Can the other priests buff or heal Roy?

[cbarrett76]

So the priests can't attack the HPoH but is there any rule against casting a buff or healing Roy? They wouldn't be "attacking" the HPoP if they did that...

[NerdyKris]

I would imagine aiding someone who is attacking a person counts as attacking that person.

Although I doubt it would come down to that. Roy only has a round or two at best to remove Durkon from the room. The demi god representatives are being called in right now. He doesn't have time for a protracted fight, he needs to get him out of the room quickly. If the fight lasts long enough for the demi gods to enter and vote, then removing Durkon isn't going to do anything.

[Peelee]

Assumong the clerics of the demigods dont stop for a bit to look at the fight which to their knowledge totally shouldn't be happening but is. Bit of a distraction there.

[SlashDash]

I would imagine it counts as taking part in the battle. Otherwise, they'd pull a redcloak - summon something and "neglect" to tell it not to hurt someone in particular.


I would imagine aiding someone who is attacking a person counts as attacking that person.

Although I doubt it would come down to that. Roy only has a round or two at best to remove Durkon from the room. The demi god representatives are being called in right now. He doesn't have time for a protracted fight, he needs to get him out of the room quickly. If the fight lasts long enough for the demi gods to enter and vote, then removing Durkon isn't going to do anything.

Unless of course other people stall them. Heck, nothing prevents anyone from barricading the door or anything right? That wouldn't count as an attack...
I'm assuming with so many dwarven clerics someone has to have stone shape or something similar.

[dancrilis]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

As such it is likely best that the clerics stay out of this and allow the oddity of a bodyguard attacking there own cleric to pass without interference (it could be argued that the 'yes' clerics have more cause to boost Durkon than the 'no' clerics have to boost Roy - how after all is trying to tamper with a vote between deities).

[woweedd]

So the priests can't attack the HPoH but is there any rule against casting a buff or healing Roy? They wouldn't be "attacking" the HPoP if they did that...
1st Rule Of Robotics:"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
I'd imagine we're operating under similar rules here I.E You can't indirectly harm someone, in this case via helping a person to directly harm them, either.

[Kornaki]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

As such it is likely best that the clerics stay out of this and allow the oddity of a bodyguard attacking there own cleric to pass without interference (it could be argued that the 'yes' clerics have more cause to boost Durkon than the 'no' clerics have to boost Roy - how after all is trying to tamper with a vote between deities).

It's not obvious that the other Northern Pantheon deities are still on board with destroying the world now that they understand the shift in power that will occur.

[NerdyKris]

1st Rule Of Robotics:"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
I'd imagine we're operating under similar rules here I.E You can't indirectly harm someone, in this case via helping a person to directly harm them, either.

Well, that and every legal and moral system in the real world considers helping someone who is committing a crime to also be committing a crime. If I trip a cop who is chasing a robber, that's a crime. If I hide someone who is on the run, that's considered a crime.

[DeliaP]

Well, that and every legal and moral system in the real world considers helping someone who is committing a crime to also be committing a crime. If I trip a cop who is chasing a robber, that's a crime. If I hide someone who is on the run, that's considered a crime.

True.

Except Magic.... Neither Invisibility spells nor Sanctuary are broken if the covered caster restricts themselves to heals and bufffs....

[woweedd]

True.

Except Magic.... Neither Invisibility spells nor Sanctuary are broken if the covered caster restricts themselves to heals and bufffs....
That's for reasons of game balance.

[littlebum2002]

That's for reasons of game balance.

There's no such thing as "game balance" in the OOTS world. If a spell doesn't consider a certain action to be an attack, then it's not an attack.

[Kantaki]

True.

Except Magic.... Neither Invisibility spells nor Sanctuary are broken if the covered caster restricts themselves to heals and bufffs....

But there is still a difference between the rules of regular magic, that at least in the case of arcane spells was developed by mortals, and the rules for a meeting between the gods (or any other bigwigs). Does healing/buffing magic disrupt certain defensive spells? Maybe not, but healing buffing someone who is attacking someone else almost certainly goes against the "no fighting" rule of the Godsmoot.

One is a consequence of the way magic works the other is a "law" the gods put in place to ensure that the meetings stay peaceful and the votes aren't disrupted by the telephones being destroyed.

