduct and interpreting it that way ignores the context.
1) The code of conduct already specifies that a paladin looses his abilities if it is violated so repeating that in the Ex-Paladins section is redundant unless that section applies to both preceding restrictions.
2) The association section does stated that one should atone if forced to associate with evil creatures. If there is nothing wrong with the paladin's actions, i.e. if associating with evil creatures isn't itself an evil act, then there is no reason to even suggest atonement at all. Atonement is needed only if the paladin has violated his code of conduct or the precepts of his deity. So violating the association restrictions is a breach of his code of conduct.
RAI: There is nothing in the context to suggest the word "knowingly". That is simply question begging. Simply asserting that fact doesn't make your argument correct.
IF I'm GM: As I've said before this is completely irrelevant. You are free to play that way. In fact I think that sounds like a pretty darn good way to play it and that your players would have a lot of fun with it. It doesn't change what the rules in the book say though.
** spoiler omitted **
The thing that makes any discussion about alignment so entertaining to watch is that people have such diametically opposed views, and the strong desire that their views prevail over lesser entities. <g>
Wheldrake, if you can't find players near you in NZ you might try taking a look at Roll 20 virtual tabletop online at http://roll20.net.
Inner Sea Gods has the rules for paladins of pretty much all the core deities.
Not all. None of the chaotic good, true neutral, or lawful evil deities have paladin or antipaladin codes. Of the lawful neutral deities, Abadar has a paladin code but Irori does not -- but the paladin of Irori is an archetype in Inner Sea Combat.
So, in general, the one step rule for deity alignment does seem to apply to paladins and antipaladins.
Inner Sea Gods has the rules for paladins of pretty much all the core deities.Not all. None of the chaotic good, true neutral, or lawful evil deities have paladin or antipaladin codes. Of the lawful neutral deities, Abadar has a paladin code but Irori does not -- but the paladin of Irori is an archetype in Inner Sea Combat.
So, in general, the one step rule for deity alignment does seem to apply to paladins and antipaladins.
It flat out says that those deities don't have paladins.
The Irori paladins I believe came out after the Inner Sea Gods book. At least, they were close enough in release to know that they were not written in tandem.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a paladin want to worship an evil deity? I don't see how that could ever be a good idea.
In most game settings, where evil gods usually always where evil gods, and there's no real concept of gods changing alignment, that might be an odd choice.
But in Golarion, where Dou-Bral (a good god) became Zon-Kuthon (an evil god), and where Arazni (a good crusader goddess) became a lich-queen, there is the possibility that someone could revere the ancient faith of Dou-Bral, and hold out some faint hope that he might be redeemed / saved from whatever darkness have overtaken him. That would certainly not be the same thing as a Paladin worshipping Zon-Kuthon as he is now, but it would leave plenty of room for a Paladin who supports the ideals of Dou-Bral (and his sister, Shelyn), and hasn't totally given up on the notion that Dou-Bral could be reborn.
Similarly, in Golarion, there's an entire order called the Knights of Ozem, founded by Arazni, who revered her for many centuries. She's all dead now, and her body has been raised up as the lich-queen of Geb, but there's no reason at all that a Paladin of the Knights of Ozem couldn't still honor the teachings and tenets of Arazni, without being particularly fond of the lich-queen Arazni.
Other people might look at said Paladin funny when he says that he follows the teachings of Arazni (the *original* Arazni), but that's their own knee-jerk assumptions and prejudices, not at all a problem with him or his code.
As with so many things about the game, if someone gets all het up and claims that you're playing it wrong because you actually thought about your character and are not playing a pre-generated concept that somebody else wrote for you, they're the ones who are wrong.
Further muddying the waters, there are evil gods of deception, heresy and trickery out there. The goddess of trickery is actually supporting a *fake god,* quite possibly because it tickles her funny bone. It would be 100% on-theme for an evil trickster god to support an order of Paladins, and for them to have no clue. (Indeed, it makes *less sense* that such a thing would not be happening! It fits even better in settings where different evil faiths are in direct competition and conflict. If there's a Blood War, or if Hellknights are being sent to oppose a Demonic Worldworund, then it totally makes sense that the forces of one evil would empower champions able to Smite Evil, since there's nowhere on the planet that they would ever benefit from a champion able to Smite Good. Smite Good's kind of useless, from an evil point of view, since your biggest enemies and rivals will almost never be angels, from all those angel-dominated countries (cue chirping crickets, because there aren't any) and almost always be undead, demons, devils, etc.)
The only reason Asmodeus *wouldn't* covertly or overtly sponsor orders of evil-smiting Paladins would be because A) he can't, or B) he's stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if you're tricked into service? Evil gods can be very manipulative. Posing as another god (or messenger for such) is totally in keeping with being a tricksy evil person, tricking them to sign (literally) themselves over into service to be your Champion, only to eventually have them realize (through gaming) that they've been tricked...seems like one of the most classic ways to have something happen.
