>Anyone...ANYONE...who doesn't think the outlanders, and the
>scions, uninductions were COMPLETELY called for, is a total.
>Complete. Moron.

I'm more inclined to say the Outlanders deserved it more. Not because they grouped with Scions, but because of what they had to do to get into Hell in the first place. The nightwalker being attacked...meh. I've accidentally been targeted by evil groupmates when I was playing an evil, and I didn't feel like it was breaking role not to immediately attack them. My character recognizes that, in the heat of battle, someone might misfire a spell and hit something other than the intended target. Now, if he'd let the walker sit there and die, then I'd say that's grounds for immediate uninduction. Or, possibly, for all subsequent nightwalkers that person calls to be aggro to him. But he didnt'. He released it, which was the best thing he could do in the situation.

HOWEVER. Once the order was given for the Scions to kill the offending cabal member, and they sat around doing nothing, then I say let them have it. Maybe not the healer, since at least he was quick to attack, though why he didn't faerie fire a transmuter is somewhat confusing.

>I don't believe that losing players that will :
>make potions as ragers, or break role in equally astounding an
>mind-bogglingly stupid ways (like those in the log I read),
>then complain when they are caught,
>Will be missed, at least by me.

I can't speak for all of them, but at least one of the players involved has had a number of (imho) "notably well-roleplayed" characters. Maybe others would disagree with me, but I think it would be unfortunate if that person stopped playing. We'll see.