After skim reading your amusing post, am I right in thinking it was a smart arse windbag way of saying: yes I am a hypocrite and I will continue to piously spout one thing while doing the opposite? This is a rhetorical question by the way.

Regarding the whole issue of temples. Zakath, after summoning me out of Lord Castigere's temple, pointed out that protection is only afforded to someone in their patron's temple. I have always seen Zakath as a kind of Avalonian contract lawyer, so I rely on him to be right on the finely sliced points of the law. I guess, judging by the amount of time people from all cities spend in temples, that they serve the purpose of allowing someone to be in Avalon while being free not to other things rather than

concentrate on being attacked. Such as learning, talking to other players etc.

If it is judged that temples no longer offer any protection, then that is fine by me. I will bear that in mind and if I don't want to fight, make some other arrangement. Is that what is desired by mortals or gods?

Regarding Aja's response to Gandalph, I appreciate that temples aren't so important to people who can go to treetops or sewers. But just saying \"well you do it too\" doesn't get us far. In fact I have never seen a Springdalian attack anyone in their patron's temple. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it must be rare. Similarly few Thakrians attack people in temples.

So, are people in temples fair game, or not? That's the point.

Written by my hand on the 25th of Agamnion, in the year 1163.