"The only exception to the above sanctuary laws is combat associated
with Landmarking. There are already publicly accepted laws to regulate
landmarking combat and those who landmark must acknowledge the inherent
risks" - HELP LAWS BLOODLOCH

Above is an excerpt from the Laws of Bloodloch which are clearly defined
in the HELP LAWS BLOODLOCH scroll. Bloodloch law has exceptions for
landmarking. Your own laws allow for such fleeing, why should ours not?

On to the next part of your post..

"their supposed side of their treaty"

I'm sorry, Strung, I don't remember signing any treaty with Bloodloch. I
do remember an unconditional surrender in which we created a treaty that
had certain stipulations to Bloodloch, but I don't remember Enorian
having many stipulations in return. A Sanctuary law most definitely was
not one. Enorian does have a set of rules we follow, and when there are
complaints about people, steps are taken.

But Marharet was landmarking. She chose to be at the Shrine of Ascension
and she chose to participate in that ill-conceived killfest. Just as you
do. Just as Talinon did. Just as countless others have over the years.
Each consequence has a reaction and I'm sorry that you couldn't kill
Talinon because he fled, but threatening to kill someone who had no
affiliation with the conflict whatsoever - I thought even that was above
you, Strung.

"However, the recent breaking of the law with Talinon killing Mahariel
from inside of Enorian gives me an idea."

"Law Protected Guest Status shall not apply to the undead, Vampires,
Bloodborn or Necromancers." - HELP LAWS ENORIAN

What law was broken when a non-protected individual was slain inside of
Enorian?

Base your arguments in fact, instead of this propaganda you're so good
at creating, and perhaps the Council will take you seriously. Continue
to do as you are now, and spread lies and half-truths, and we'll simply
laugh at you while you whine.

-Daskalos Qefin, Vizier of Enorian

Penned by my hand on the 18th of Ios, in the year 167 MA.