Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[LoloMo]

“Inviolate NAP” (Non Aggression Pact)

Due to the recent flurry of posts regarding NAPs, I have decided to post a version of NAP that I would like to use in the future in the games that I play, against players of similar minds. I believe this is a very “standard” form of NAP that many of the frequent players in this community will agree with. Newer players may also find this thread useful. You can use this thread to post your own version of your NAP, and redirect anybody you make a NAP with to your appropriate post, so that you don’t have to write down all the appropriate terms and conditions each time you make a NAP.

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”. It is an agreement between PLAYERS, and not between NATIONS. The standard terms and conditions of this NAP along with some situational clarifications are listed below. This NAP is quite definitive and strict, but is also very flexible and allows much scheming and plotting.

This NAP restricts both parties from making any Military attacks or IDENTIFIABLE spell attacks on each other. In addition, the following global spells in the current DOM3 version 3.20 form are restricted: Burden of Time, Wish for Armageddon, Utterdark, Astral Corruption, and Arcane Nexus.

The NAP can only be “terminated” after the other party has been given notice. The termination notice has to be given in the same way that it was signed, that is, if it was signed through the Shrapnel forums, or through email, or through an ingame message, the termination notice has to be given through the same channel. There are two forms of this Inviolate NAP: NAP-X, and NAP till turn X.

NAP-X: You can not order an attack until the Xth turn from notification of termination. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1. For forum and email notifications, the current turn is counted as the first turn if the notification is sent 24 hours before the current turn hosts. If the notification is sent less than 24 hours before the current turn hosts, the next turn is counted as turn 1. For ingame notifications, the turn the message is received is counted as the first turn. **** Option R: With this option, the recipient of the notice of termination may attack immediately without waiting for X turns. For example, you can specify NAP-3 Option R. This will give the terminated party the possibility of a first strike. This option is inspired by chrispedersen’s thread here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40413


NAP till turn X: You can not order an attack until turn X. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1.



Some common questions and clarification regarding this type of NAP, in the absence of any specific agreements to the contrary:

1. He has traded equipment/given gold/given gems to my enemy. Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
2. He has overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
3. He has dispelled my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
4. He has contributed gems to a nation that used those gems to overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
5. He is one victory point away from winning! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
6. He has built temples and stationed a thousand preachers in his provinces all along our border! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
7. His dominion will completely snuff out my dominion next turn causing me to be eliminated from the game! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
8. He has provoked all the other nations in the game to attack me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
9. He has blocked all my available province expansion routes! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
10. He has violated the terms and conditions I have attached to the signing of the NAP! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
11. He has hired someone to cast damaging spells against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
12. He has cast an ANONYMOUS damaging/assassination/unrest causing spell against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
13. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/income that are under his dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
14. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/population/income that are under my own dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
15. I have caught his stealthy preachers in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES.
16. I have caught his stealthy units with the bane venom charm in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
17. He is attacking me without proper termination of the NAP because I’m attacking a nation he has a mutual defense treaty with! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES! This NAP has priority over any other agreements with any other nations, whether it was agreed to before or after the signing of this NAP.
18. He is going to win next turn for whatever reason! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
19. He has contributed gems to fund a global that harms me (for example, Thetis Blessing)! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
20. I’m a water nation and he has cast Thetis’ Blessing! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
21. He has summoned all the Elemental Kings/Queens and has forged all the Artifacts! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
22. He has cast Forge of the Ancients! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, unless it was specifically mentioned as a condition to this NAP.
23. He has received a random event that gave him control of one of my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as he returns that province, don’t build any forts/temples/laboratories/PD. You may militarily reclaim that province by killing any of the troops there without violating the NAP.
24. His Tartarian with 6 artifacts that was banished to kokytos suddenly reappeared and took control of my province! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as he returns that province, don’t build any forts/temples/laboratories/PD. You may militarily reclaim that province by killing/enslaving/charming that tartarian without violating the NAP. Of course you may also both choose to agree to an alternative resolution of the situation.
25. He has taken control of a province that used to be mine! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as that province has not been under your control for the past 5 consecutive turns.

[licker]

I applaud your efforts, but I'd never agree to that...

So be it, more power to you for being as clear as you can.

