If a Lawful Good god got a mortal pregnant outside of wedlock,

>>55410638
uhh probably not. Out of wedlock conception is pretty low on the sin-o-meter as long as he's not a dead beat

Neither.
Not being married isn't an issue except for the most literal definiton of "Lawful". It might be a little sketchy (this, of course, depends on the setting and any tenets of the god in question), but even if you were to count premarital sex as Chaotic, it would take far more than this one instance to result in a significant change.
If anything did happen to the god in question, it would have to be rape or several instances of impregnating mortal women.

>>55410638
There is literally nothing wrong with getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Also if marriage is granted by this god and he makes the rules about it, then he can just decree that he has married [PERSON] and now they will bear his child.

>>55410638

A Cleric gets power from the god OR from a source of magic.
If the God is the source, then nothing would happen.
It's the God that decides who qualifies for their power.

Also: your thread is shit. I honestly hope you develop visible herpes on your mouth.

Well this was a short and pointless thread. Thanks for playing

>>55410844
Perharps by post-modernist cuckold standarts, but historically it was worse than murder

>>55410638
Alignment is stupid and you are stupid for posting this thread.

>>55411332
Kill yourself.

File: 1419529314894.gif (2MB, 300x174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x174px

>>55411332
>those pre-modern manly men put ethical weight behind fidelity... also 2017 buzzword cuck cuck cuck
Are you trolling, or are you for real?

Unless you were a landed noble with an existing legitimate heir and a title significant enough for your bastard son to try and challenge your legitimate heir for, nobody gave a flying fuck, and even then, as long as you got married before the baby was born, and didn't violate any pre-pubescent contracts your parents made for you, people just sort of shut the fuck up about it for the greater good of the kingdom.

Now, we're dealing with gods, who are immortal, and therefore don't concern themselves with things like inheritance, because they don't plan on dying and bequeathing their title and holdings to anybody, save for perhaps a few gifts here and there to their more favored Demigods. Primogeniture doesn't mean SHIT to immortal beings.

In the "ethical" context you are talking about, "marriage" is a legal contract for the consolidation and long-term security of land holdings, and violating or foregoing that contract was "bad" because it threatened to destabilize the house/fief/kingdom. The house/fief/kingdom of Pelor/Yahweh is in NO way destabilized or threatened by a half-mortal bastard.

>>55411332
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just desperate for (You)s and not this sad and retarded.

>>55410638
Why would a god fall from grace?
He IS the one who makes his rules.

>>55411356
> such butthurt
> much fanny flustering
> wow

File: 1505317657160.gif (4MB, 1186x1200px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1186x1200px

>>55410638
The paladin/cleric falls unless he immediately marries the woman.
If the paladin/cleric is already married, than they fall.

>>55411332

>Worse than murder

"I knew I loved her when I saw the light in her eyes, reflecting off of her father's shotgun..."

It didn't fucking matter as long as everyone involved was smart enough to take their role.

To answer OP, no. Just dicking a mortal is not morally evil in the DND alignment system.

If they did something bad enough to shift, the Cleric would have feedback: his power isn't his alignment anymore, but his faith is going to push him towards the new alignment.

A Paladin doesn't fucking care; He kept his vows. The worst that could happen to him is a short stint of weakness before being patroned by an appropriate god, if he isn't entirely supported by his own conviction and faith.

historically people were furious about it

in ancient mythology it happened all the time

in modern times marriage is first and foremost a financial union and has little to do with love

File: outside the painted world prisilla.png (526KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1024x768px

>>55413540
>get rid of arranged marriages and a bunch of old customs for personal freedom and push it in the name of love
>it doesn't change anything fundamentally because at the same time culture is shifted towards a focus on various materialist ideologies, so now what was before a problem for nobility is everyone's issue
What can men do?

File: 0908a9acc4c130d535122d306baa2b990e83f757e9fd37e2204a8c365e72188d.jpg (10KB, 229x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 229x255px

>>55410638
You do realize Mary didn't actually have sex with God, right anon? That she became pregnant by miracle rather than dick?

>>55410638

Neither, God is not a man and is omnipotent and so does not abide by the normal rules.

>>55413540
>in modern times marriage is first and foremost a financial union and has little to do with love
Love marriages (or at least marriages including love) are probably a lot more common now than before when marriage was just a familial alliance and dowry schemes.

>>55410638
If we're using Christianity as a guide God is pretty much Lawful Evil and having a child shifted his alignment to Lawful Good. Can't see why the opposite would happen.

File: 1501360640427.jpg (43KB, 214x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 214x400px

>>55413853
>having a child
>implying God (including Jesus) isn't unchanging and eternal
Begin, arius

>>55413786
>You do realize Mary didn't actually have sex with God, right anon?
Yes
>That she became pregnant by miracle rather than dick?
You do realize that things doesn't happen like that irl, right?

>>55410638
>implying marriage outside of wedlock isn't lawful good
Where'd marriage come from, huh?

>>55413874
Arianism makes more sense though you filthy nicean.

>>55410638
Neither because alignment isn't defined by whatever primitive laws apply to a given region. These are philosophical alignments not tests of legality.

File: 19fc662874cbf675bcd4f2ac560ddf87a3609d57e413af805e1ce0899cd016d5.jpg (36KB, 480x679px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x679px

>>55413877
Ah yes, Mr. Atheist, thank you for telling me that my religion is wrong. I at last see the light, you are obviously the superior intelligence.

>>55410638
>forgetting that evil and good are determined by the gods in question
Nope.
Nothing, see above.

>>55413874
>>55413897
>caring about fake schisms made up to destitute politically incovenient bishops.

>>55413874
*I meant begone, it's fucking late
>>55413897
You simply cannot reconcile the murder of evil idolaters with the blessings and passion of Christ, I see.

>>55413916
I was just making fun of your post because you were bringing up muh fedora just for the picture.
No offence dude but you are sounding as euphoric as actual fedoras here.

File: 1505525273321.png (14KB, 555x407px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 555x407px

>>55413940
Truly I've become the monster I fought. I've lost this contest of irony

>>55413926
Christ was cool with the OT. All of it. Every "jot and tittle". He's no better than YHVH. They're both murderous monsters. Lucifer fed Eve the fruit of knowledge to liberate humanity from God's tyranny.

>>55414069
Hypocrite.

>>55410638
Lawful Good ≠ Puritan. The out of wedlock thing need not be a big deal. However, I do think they'd do everything they could to take care of the child and raise them well, not because of some sense of guilt, but out of simple parental love.

>>55413877
>Implying the infinte and eternal creator of the universe has limits

There was no sex involved in the conception of Christ. She is literally the Virgin Mary, hence the miracle.

File: Bemused Hitler.jpg (66KB, 634x727px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 634x727px

>>55411332
>post-modernist cuckold standarts
Oh, it's this kind of a thraed.

>>55413897
Fucking Arians are still around? Logos is eternal, senpai. Mary is the Theotokos. Take your heresy elsewhere.

File: vampires for palor.png (322KB, 1003x3232px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1003x3232px

>>55413903

But surely a god that, possesed and embodying the domain of Law, lays down said law restricting sex before marriage only to then violate both it and an unwed girl would cease to embody said domain of law.

Indeed, would not that god, by its actions, begin to embody premarital sex and not law? For is not even a god defined by its works as much if not more than by either the belief of its worshippers or its intrinsic essentiality?

>>55413696

Wait for artificial intelligences and robots.