Of course they're not contradictory sentences, but the first one sounded something different from the usual disdain I'm getting used to read from Aurvandilians towards their foes. It couldn't last for long.
You shouldn't take the disdain so personally. It's not an act of contempt as you seem to think it is, it's what the English refer to as a Cavalier attitude, which is to say an attitude of offhand disregard and being more non chalant about things as they occur.
As you know, I wasn't talking about ethnic origins. I was pointing that I would expect from a realm with a background supposedly based on chivalry and honour to have more scruples towards nobles accused of treason (in a case) and bribery (in another). As Penchant says, Aurvandilians justified their will to keep those regions with the "corruption" issue that some time ago was discussed here. Penchant, Aurvandil has (as far as I know) impeded the spreading of any religion; I think it's something different from a separation of state and religion, maybe rather an imposed state secularism, which could contradict the acceptation of a noble who wants to create a new religion. Anyway I wasn't talking about giving home to a schismatic or heretic noble within a religion's point of view.
We accepted the nobles because they asked for our protection, and were fleeing political persecution. We don't accept criminals or rogues or outlaws.
Any noble who joins Aurvandil does so accepting the consequence that they keep their religion personal, restricted to their beliefs and household.
I don't know who "Blacksheep" is
Nor do I mate.
and I guess a turn before can be enough for the Aurvandilian way. Which I guess I'd expect from someone from a realm who doesn't complain regularly because can't get a nice war from his enemies.
We're not fighting Fissoa for a good war, we're fighting them for a good reason. Thus, we adopt a policy of brutal efficiency to resolve it as soon as possible without regard for enjoyment.
The "Moot forewarning" reason contradicts an announcement one of your realm-mates made in the forum about the invasion of Fissoa. And if it is actually a reason, it surprises me to see so much prudence from you when not even 1/3 of your nobles went for tourism there, and later you challenged in this topic your enemies to attack you in your own lands. And as you know, "jousting" talks about combats under equally conditions amongst gentlemen, rather than furtive landing attacks against a surprised enemy.
The Moot forewarning wasn't really the reason, it was more of an offhand remark that it was one of the benefits.
The jousting phrase was a colloquialism, which is to say we're sparring rather than fighting properly.
Regarding Mendicant's conversations with the Zuma, you say you don't bother about Barca but it seems you "look for the holes on a treaty" to know how to inflict damage to an enemy with no reprisals. Very chivalric indeed.
We spoke with Haktoo to see to what extent we may conduct warfare without breaching the sanctuary she granted them, we have no cause for war with the Zuma and we would not attack them so as to attack our other foe. One does not attack a retainer without it being an attack upon his liege, so to speak.
And you shouldn't try to use what I say directly OOC to reflect on our IC, because I speak much more informally about it from an OOC perspective.