[sector24]

I would never agree to that either, but I guess the point is for each player to say "yes" or "no" to the different sticking points. In particular I like #17 where this NAP takes precedence over all other agreements. Because you know if everyone uses your template all of the agreements will take precedence over all other agreements.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

I would never agree to that either, but I guess the point is for each player to say "yes" or "no" to the different sticking points. In particular I like #17 where this NAP takes precedence over all other agreements. Because you know if everyone uses your template all of the agreements will take precedence over all other agreements.

That statement is not applicable because this NAP is an agreement between two parties only, so one Inviolate NAP can not be affected by another Inviolate NAP.

[sector24]

That makes it even more hilarious. Thank you.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

That makes it even more hilarious. Thank you.

Would you please care to clarify that?

And allow me to post #17 in its entirety:

17. He is attacking me without proper termination of the NAP because I’m attacking a nation he has a mutual defense treaty with! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES! This NAP has priority over any other agreements with any other nations, whether it was agreed to before or after the signing of this NAP.

[sector24]

I'm sure the response to this will be "strawman argument" this and "putting words in my mouth" that, but hey let's have some fun.

So basically #17 says that this particular NAP supercedes all other agreements that have come before or after it. So if people started using the template and two mutually exclusive agreements both contained #17, a player could put himself in a position where he is forced to break one of the two agreements, both of which supercede the other, and of course hilarity would ensue. I think the only honorable way out of that is to go AI.

And then your response was just to reiterate that this NAP supercedes the other one, so that situation wouldn't occur. Well what's the point of #17 if agreements are only between two people and would never be affected by another? Of course it's going to happen, and furthermore it's going to be extremely entertaining! It just struck me as funny that I pointed out how this would not work out logically, and your response was completely contradictory and illogical. Sweet irony.

Anyway, totally not a knock on you or your efforts. I think having a NAP template for people to look and reflect upon is a good idea. But that one in particular made me laugh. Anyway, thread derailed with my sincerest apologies. Carry on.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

I'm sure the response to this will be "strawman argument" this and "putting words in my mouth" that, but hey let's have some fun.

So basically #17 says that this particular NAP supercedes all other agreements that have come before or after it. So if people started using the template and two mutually exclusive agreements both contained #17, a player could put himself in a position where he is forced to break one of the two agreements, both of which supercede the other, and of course hilarity would ensue. I think the only honorable way out of that is to go AI.

And then your response was just to reiterate that this NAP supercedes the other one, so that situation wouldn't occur. Well what's the point of #17 if agreements are only between two people and would never be affected by another? Of course it's going to happen, and furthermore it's going to be extremely entertaining! It just struck me as funny that I pointed out how this would not work out logically, and your response was completely contradictory and illogical. Sweet irony.

Anyway, totally not a knock on you or your efforts. I think having a NAP template for people to look and reflect upon is a good idea. But that one in particular made me laugh. Anyway, thread derailed with my sincerest apologies. Carry on.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit obtuse here, but would you care to specify exactly which part of the Inviolate NAP would conflict with another Inviolate NAP? Can you give one specific example where this would happen? Perhaps you have a specific situation in mind that I had totally disregarded.

That rule was meant to prevent the crafting of a NAP with another party specifically to circumvent an existing Inviolate NAP, in the vein of "Oh by the way, I have a mutual defense treaty with Kailasa that I forgot to tell you about, so I'm attacking you now".

[sector24]

Ok, you're Lanka and you enter a NAP with Niefelheim. Then you enter a mutual defense treaty with Ermor. Niefelheim has no treaty with Ermor, so he attacks. You are required to come to Ermor's aid and attack Niefelheim, but you are forbidden from attacking Niefelheim due to the other treaty.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

Ok, you're Lanka and you enter a NAP with Niefelheim. Then you enter a mutual defense treaty with Ermor. Niefelheim has no treaty with Ermor, so he attacks. You are required to come to Ermor's aid and attack Niefelheim, but you are forbidden from attacking Niefelheim due to the other treaty.

When you enter into a mutual defense treaty with Ermor, you have to specify that you have a NAP with Niefelheim, and that you can terminate the NAP with Niefelheim, but you can only attack Niefelheim after certain turns have passed. That is quite a common occurence in my diplomatic agreements, and that has been a standard way of handling it.