I don't think the high priests can't support Roy but I think it would Count as attacking Durkon as far as the rules of the Moot are concerned.

[woweedd]

There's no such thing as "game balance" in the OOTS world. If a spell doesn't consider a certain action to be an attack, then it's not an attack.
I know. I was giving the reason why it's that way in the D&D rules which are essentially the physics of the OOTS world or a modified version thereof as fits the story.

[DeliaP]

That's for reasons of game balance.


There's no such thing as "game balance" in the OOTS world. If a spell doesn't consider a certain action to be an attack, then it's not an attack.

I'm 100% behind it morally & ethically being taking active part in the attack. The question is whether it breaks the rules of the godsmoot.

Given they forgot to account for the possibility that a high priest and their bodyguard could attack each other, I really doubt they explicitly included buffing one or the other... Which might mean that the rules will default to whatever the Laws of Thaumodynamics consider to be "attacks".

[Killer Angel]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side..

Not so sure. Not now that is clear that Hel will rule over them.

[Zordrath]

Considering that this is explicitly a meeting of high-powered clerics, I'd be quite surprised if the rules didn't take the most common and obvious cleric abilities into account. Leaving a loophole for cleric buffs or healing would require an absurd level of stupidity unless you actually want that loophole to be exploitable for some reason.

[DeliaP]

Considering that this is explicitly a meeting of high-powered clerics, I'd be quite surprised if the rules didn't take the most common and obvious cleric abilities into account. Leaving a loophole for cleric buffs or healing would require an absurd level of stupidity unless you actually want that loophole to be exploitable for some reason.

But if they thought they'd ruled out the possibility of anyone *making* an attack, there's really no need to consider whether buffing the person making the impossible attack should also be considered (contra the Laws of Thaumodynamics) an attack?

[woweedd]

But if they thought they'd ruled out the possibility of anyone *making* an attack, there's really no need to consider whether buffing the person making the impossible attack should also be considered (contra the Laws of Thaumodynamics) an attack?
I'm guessing they would have accounted for the possibility, what with most Clerics above about 6th level having Wisdom in the literally superhuman range.

[DeliaP]

I'm guessing they would have accounted for the possibility, what with most Clerics above about 6th level having Wisdom in the literally superhuman range.

Um..... except they haven't accounted for it? Because that's why Roy is able to attack Durkula in the first place?

Unless you are suggesting they *intentionally* created a clause that allowed bodyguards to attack their own high priests, for some reason, then *explicitly* stated that other priests couldn't then help by buffing/healing?

[woweedd]

Um..... except they haven't accounted for it? Because that's why Roy is able to attack Durkula in the first place?

Unless you are suggesting they *intentionally* created a clause that allowed bodyguards to attack their own high priests, for some reason, then *explicitly* stated that other priests couldn't then help by buffing/healing?
It seems like basic common sense to prohibit people from aiding an attack against another Cleric as well as from just doing it, given that, as mentioned earlier, healing and buffing are Cleric specialties. I'm guessing the reason they didn't put anything about a bodyguard attacking their own priest is that they assumed no one would be stupid enough to do so in a room full of many other high-level priests.

[SoC175]

Given they forgot to account for the possibility that a high priest and their bodyguard could attack each other, not forget, but not needing to care about. The rules of the moot are their to prevent violence between the churches. An internal struggle within a church doesn't concern the moot.


I really doubt they explicitly included buffing one or the other. as soon AS another party interferes they are bringing it to the level the moot is concerned with

[SlashDash]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

Not exactly. For example, our tiger owning friend is clearly smiling when Roy is jumping at Durkon as is her bodyguard but I'll remind you that her vote was "Yes".


There's no such thing as "game balance" in the OOTS world.
Oh really? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html)

[Lombard]

Roy's ability to attack HPoH appears to be a loophole the godsmoot event planners never considered. He's really just borked their whole little rules construct with this move- it's unprecedented.

It's quite easy to argue that the 'letter' of the rule would allow other clerics to buff or heal Roy, and HPoH for that matter. After all it's not the dictionary definition of attacking. Aiding one's enemy is not the same as a direct attack, even though the indirect effect may be detrimental. We've seen ostensibly neutral nations in real-life conflicts rely heavily on this distinction.

