(SPOILER) Raubahn and Teledji.

[Frederick22]

If that was the case he could have just dropped the act the moment Teledji died.

More to the point,

why did he keep the Sultana drugged when he had the means to wake her? Its notable that he only changed his whole tune the moment he learned that Ul'dah was likely facing yet another Garlean invasion. Suddenly the Scions and Raubahn had a use again. Lets be clear, even if he wasn't completely behind what happened to the Scions (and the thing with the Crystal Braves definitely was) he let it happen and did nothing to mitigate damage to the organisation. Raubahn might have some reason to forgive him but he's never given a reason that justifies what he did to the Scions.

He couldnt, he needed to go with the wind to avoid any suspicios. But oh wait? did we have reprecussions? Did we were chased like criminals?
Remember that Lorolito end bussineswith Ilberld fast, so yea was not his idea.

[Jonnycbad]

We would never, in a cutscene, draw our weapons and mutilate an NPC for a multitude of reasons:


1) We are, in essence, chaotic-good.
2) I'm sure for job-lore/RP purposes, having a White Mage or Scholar draw their weapon and murder an NPC would be odd.

The work around is, anyone who we do kill has to be a combatant whom attacks us or threatens to harm others.

[Jonnycbad]

Also they don't want to have your character be forced to murder anyone in a cutscene for the small number of players who RP and may play a pacifist healer (in which case, if engaged in combat, the loophole is these players didn't kill the NPC but rather they kept alive their allies with healing magic and those players did the dirty work). But to force all players to draw their weapon to strike down an NPC automatically would make some players unhappy

[Daralii]

We would never, in a cutscene, draw our weapons and mutilate an NPC for a multitude of reasons:


1) We are, in essence, chaotic-good.
2) I'm sure for job-lore/RP purposes, having a White Mage or Scholar draw their weapon and murder an NPC would be odd.

The work around is, anyone who we do kill has to be a combatant whom attacks us or threatens to harm others.

Doesn't mean the WoL doesn't enjoy revenge. One of the dialogue options after the Vault was something like "I'll tear out Zephirin's heart for what he did. A life for a life."

[Cilia]

We would never, in a cutscene, draw our weapons and mutilate an NPC for a multitude of reasons:


1) We are, in essence, chaotic-good.
2) I'm sure for job-lore/RP purposes, having a White Mage or Scholar draw their weapon and murder an NPC would be odd.

The work around is, anyone who we do kill has to be a combatant whom attacks us or threatens to harm others.

Neutral good, actually, unless you're a dark knight. Even then, you're still more neutral good than chaotic good, since you never take any initiative against the corruption in Ishgard or elsewhere.

... but that's arguing semantics. Either way, we can only fight and kill people who are disturbing the peace or are corrupt because that's what the kind of hero we are does. This isn't that kind of story.

Doesn't mean the WoL doesn't enjoy revenge. One of the dialogue options after the Vault was something like "I'll tear out Zephirin's heart for what he did. A life for a life."

Well, yes, but in the end even if we do have a selfish reason for fighting and killing the Archbishop and the Heavens' Ward, they have to be stopped for reasons beyond our personal grudge.

[Khalithar]

2) I'm sure for job-lore/RP purposes, having a White Mage or Scholar draw their weapon and murder an NPC would be odd.

It is kind of funny when all your characters draw their weapons and you see the sch/arcanist/smn open up their book. But I'd love to see a scholar do that, maybe with something "time for your lesson in pain" or "I'm going to get creative with my anatomy study" then clubbing them with it.

[Rannie]

Doesn't mean the WoL doesn't enjoy revenge. One of the dialogue options after the Vault was something like "I'll tear out Zephirin's heart for what he did. A life for a life."

I wish we could have done that to that knight and I wish I could replay that scene so I can choose that answer again and again and again. .....

[Theodric]

I wish we could have done that to that knight and I wish I could replay that scene so I can choose that answer again and again and again. .....

Ser Zephirin didn't really do anything to justify being tortured. He was protecting his people and his charge - and saw the Warrior of Light as a threat. Haurchefant chose to get in the way and yes, his death was unfortunate, but you don't see a massive change in a society like Ishgard without prominent individuals perishing.

[Lauront]

I wish we could have done that to that knight and I wish I could replay that scene so I can choose that answer again and again and again. .....

For what? Preventing the Archbishop's plans from being unravelled by his untimely death, even assuming that that was achieved, which was by no means a given? What would torturing him accomplish? Like Graeham said, he chose to throw himself in the face of danger. Zephirin did nothing deserving of torture. The Archbishop himself, like the Garleans, although misguided, wanted to put an end to powers that had long been terrorising Eorzea and which threatened its very existence.

[Rannie]

Seeing as how our character was the target for the untimely death yeah it warrants the Knights death it doesn't matter if he jumped in the way as a sacrifice. And my comment was to be able to chose the vengeance portion over and over (meaning the whole I'll rip his heart out). I liked haurchefant and due to the knight he's gone.