Unlike perceptions, facts are facts.
The facts are that Bloodloch is the one to break treaties.
Bloodloch isn't enforcing the sanctuary agreement, and frankly
most of its allies don't even need one, since they can easily
use chaos planes, misting, blackwinding etc.
You can count it up any way you want it, but it doesn't
matter who gets jumped, if they are outnumbered or bashing
they are likely going to seek safety, no matter who cries
coward the loudest, pointing fingers and casting stones is
not fooling the rest of the world.
Having the Minister of War be involved in two seperate clans
attacking another city and then breaking the treaty for his
city doesn't sound much like they are all unrelated business.
And if anyone would question why a company of Knights would
be standing outside the east gate of Bloodloch, I suggest they
review fact number one, two, and three.
It's really that simple.
Calculating the time to accumulate resources just to
begin a few skirmishes and break a treaty and claim you
are being oppressed after you have been released your
lands again is fairly contrived. Let's face it, Bloodloch
just wants a fight, whether it's by killing the villagers
and selling the corpses over market, or making raids on
my city to kill off guards and citizens, or even to come
as far as threatening war.
The undead have no interest in supporting life, nor do
they have any interest in those that do support life. I do
believe that was the post Serivalis made not so long ago.
Being diametrically opposed to the ideals of Bloodloch
will of course cause friction, but that is what treaties
are for, and if they cannot be honored, then why would
anyone bother with making a treaty with them again?

Lady Tanbiere Du'Lunai

Penned by my hand on the 7th of Niuran, in the year 173 MA.