It's also clear however that that 'spirit' of the rule would preclude such actions. Perhaps we'll see clerics' actions revolve around that difference between the letter and the spirit of the rule as per their alignment on the law/neutral/chaos axis. As I recall such philosophical differences fit rather perfectly as determiners of where one's alignment falls along that axis.

I'd find it rather amusing if the clerics/gods end up rules lawyering over this point. I'd also consider this a path to victory for Roy, because if both Roy and HPoH get plentiful healing and buffs from other clerics, from a pure mechanics standpoint I would take Roy and his +5 undead bane greatsword. Most of the other spells would just end up cancelling each other out, and eventually running out, but the damage Roy can inflict with that weapon on HPoH just keeps going.

[woweedd]

Not exactly. For example, our tiger owning friend is clearly smiling when Roy is jumping at Durkon as is her bodyguard but I'll remind you that her vote was "Yes".
She's not the one voting. None of the Priests vote. The Gods are the ones voting. The Priests just relay the message to the mortal world. Don't Shoot The Messenger and all that.

[AbyssStalker]

I don't think they are allowed to assist Roy in any way, and yet for some reason I can't stop imagining how wonderfully ridiculous it would be if this turned into a free-for-all, especially if the vamps and demigods hit the scene.

[Bulldog Psion]

I would imagine aiding someone who is attacking a person counts as attacking that person.

I agree.


Although I doubt it would come down to that. Roy only has a round or two at best to remove Durkon from the room. The demi god representatives are being called in right now. He doesn't have time for a protracted fight, he needs to get him out of the room quickly. If the fight lasts long enough for the demi gods to enter and vote, then removing Durkon isn't going to do anything.

One or two rounds at best? :smallconfused: A D&D combat round is 6 seconds. I doubt I could leave the room I'm typing in, go into the kitchen, gather a group of card-players there, and return to this room in 12 seconds total. And that's in a fairly small apartment.

I'd say that 5 minutes is a bare minimum. If any of them are slow to get moving (there's one in every group), then it'll be more like 10 minutes. That's 50 combat rounds for a 5 minute retrieval, and 100 rounds for a 10 minute one.

Roy has plenty of time to carry out the entire fight, even if it's complex, IMO.

[Peelee]

There's no such thing as "game balance" in the OOTS world. If a spell doesn't consider a certain action to be an attack, then it's not an attack.

A healing spell isn't considered to be an attack, but a vampire might argue that.

[cbarrett76]

I don't think they are allowed to assist Roy in any way, and yet for some reason I can't stop imagining how wonderfully ridiculous it would be if this turned into a free-for-all, especially if the vamps and demigods hit the scene.

I think this all boils down to how the rules were worded and has nothing to do with intent. I think rules for these kind of events are taken word for word and if the rule doesn't say you can't then you probably can. For instance, the rule is (paraphrase) "If a bodyguard attacks a cleric of another deity the bodyguard is to be immediately killed" Since it doesn't say "if a bodyguard attacks a cleric" or "if a bodyguard attacks anyone" or "you can't attack your own cleric if you are a bodyguard" Roy is able to do it.

I think the same applies here DEPENDING ON HOW THE RULE IS WORDED. If the rule says some version of "No cleric may attack another cleric" then all the person has to say "I didn't attack another cleric, I merely healed that body guard over there or gave them a buff." They key here is they didn't "attack" and in fact they didn't do anything to "another Cleric." If the rule was "another cleric may not contribute to the harm of a different cleric" then there would be no way out. But I suspect the wording is more the former than latter.

We have already seen the rules bent once this way by Roy which shows whoever made the rules made them fairly literal. If there is one loophole there may be more. As for the other Gods turning this into a free for all, I don't think that will happen. The new comic shows Hel telling them they can't take it back so it is obvious at least some of the Gods who voted yes are rethinking it now.

I personally think Roy is going to just win on his own merits but it would be fun to see the other priests turn him into a super fighter for a couple rounds so he can mop the floor with HPoP. Or to see them save him last minute and for him to go on to defeat HPoH.

[littlebum2002]

Oh really? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html)

Ha! I stand corrected!

Anyway, I don't think is a loophole at all. There's a huge difference between solving your own beef and starting beef with someone else. I can laugh at my friend's eccentricities all I want, but if you laugh at them then we have a problem. So if a cleric and their bodyguard have a problem, then it's their right to solve that problem as they see fit. Solving differences with your own is totally different than solving differences with another group.

