>While retriving from the tribunal I was opposed with 5 or so
>foes at first, I fought them at every turn, not being wanted.

I'll assume you aren't exagerating here, or omitting that some are not in your pk or something.

>However some of them left, and I struck again, but more came
>about and again I was a but stuck, as as soon as I started
>hitting them(redirecting from the captain) they fleed. So I
>fleed as well and engaged them at the captain.
>
>For this I became wanted, I could not understand why, I was
>retriving, and I have to defend myself. But as things are now,
>one cannot strike at a tribunal unless he strikes you.
>

That's incorrect interpretation of the law, imho. What you consider to be the fair state of affairs is what I consider to be that actual state of affairs. Any trib who flagged you for engaging them at the captain you were fighting the captain a second ago and fled just to re-engage them was out of line.

>Now if I am fighting the captain, a tribunal that casts spells
>could merly and does stand and maledict my ass off at his
>leisure and I cannot do anything to counter that.. I cannot
>re-direct as he is not fighting me, and if I attack him I get
>wanted.

That's incorrect application of the law, imho. Though I doubt it is true you can do nothing to counter it. Have you no offensive supp?spell/skill that you can aim at anyone?

> As well, should his spell actually engage me he uses
>guards to rescue himself out. Now this is the biggest piece of
>horse **** I have been confronted with in game.

Why? Raiding druids use their pets to rescue themselves out. If I am correct about it not being a crime to strike back at the trib in these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with a rescue.

> In a retriving
>matter the tribunals should not be protected while standing at
>the captain, just as I am not as the retriver.

They aren't.

> They can use
>their guards on me even as I am not wanted, and flee ither
>way.

Exageration. Only if they are in your pk can they do that. Just like a scion could use a nightwalker. Just like a druid can use a treant. Just like someone can use a merc. They are on spire business when defending the spire. Therefore they should be able to use guards in a raid on the spire.

> I can then choose to become wanted and strike them in the
>city if they should flee that way, but that would put me even
>in a worse position than before as the guards autoattack...
>

Maybe don't lag yourself fighting the captain and you can engage them first as they walk in. If you are clearly making a genuine effort to retrieve, you won't be made wanted, I suspect. If you were, I suspect it was a bad call by the trib(s).

>Now this is an extreemly one sided deal, being wanted and
>having to go into a city is a pain. Now I dont mind being
>wanted in itself, but when I am forced to enter a city by
>means of retriving one should atleast have a possibility to do
>so without being a pulp going out.
>

Ahh, so it's kind of similar to trepidation and thornheart then?

>Now I could go on that the cabal side defences are ####ty, but
>this is possibly the worst deal ever.
>
>Its bad enough that one gets wanted for raiding, but when your
>defending yourself you should not get wanted if its for
>retriving.
>

Correct. You should not. If you are an outlander and genuinely trying to retrieve.

>Sorry for ranting so, but it really frustrated me, as I had
>well fought for the better of 4 real hours. I love the game,
>but things at times flow over in my cup as well....
>

Sometimes you have to accept that you can't win against the odds you currently face. If you make the attempt, expect to die. Otherwise, wait until a better time.

>Thanks for a great game.

If more outlanders made the effort you claim to have, you wouldn't have the problem. Even when there is only one hero-range trib on and two hero-range outlanders they don't retrieve in most cases. They usually send in some lowbie in the 20s to make the attempt. Probably you, judging by how few people actually make the attempt.