Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tzarevitch" data-source="post: 86820" data-attributes="member: 1792">I got the part that the rogue didn't go in with the intention of killing her, but from what you said he hit her TWICE. Once can possible be attributed to an error, but twice?!? That is the same logic as someone taking an M60 machine gun into a hostage rescue, gunning down all the hostages while trying to hit the hostage-taker then claming that he didn't intentionally hit the hostages and he wasn't trying to kill them. I am not saying that the cleric shouldn't have been able to raise the girl, I am saying the fact that the cleric can raise the girl doesn't mitigate the fact that the rogue callously mowed her down in the first place. From what you said he injured her badly on the first shot. At that point he KNEW that a second miss could kill ker. He then made a conscious choice.&nbsp; He knew that the chance of killing her was signigicant but he persisted anyway. He then fired the second time, missed the bad guy and killed the hostage. Neutrals could justify that as ends justifying the means, but not good. Personally, I would have had the rogue's alignment slide to neutral (he can try to bring it back up later), and I would've had the town law officials (or the girl's family) demand a significant penance from the rogue. A favor later is just not enough. You do a favor later for someone you stood up on a date, not for someone you just killed.&nbsp; The fact that he had her raised again should be a mitigating factor in assigning penance but the fact remains that he showed a rather callous indifference for her life and he continued with an action that he knew could be lethal to her. Tzarevitch</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tzarevitch, post: 86820, member: 1792"] I got the part that the rogue didn't go in with the intention of killing her, but from what you said he hit her TWICE. Once can possible be attributed to an error, but twice?!? That is the same logic as someone taking an M60 machine gun into a hostage rescue, gunning down all the hostages while trying to hit the hostage-taker then claming that he didn't intentionally hit the hostages and he wasn't trying to kill them. I am not saying that the cleric shouldn't have been able to raise the girl, I am saying the fact that the cleric can raise the girl doesn't mitigate the fact that the rogue callously mowed her down in the first place. From what you said he injured her badly on the first shot. At that point he KNEW that a second miss could kill ker. He then made a conscious choice. He knew that the chance of killing her was signigicant but he persisted anyway. He then fired the second time, missed the bad guy and killed the hostage. Neutrals could justify that as ends justifying the means, but not good. Personally, I would have had the rogue's alignment slide to neutral (he can try to bring it back up later), and I would've had the town law officials (or the girl's family) demand a significant penance from the rogue. A favor later is just not enough. You do a favor later for someone you stood up on a date, not for someone you just killed. The fact that he had her raised again should be a mitigating factor in assigning penance but the fact remains that he showed a rather callous indifference for her life and he continued with an action that he knew could be lethal to her. Tzarevitch [/QUOTE]

Verification