[cbarrett76]

Ha! I stand corrected!

Anyway, I don't think is a loophole at all. There's a huge difference between solving your own beef and starting beef with someone else. I can laugh at my friend's eccentricities all I want, but if you laugh at them then we have a problem. So if a cleric and their bodyguard have a problem, then it's their right to solve that problem as they see fit. Solving differences with your own is totally different than solving differences with another group.

This is more like if your friend punched your grandmother in the face to start the beef with you. In that case you might not mind if other people also beat him up.

[Miriel]

No one mentioned counter-spelling so far. As far as attacking/not attacking goes, the high priest of someone countering HPOH's spells seems more plausible as a possibility within the rules than buffing Roy.


Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

As such it is likely best that the clerics stay out of this and allow the oddity of a bodyguard attacking there own cleric to pass without interference (it could be argued that the 'yes' clerics have more cause to boost Durkon than the 'no' clerics have to boost Roy - how after all is trying to tamper with a vote between deities).
Except that deities wouldn't be involved in buffing or not. Only their clerics, who may or may not have the same opinion about ending the world.

[dancrilis]

Except that deities wouldn't be involved in buffing or not. Only their clerics, who may or may not have the same opinion about ending the world.

Many religious people would likely be reluctant to directly oppose the will of the being that the worship - or to reinterpret that will as the direct opposite of what the divine being has stated.

However lets ignore that, and look at some other ways that the 'yes' mortals could oppose the vote but which they are not engaging in.
1. If a cleric with a 'yes' god wants to void the vote than based on Roy's logic with Durkon the unwilling 'yes' cleric can simply walk out of the room and stay out, thus voiding the vote.
2. If any of the bodyguards of the 'yes' clerics opposed the vote they could follow Roys example and see about killing there cleric, and if they win they would void the vote.

As these (or variants there of) do not seem to be happening I would conclude that the head clerics of the faiths and there chosen protectors are not going to directly oppose the very gods they have dedicated their lives too - or allow there 'no' collegues to cheat the system.

Best option is to sit it out and see how a private matter within Hel's attendents works out - no muss, no fuss, no deific conflict.

[Ramien]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

As such it is likely best that the clerics stay out of this and allow the oddity of a bodyguard attacking there own cleric to pass without interference (it could be argued that the 'yes' clerics have more cause to boost Durkon than the 'no' clerics have to boost Roy - how after all is trying to tamper with a vote between deities).

Not necessarily - some of the deities in question may want to change their vote after Hel spelled out what the likely end result would be - Heimdall in particular got called out and told he couldn't change his vote, after all.

Still, I doubt the clerics will interfere. They're from the Northern gods, they know a good duel when they see one.

[Dalek Kommander]

I'm 100% behind it morally & ethically being taking active part in the attack. The question is whether it breaks the rules of the godsmoot.

Given they forgot to account for the possibility that a high priest and their bodyguard could attack each other, I really doubt they explicitly included buffing one or the other... Which might mean that the rules will default to whatever the Laws of Thaumodynamics consider to be "attacks".

right. I can't think of a sensible reason there would be a blanket, no-exceptions rule against healing other priests and/or their bodyguards under ANY circumstances. What if a priest simply tripped down some stairs, and knocked themselves unconscious? Is there any reason they should be "protected" from being healed?

There is probably an explicit rule against healing people who are actively engaged in violating the rules of the godsmoot, but it's important to remember that Roy isn't doing that. As far as anyone writing the rules could forsee, any injuries Roy might sustain while not violating the rules of the godsmoot are no more significant than if he got them by tripping down some stairs.

[Divusmors]

Easiest way I could possibly see this one happening is if any priest or bodyguard within the godsmoot aside from Belkar helps one side or the other in any way in this fight, it gives the other side of the yay or nay grounds to do the same, so no one is likely to do anything to help in any way.

But judging by the whole system of rules involved in the godsmoot and why they are there, I could see both Durkon and Roy simply being kicked out of the godsmoot as acts of violence wouldn't be tolerated. It is in a way helping Roy since Hel loses her vote, but at the same time it's purely because of the violent actions. As long as Durkon takes a swing at Roy, he's entirely involved (trying to mind control his own bodyguard could be chucked up to peace keeping) and I can't see Durkon just standing there not acting in his own defense while someone is swinging a sword at him.

