Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"You are way too costly\"

zwart nobody asked you to attack me

Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"Yes, i hate you\".

zwart umm why? what have i ever done to you?

Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"Because you cost me too much damn money\".

zwart then don't jump me

Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"You always team me in city\"

zwart i team you when you come to my city?

Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"Yes, you should leave me alone\".

zwart you'd be an idiot to not expect every merc on to attack you

Zwartia tells Fiesty Narissa, \"Well, therefore i hate you\".

so...explain this logic... i attack you when YOU come to MY city as an ENEMY and start killing men, jumping citizens. i attack you, one of us dies. fine. then you jump me outside of city, and are upset that fighting a bandit is costly in herbs. i offer you a simple, cheap alternative - don'

tt jump

't jump me, don't use herbs.

Now the question I'm left with is it somehow WRONG for me to defend my city? I should simply let you waltz around and kill men? surely not, since i am killed every time i visit thakria (usually to help a lw or buy from shops, but i'm enemied, and understand that it is the right of citizens to attack enemies).

I thought this concept had been cleared up long long ago, with the debates following the implementation of help microcosm - the role of a citizen can include killing city enemies, when these enemies trespass. Any city enemy would be a fool to not expect all of the active fighters of the city attacking them when they come with hostile intent to an enemy city. Perhaps we have all grown a little lax in defence of cities, and it is instead this apathy we are used to - and someone actually attacking a city

enemy is unexpected and rare, and is seen as a personal insult, when, in fact, it is simply one citizen exercising their rights and performing their duties.

Written by my hand on the 10th of Paglost, in the year 1129.