Speaking of hate towards races, a certain incident cannot go unmentioned. Sir Morvuk Anvilfist, from the Silver Hand, offered to give testimony about the incident. He barely started to talk about how he met with Sir Ortellis to return the corpses of the trades when he was interrupted and dismissed by the person asking the questions. Why?
I must clarify that Sir Morvuk was speaking in Common, and it is not his fault that Lord Gabriel Voss is unable to understand the accent of a dwarf, but what is more important, it is unacceptable that someone that says to represent the Alliance and who is judging a case about disrupting peace makes such a comment in a public court. I asked Sir Morvuk if he would like to make a statement about such a disrespectful act, to which he explained that he did not expect that someone that carries the symbols of Light and its philosophy for justice and peace would be dismissed when statements from the Horde had been accepted, and that, in his opinion, Lord Uther would be aggrieved by this action.
After some other statements about the behavior of Sir Ortellus and the elves, the three verdicts were given by those judging him.
Brother Ormor of Northshire:
“What we have here is a commander appointed during times of war, unable to navigate the diplomatic complexities of peace with morale dignity. A man who would all too willingly see a threat in a former enemy, rather than a potential ally as our very king has intended. And who could deny the High King as true paragon of the Light? An example must be set, and I deem the defendant guilty on all charges! The very integrity of Sir Ortellus' Faith stands tested, and I suggest he be not only stripped of his colours but also of his standing in our church! Until redeemed and re-earned. Our High King is missing, this is no time for half measures. This is the clergy's verdict.”
“Marshall. Your men look up to you, you are meant to be a beacon of their hope. Though you put us in a difficult situation--you did show them we will not allow them to attack innocents so close to our borders, on the first charge, I do declare you, not guilty. However, a second incident, especially a premeditated one when all you had to do was stay within our borders, riding out of our territory and setting a trap is premeditated, and inexcusable. I pray you learn from this mistake so your men may put their faith in you once more, one day. On the second charge, I declare you guilty.”
“Second charge - conspiring to undermine King's peace. Not guilty. No law states that a man cannot write attacks plans and keep them in his cabinet. If he was indeed to conspire, he would hide them better or not even have them in written form to begin with. The first charge - Breaking the Armistice. I am afraid it is guilty by technicality. Sir Ortellus Falheim choose to engage elves both times without substantial evidence. If not for the current political situation it would not be such a delicate matter. But the severe death toll has crippled the people of Alliance too much. We simply cannot allow careless leaders like that to stay in command. Diplomatic approach should be enforced at all costs, or we risk another war... Another war which I would do anything to prevent and so should you all.”
In short, he was found guilty of both charges and punished with being removed from his position as deputy commanding officer to the second division and moved to a position appropriate for brilliant tactician as he was described. He has also forbidden to carry weapons within Stormwind unless with explicit permission of the Alliance High Command.
After this, Sir Renald Cousland, one of the men under Sir Ortellus’ command made the following speech:
"I will follow Sir Ortellus, as I am sworn, I will aid him and his good heart. But I shall not acknowledge your verdict. As a Knight of the Silver Hand and of the Alliance, as a veteran of more wars than hair left on your head. Your verdict was null and void when you tossed the Silver Hand to the side. Your verdict was null and void when you took the gold of the Sin'dorei. Your verdict was null and void, when you let the blood of innocent men and women be forgotten and their corpses risen into undeath, because you liked the wink of the Elven diplomat. You are not Men of the Alliance, you preach the of the King, but no Alliance King would spare you a glance or stand by what you have said and done today. Disgraceful."
Final thoughts
I will leave the judging of this sentence to our readers, was it fair? Did he do well or bad? Is a change of position and not carrying weapons in Stormwind a fair punishment for someone guilty of disrupting the armistice and conspiring to undermine the King’s peace? But I cannot finish this article without what is already a common thing, pointing to those sentences that seem to contradict things in trials. Because apparently for Sir Richard Fairer, one cannot be guilty of conspiring, if you -find- the plans said person has made to attack something or someone, because if he was conspiring to attack, why would we have the plans to attack, right?