The most neutral grounds to enforce a rule/law is to inact it upon all involved, not go through lists of right versus wrong, good versus evil, etc to find out who gets punished and who doesn't. This is assuming the godsmoot is trying to remain as neutral as possible, even putting being neutral above doing the right thing.

[Kurald Galain]

Here's a question. Regardless of whether it's against the rules, why should ALL of the clerics care? A number of them are chaotic, and some of them don't want the world destroyed even if their god feels differently. If there ever was a time to renounce your faith, this is it.

[Kantaki]

Here's a question. Regardless of whether it's against the rules, why should ALL of the clerics care? A number of them are chaotic, and some of them don't want the world destroyed even if their god feels differently. If there ever was a time to renounce your faith, this is it.

I don't know, maybe they want to life as long as possible and don't want to be kicked out of their prefered afterlife.

Both attacking a fellow high priest and going against their own god's wishes would put these goals into jeopardy.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't know, maybe they want to life as long as possible

Precisely. If the vote passes, then "as long as possible" will mean "for about five more minutes".

[Kantaki]

Precisely. If the vote passes, then "as long as possible" will mean "for about five more minutes".

That's more than they will have if they break the rules of the Godsmoot. And it risks their comfortable place in the afterlife.

Besides, you don't get to be the high priest of a god if you go against them over something as minor of being killed in the face of utterly annihilation.

[Kurald Galain]

Besides, you don't get to be the high priest of a god if you go against them over something as minor of being killed in the face of utterly annihilation.

That depends on what it's a god of, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Surely lawful priests won't do this. But chaotic priests? Well, why not? Why wouldn't a priest of Secrets keep a secret from his deity? Can a priest of War be faulted if he attacks someone? Why would a god of Monsters even trust his own priests?

[littlebum2002]

This is more like if your friend punched your grandmother in the face to start the beef with you. In that case you might not mind if other people also beat him up.

Well, in this situation, but I'm talking about in general. Those who created the rules of the Godsmoot obviously had to put protections in place to prevent fighting from very varied alignments, but they saw no reason to stop a priest and their bodyguard from fighting if they wanted to, since that's their own business and they have a right to solve that business.

[Kantaki]

That depends on what it's a god of, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

If you don't like ice-cream you shouldn't follow the goddess of ice-cream, who gives a daily ice-cream-feast in her halls of ice-cream for he her followers, much less join her clergy.

Would the high priests prefer being alive? I'm not debating that, but when they die they are taken to the Domain of their respective god, that is a embodiment of said god's agenda and the ideal afterlife for their followers.

Why should they risk that by breaking the rules of the Great Divine Congress?

[Kurald Galain]

Why should they risk that by breaking the rules of the Great Divine Congress?

Because you have family?

Because you could renounce your faith, join another god (who would be grateful!), live another dozen years, and then go to your fave afterlife?

Because you like battle and/or chaos for the heck of it, as could be expected for any high priest of a god of battle or chaos?

Is it really so hard to imagine that one person in a group if 17 high priests of widely differing alignments might have a different opinion than you do?

(edit) come to think of it, Heimdall could just order his priest to walk out of there, without attacking anyone; thereby rescinding his vote and saving the world. Now he probably won't do that because it'd be anticlimatic, but neither do I expect 17 high priests and their retinue to just stand there and do nothing for the next few comics.

[cbarrett76]

Because you have family?

Because you could renounce your faith, join another god (who would be grateful!), live another dozen years, and then go to your fave afterlife?

Because you like battle and/or chaos for the heck of it, as could be expected for any high priest of a god of battle or chaos?

Is it really so hard to imagine that one person in a group if 17 high priests of widely differing alignments might have a different opinion than you do?

(edit) come to think of it, Heimdall could just order his priest to walk out of there, without attacking anyone; thereby rescinding his vote and saving the world. Now he probably won't do that because it'd be anticlimatic, but neither do I expect 17 high priests and their retinue to just stand there and do nothing for the next few comics.


And what if its your God's will that you go against their vote? It sounds like Heimdall is having second thoughts about his vote. Would he really be that mad if his priest did something to counter the original vote or would he be grateful?

Edit - must have added this while you were editing yours :)

[Kantaki]

Because you have family?

Because you could renounce your faith, join another god (who would be grateful!), live another dozen years, and then go to your fave afterlife?

