Talk:Bleeding the Mountain/@comment-7263041-20140519113338/@comment-7263041-20140519143631

I really have to disagree with the 'revelance in the zone' idea. Sure these settlements are there, but ignoring the non-aggression pact just for PvP invasions is rather foolish in my opinion especially when other options (such as using proxies) exist.

To be blunt, engaging these settlements -at all- breaks the non-aggression pact. Even using them to seek refuge from aggression creates a risk of a diplomatic incident. It doesn't matter if they're not getting razed, the fact that they are being engaged at all, without proxy, breaks the pact.

Now, to what you're saying Maxen.

I understand that there are going to be parties that exist out there that disagree with non-aggression pacts. Rebels / Seperatists that act out against the overall goals of the Alliance / Horde becuase their own desire to keep the war going is more important than any idea of a truce, even if it is a temporary one. While not related to WoW, this exact scenario is acted out in Guild Wars 2 with the treaty between the Charr and the Humans. There are forces on both sides that want to continue the fight and are willing to be hunted by both sides because their desire to continue the conflict trumps any ideas of peace.

However in doing this, are they not are setting themselves up to take a major fall? Disobeying the edict of the King is paramount to treason. I imagine the same situation is true for the Horde. Disobeying the Warchief would line you up for trial or the chopping block.

Neither side can blame the other for defending their private holdings against aggression. To go back to my example in my first post if Dor Serrar attacked a Megabucks Trading Co outpost, the Horde would not declare war on the Alliance for breaking the non-aggression pact, because while it -technically- is a skirmish between races which are part of those individual factions, it is private interest vs private interest. No reason for the Horde or the Alliance to get involved on a larger scale.

Now I'm at this point not involved in the campaign, nor am I going to be, I am just throwing in my observation, because this is at the current moment, a direct violation of the pact, and that has consequences, or at least it should have consequences.