I'm currently at work, so I don't have access to my logs. However, I do not believe that this was the impression I was given through my interviews with both Gherian and Synbendorial, though without rereading the logs I cannot be certain. Rest assured, when I get home, I will bring them here and we can debate what emphasis was placed on maintaining a state of "goodness." Also...the significance of the debate wasn't full looting, but more or less placed the WARLOCK cabal in juxtaposition with MARAN, and their striking similarities and few differences. The question I have is this...

Shokai promotes his cabal on the idea that you do not give in to wounded pride or hate/vengeance, but act according to the need to absolve evil. Further, you do not enjoy it, but do it from a sense of duty. One line that amazed me was player X stipulating that she was angry, so she didn't care that her actions were less than honorable. In fact, that way I see it, they completely broke the bounds of the 'good' RP, and extend even beyond the line of neutrality, into evil. One evil act makes you an evil person. it is up to you to redeem yourself, after the fact. You cannot ignore it, as it sits like a giant blemish on an otherwise immaculate record. So where do you draw the line between an expressed concept of goodness (ie MARAN) and elsewhere claim it to be something else totally(WARLOCK)? It just seems so paradoxical and/or hypocritical, depending on the stance you take.