Quote:
Originally Posted by LoloMo
This NAP is an Inviolate NAP, in that I treat it as an “Out of Character” NAP, and NOT an “In Character” or “Roleplaying NAP”.
|
Surely that depends on whatever rules regarding diplomacy has been set by the host rather than anything else?
Other than that, it's a pretty good effort but I think there's a little too much specifics to make it useful generally. What might be better is to come up with a basic definition of a Non-Aggression Pact, i.e. the 'core rules' of a NAP. This would seem to do the trick:
Quote:
|
This NAP restricts both parties from making any Military attacks or IDENTIFIABLE spell attacks on each other.
|
As far as globals go, I wouldn't list specific spells. If you were playing in a game where you could claim an allied victory then you may well want your team mate to cast certain globals if it allowed your team to claim victory. On top of that, there may also be occasions when the casting of certain detrimental globals would affect you less than other players, or otherwise leave you in a stronger position.
To that end, I'd simplify it to a clause regarding hostile spells. Since you already have one however it may simply be enough to state that globals are covered by the "identifiable spell attack" clause if they harm your nation in some way. This covers you against the more nasty globals, while still leaving room to take it on a game by game basis when deciding on specific spells either player would consider an act of aggression.
The timing and notice periods are a bit lengthy and complex. What I'd suggest is giving a simple statement of clauses (NAP +X means it expires after a notice period of Y for example). Rather than worry about out of game timing, I'd alter the section to state that any notice should be provided both in the form the NAP was signed and confirmed by an in-game message. You then don't need to worry about missing the notice (which I assume is your objective) since if the player has played that turn then they should have received the message. What you might want to think about is a clause to cover staled players in the case that they miss a turn covered by the notice period.
Clarifications seem to mostly re-tread the bulk of the NAP as is. Since you've pretty much included any aggressive spell type in the definition then questions regarding spells killing your units etc should be self evident. Rather than list possible trades with opponents and the like, if you find it used enough then it might be worth adding an optional clause that may be invoked, however it's possibly best to treat these areas on a case by case basis.
What you might want to include is something stating how disagreements should be handled rather than a specific Q&A since this would extend over possibly unforseen circumstances as well as those you list. I'd suggest something along the lines of both players having X turns to resolve the dispute from it being made known to both players before the NAP is considered dissolved.