Ripheus23

... In addition to denying the attribute of absolute simplicity to God, this model of the divine nature also denies that God is necessarily good and almighty. For example, if it impossible for a being to necessarily freely will to be good, then God is good contingently. The divine nature is still an ultimate exemplar of what is good, but this is not absolutely necessary. However, to be sure, this does not detract from the divine glory at all, since it would be futile to attribute to this glory a goodness that cannot exist. ...

Now also, however, if ethical truth is determinative of the divine questions (the question of the divine nature), it follows that ethical truth would not allow for any being to be almighty, since if this being chose to be evil, nothing could defeat it and the world would be damned forever. But the world ought not to be damned forever; hence...

It remains to be said that it is possible for a being to have free will without being able to choose evil. Free will in itself is just choice, and since besides the forbidden there are the permitted, the obligated, and that which is beyond the call of duty, it follows that we have a choice even if we can only choose from those three and not also a fourth (evil). Wherefore it would seem possible for God to be necessarily non-evil. If this were so, it would follow that it was possible for God to be almighty, maybe. But I'm not sure.

Now, there doesn't seem to be any "ethical" reason for God not to be omniscient. Indeed, the way in which God knows things seems to be the most specific way in which God is God.

... In those days, during the False Apocalypse, the Sin-knight worked to bring all the world unto Its revelation, the visio malum,* the song of evil. But during the True Apocalypse, when the True Knights do their great work...

[*Opposite the visio beatifico or audio beatifico, the vision or song of God.]