| Sep 22 - 07:28:42 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| Rogue Ethics | Started by: TheWeasel on Jan 30, '08 23:44 |
|
"The Weasel" orders two underlings to drive to the ends of the block and sequester all pedestrians in between. With this captive audience forced to listen, the shrewd man begins to think out loud These streets are still stained red. I have to wonder if it would look like this if things had been a little different the other day. People were going to die, that much is certain, but perhaps the loss of human life would not have been so great if those who went out on their own had greater moral scruples. I, thankfully, was tucked away safe in my bed while most of this went on. I didn't even wake up to the sounds of gunshots. Word travels fast, however, and one thing I heard was that Algernon was sending invitations to surviving members of Moretay's family, many of whom did not realize that accepting the invitation would result in their death. If this is inaccurate, I apologize to Algernon's friends and family for perpetuating a false rumor. If it is accurate, then I care not whether I speak ill of the man. Similar things have certainly happened in the past, so it's something that should be discussed to some extent. Where does a rogue's intentions cross the line? First of all, it is rarely acceptable to go rogue. You can rightfully say that going rogue inherently crosses a line, but some situations are more understandable than others. Selfish behavior to recruit innocents is an immoral tactic in my opinion. We are criminals, but we are not monsters. I propose that a rogue should have a purpose to their action, and to do whatever is in their power to keep uninvolved parties out of the fray. Being a rogue already smells of disloyalty. Having some sort of ethics attached to their conduct might be their only saving grace. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
"When someone goes rogue the best way they can justify it is not through boredom or just to kick up some drama, but by doing it because of something they strongly believe in. "Other than that, though I misinterpreted Algernon's motive to set up an HQ, I think if someone is trying to re-build a family within a rogue HQ, this should be accepted on some level, or at least for a small ammount of time until a decision can be made as to if they remian up, or the family is forced to disperse. "At that point they will test the loyalty of those members, no doubt..." |
|
| Reply by: Fisk_Capizzi at Jan 30, '08 23:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I guess there needs to be a distinction among the rogue classes. Someone who is sponsored and in a family who decides to go it on his own and sets up... rogue. Someone who is not sponsored due to a recent assassination or war, or setting up to provide homes to the recently homeless while they coordinate plans for safety... I guess it could be classified as unauthorized. Rogues are always unauthorized, but are the unauthorized always rogues? I always felt the term rogue was a bit too over-encompassing. Regardless, those who go bold without seeking the nod of approval from the councilship of established leaders will in most cases find themselves sleepin' wit da fishes... but I guess there can be a few honorable intentions in a sea of rogues. |
|
| Reply by: Caitlin_McConnell at Jan 31, '08 00:34 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