Also, so this means non-LG gods simply don't have a Paladin equivalent? Feels like, in the grand scene, that gives LG gods a huge power boost.
Paladins do not get their abilities from a deity, they get their abilities from being a non swaying, stalwart defender of things good and lawful. They get their abilities from following their code, NOT from following a deity.
The question is about worshiping an evil god, which would mean following that god's tenets, observing that gods rites, etc. An evil gods rites are bound to include some items that are going to be considered evil. We're not talking about a Paladin being duped into doing something for the evil god, we're talking about WORSHIPING an evil god. If the Paladin takes place in, or turns a blind eye towards the rites and tenets that are evil, the Paladin breaks the code and falls, or has to atone.
|
|
I actually generally agree that the association clause is part of the code of conduct and that the best reading of it prohibits worship of an evil deity.
However, I also feel that the code cannot be effectively adjudicated without GM discretion - for example, what constitutes an evil or dishonourable act - and that the relatively loose wording of the associates clause in particular invites GM interpretation. For example, while it doesn't explicitly say you can't "knowingly" associate, it's still possible to "avoid" association as required even if you occasionally unknowingly associate with an evil character (who is not a henchman, cohort, or follower).
(Also, for the record, I don't think a tragic character is necessarily edgy, violent, or grimdark.)
I mean, if we were looking for a RAW answer, it's right there in the core rulebook.
Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.Paladins. Serve. Virtuous. Deities.
That on the other hand is flavour text and not binding.
Or would you say that a barbarian can't put ranks in int-based skills or Profession (soldier) because "conflict is all these brutal souls know" and they "know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare"?
Weirdo, if you can simply choose to ignore that part of the core rulebook that contradicts an untenable position and claim that it is still RAW, then the very concept of RAW loses its meaning.
The so-called "flavor" text of barbarians isn't problematical at all. There are many kinds of conflict; "little" is not "nothing".
You know nothing, John Snow.
|
|
Weirdo, if you can simply choose to ignore that part of the core rulebook that contradicts an untenable position and claim that it is still RAW, then the very concept of RAW loses its meaning.
No, the part of the rulebook that contradicts the "untenable" position of a paladin of an evil deity is the associations clause which is clearly rules, not flavour text.
The so-called "flavor" text of barbarians isn't problematical at all. There are many kinds of conflict; "little" is not "nothing".
The first part, "conflict is all these brutal souls know" clearly means, if read as RAW, that barbarians can know nothing that is not conflict. So no Knowledge (nature) or Craft, even though these are class skills for the barbarian. (If you're going to argue that these skills involve "conflict" I'll argue that Asmodeus is "virtuous" for certain values of "virtue.") The second part, RAW, limits what they can know within the category of conflict.
And it's not just the barbarian's flavour text:
Bards are required to place ranks in Charisma-based skills and/or learn enchantment spells in order to become "adept in the arts of persuasion, manipulation, and inspiration." Also, they are "quick-witted" so no dumping Int allowed.
Rangers are "Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters" - You are not allowed to play an impulsive, impatient ranger.
"Cavaliers are skilled at fighting from horseback" so they are not just encouraged but required to take the Ride skill and/or Mounted Combat line of feats, even if they take the Huntmaster archetype and trade away their mount and charging class features (note the huntmaster archetype reads "Huntmasters train the beasts favored by lordly castes into swift and deadly trackers" but doesn't say that they do this instead of learning mounted combat so the earlier requirement is not negated).
Inquisitors have this all over the place:
- "Grim and determined," - not allowed to be a cheerful Inquisitor who puts people off-guard with humour.
- "They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone" so they're not allowed to join an order, accept a commander, etc., because then they would answer to someone other than the deity and themselves.
- "and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals" - Is this supposed to be like the opposite of a paladin's code? If a good inquisitor can perform an evil act for the greater good, they must?
Not to mention that paladins don't always have to serve a deity, which means that there are cases in which they cannot "embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
EDIT:
You know nothing, John Snow.
By the way, this is neither cute, nor funny, it's patronizing.
<shrug>
Hey, if we can't make humorous quotes from Game of Thrones, what *is* the world coming to?
Regarding paladins, it seems to me that there are *multiple* reasons why a paladin can't worship an evil god, and that we at least agree on one of them.
IMHO, RAW isn't the be all and end all of all things. Take Sacred Geometry, for instance. Please. <g>
|
|
Humour's good, GoT is peachy, but there's a time and place for mockery and in the middle of a debate it comes off as a sideways/backhanded personal attack. Rustled my jimmies.
IMHO, RAW isn't the be all and end all of all things. Take Sacred Geometry, for instance. Please. <g>
I'd rather not, thanks. XP
Play nice guys.
Also I got the joke and thought it was funny.