"Neutrality" is one of those words that is defined differently to suit
whatever argument is trying to be made. Unfortunately, very few people
choose to use the literal meaning of "neutral". For amusement, let's
revisit this.

One of the ways to interpret "neutral" is 'not engaged on either side;
specifically, not aligned with a political or ideological grouping'. If
that is what Ashtan intends to do, then it could not even stand for
itself as "Ashtan" is a political grouping.

Another way to interpret "neutral" is 'of or relating to a neutral state
or power'. If Ashtan chooses this interpretation, I fear for its ability
to do anything at all besides sitting on the fence, instead choosing to
stand behind the mantle of "we're neutral!" Choosing to remain neutral
on -every single issue- makes it not worth dealing with Ashtan at all,
as it won't actually impact anything or take a stand on anything.

A final way to interpret "neutral" is 'not decided or pronounced as to
characteristics'. If -that- is Ashtan's path, how dreadfully boring it
would be to live there. Everything would be doomed to be bland and
uninteresting.

All I want to know from Ashtan is this: What do you plan on -doing- with
all your improvements? Ravek answered it in part, when he spoke about
being a multicultural hub. That's positive, that gives Ashtan some sort
of goal and vision to shape. I find it incredibly difficult for any
guild to make the decision to move to Ashtan without knowing if Ashtan
is going to end up standing for the same things that the guild is. What
happens if, say, the Paladins and Infernals both decided to move to
Ashtan? Or the Indorani and the Luminaries? As a Guildmaster, that's the
sort of thing I would ask myself before making such a huge decision as
to moving the -entirety- of my guild and changing laws to allow
citizenship, etc.

Maybe that's a bit crazy. No one ever said leaders were sane.

Rosalind Fiadhaich

Penned by my hand on the 9th of Lleian, in the year 141 MA.