Because you like battle and/or chaos for the heck of it, as could be expected for any high priest of a god of battle or chaos?

Is it really so hard to imagine that one person in a group if 17 high priests of widely differing alignments might have a different opinion than you do?

(edit) come to think of it, Heimdall could just order his priest to walk out of there, without attacking anyone; thereby rescinding his vote and saving the world. Now he probably won't do that because it'd be anticlimatic, but neither do I expect 17 high priests and their retinue to just stand there and do nothing for the next few comics.

Even if some of the hps are willing to help Roy they might be staying out of this to avoid giving those hps that would support Durkon a reason to intervene and vice versa.

And they might renounce their faith? Again you don't get to be the highest ranked member of your respective clergy if your conviction falters that easily.

I'm not saying it can't happen but it seems rather unlikely that anyone breaks the rules and intervenes.

Aunt Edith says: One of the gods withdrawing their vote by making their hp leave the Godsmoot is possible. I doubt that Tyr or Heimdal would do so - their motivation is tied to the Snarl after all - but one of the others might do so.
However it might be that it breaks the no backsies rule that Hel mentioned and Loki regretted introducing. Not to mention that it would be a boring solution.

[littlebum2002]

Guys, we're forgetting the easiest way out of this. One deity (say Heimdall) changes their mind, and lets their high priest and the high priest's bodyguard know about this. Said bodyguard attacks the high priest, and high priest doesn't fight back to sacrifice themselves for the fate of the world. No one is going against their gods, no one is committing an overtly evil act (unless you consider being commanded by your deity to kill someone who is agreeing to being killed evil), and honestly it's not very Chaotic either. I'd consider it a pretty Neutral act. Especially since you have over a dozen clerics willing to Raise this priest when the moot is over.

[Ruslan]

Even simpler, the god who wants to change his vote instructs his priest to leave the room. Priests of Heimdal et al. leave the room, suddenly the Nays have majority.

[Kantaki]

Even simpler, the god who wants to change his vote instructs his priest to leave the room. Priests of Heimdal et al. leave the room, suddenly the Nays have majority.

I doubt leaving the room will suffice, otherwise the Yes-faction would already have won since a Nay-cleric just left to fetch the demigods. Leaving the temple the Moot happens in might count.

However, I doubt that it would be that easy. I think leaving the Moot counts as changing your vote since the effect is more or less the same and thanks to Loki there is a No Backsies rule.

[Ruslan]

I think leaving the Moot counts as changing your vote since the effect is more or less the same and thanks to Loki there is a No Backsies rule.I guess so. Battle Royale between the Yay priests and their bodyguards it is then.

[Reboot]

Guys, we're forgetting the easiest way out of this. One deity (say Heimdall) changes their mind, and lets their high priest and the high priest's bodyguard know about this. Said bodyguard attacks the high priest, and high priest doesn't fight back to sacrifice themselves for the fate of the world. No one is going against their gods, no one is committing an overtly evil act (unless you consider being commanded by your deity to kill someone who is agreeing to being killed evil), and honestly it's not very Chaotic either. I'd consider it a pretty Neutral act. Especially since you have over a dozen clerics willing to Raise this priest when the moot is over.

I doubt they could be so explicit ("no backsies" and all) as to give a direct instruction. But given that everyone presumably heard what Hel said to Heimdall - and Tyr's vote - I don't think a "Yes" priest who has presumably heavily studied (and occasionally communed with) their god deciding to get themselves killed attacking Durkula on the basis that it's what their god would want knowing what they know now is out of the question...

[dancrilis]

Any 'no' deity has an opposing 'yes' deity - as such any cleric that wants to assist Roy in blocking a 'yes' vote would have an opposing cleric within the 'yes' side.

As such it is likely best that the clerics stay out of this and allow the oddity of a bodyguard attacking there own cleric to pass without interference ...

Happy to see that I was correct here.

[Peelee]

If you don't like ice-cream you shouldn't follow the goddess of ice-cream, who gives a daily ice-cream-feast in her halls of ice-cream for he her followers, much less join her clergy.

.....i want to change my vote in the "which deity would you worship" thread to this one.

[Kantaki]

.....i want to change my vote in the "which deity would you worship" thread to this one.

:smallbiggrin:Who wouldn't?