Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Son of the Serpent" data-source="post: 7822923" data-attributes="member: 7015476">I didnt say the oath WOULD be broken.&nbsp; I said COULD (or something of that nature.&nbsp; I can always repost another of my posts to successfully show again how perfectly consistant this is if you wish.&nbsp; Im pretty good at not contradicting myself.)&nbsp; After all, is this hypothetical paladin not in somd capacity present at his grave?&nbsp; Thats funny.&nbsp; I dont think that was ever established.&nbsp; Lots of ways he could be.&nbsp; In many capacities.&nbsp; Didnt i mention that it really depends on a few things?&nbsp; I made that list quite carefully in my very first post.&nbsp; It justifies everything ive said.&nbsp; And how it all can potentially (keyword there) intersect with law.Read the list.&nbsp; Really actually read it.&nbsp; I know ive been acting kinda silly but that list has a strong influence on everything ive said and it does affect a great many things involving the RAW due to how it affects qualifying for anything involving the RAW requirements.Could perhaps there be a deity that utilizes paladins after fleshly death?&nbsp; Oh yeah.&nbsp; a lot of deities do that.&nbsp; And many religions to these deities might have oaths that specify service for eternity.Oh yes.&nbsp; I thought this all through at the beginning.&nbsp; Havent slipped around at all.&nbsp; This is exactly what my position has been from the befinning and there has been no foot shifting.&nbsp; No moving of the goal posts.&nbsp; In essense the first post covers it all.&nbsp; Just not in expanded form.&nbsp; Look good and hard at that first post.&nbsp; Ive followed it perfectly.&nbsp; Slippery.&nbsp; Wd40.&nbsp; Hah.Darn it now i sound like a bond villain just because of how perfectly it all intersects from angles that to other people would probably seem pretty oblique.&nbsp; Ah.&nbsp; But the proof is in the pudding.&nbsp; The perfect consistancy.&nbsp; Mmmmm pudding consistancy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Son of the Serpent, post: 7822923, member: 7015476"] I didnt say the oath WOULD be broken. I said COULD (or something of that nature. I can always repost another of my posts to successfully show again how perfectly consistant this is if you wish. Im pretty good at not contradicting myself.) After all, is this hypothetical paladin not in somd capacity present at his grave? Thats funny. I dont think that was ever established. Lots of ways he could be. In many capacities. Didnt i mention that it really depends on a few things? I made that list quite carefully in my very first post. It justifies everything ive said. And how it all can potentially (keyword there) intersect with law. Read the list. Really actually read it. I know ive been acting kinda silly but that list has a strong influence on everything ive said and it does affect a great many things involving the RAW due to how it affects qualifying for anything involving the RAW requirements. Could perhaps there be a deity that utilizes paladins after fleshly death? Oh yeah. [I]a lot of deities do that. And many religions to these deities might have oaths that specify service for eternity.[/I] Oh yes. I thought this all through at the beginning. Havent slipped around at all. This is exactly what my position has been from the befinning and there has been no foot shifting. No moving of the goal posts. In essense the first post covers it all. Just not in expanded form. Look good and hard at that first post. Ive followed it perfectly. Slippery. Wd40. Hah. Darn it now i sound like a bond villain just because of how perfectly it all intersects from angles that to other people would probably seem pretty oblique. Ah. But the proof is in the pudding. The perfect consistancy. Mmmmm pudding consistancy. [/QUOTE]

Verification