I direct your attention to the last sentence in that infocard.
Furthermore, a reasonable person can conclude that the word 'treaty' does not need to be explicitly mentioned in order to assume that two parties have one between them.
Treaties are the meat-and-drink of diplomacy between groups. Treaties and other such agreements can be assumed to exist between all groups enjoying good-to-neutral relations.
Of course, these dont have to be explicitly written up and signed by players. The Bretonian Government could simply impose whatever regulations they like in their own laws regarding your faction...
Thats says something is fully recognized by the Kusari government, that to me means the Kusari government chooses to recognized it, it says nothing of an agreement to that effect.
' Wrote:If you have a "treaty", it's on a bit of paper. What is the wording of it? Is it a full alliance? Is it a mere ceasefire? Saying there is a treaty is not enough, you need to know what's in it. Otherwise everyone will RP their own version of it (no standard) and it becomes messy.
The Ronin are in a delicate situation right now, as I understand. If you *dont* have that precise wording, there's going to be hostilities in the future when one group RPs one thing and the other group a completely different thing.
So, not knowing what's in said treaty will mean carnage.
It specifically says two things, that there is a Cease Fire and that there is an Alliance against Gallia.
That means we dont shoot each other and we work together to fight Gallia.
' Wrote:Thats says something is fully recognized by the Kusari government, that to me means the Kusari government chooses to recognized it, it says nothing of an agreement to that effect.
You have an agreement de facto. And yes such matters can, and have been, revoked in the past. That is a matter for players to decide for themselves.
Treaty is already signed. The only solution for this dispute can be treaty writen by admins or Zealot (because in lore it was him who proposed/designed this treaty and queen signed).
For me is this treaty pretty clear. Ronins will not fight against Bretonians (and vice versa) or openly support alies (for example Gaians) in skirmishes against Bretonia (and vice versa). Bretonia and Ronins will fight togeather against Galia and they can help they alies (f. e. Gaians again or MM) if needed in fights not involving Bretonians/Ronins (for example Gaians vs Mollys or MM vs Corsairs). Simple.
Zelot, it seems that you want to adhere to the storyline selectively, when it provides you a maximum degree of freedom of RP. To my humble paranoid mind it seems that you want your group to not play out your main weakness (and at the same time most interesting part of RP) - relying on Bretonian supplies and such. There has been a precedent, I believe (with H-fuel), which fuels bad feelings even more. While trying to prevent being forced into restrictive circumstances not envisioned by the storyline you are in fact forcing Exiles into freedom of <strike>pew-pew</strike> RP not envisioned by the storyline.
Because of this, I am afraid it will turn to shooting each other very soon. Or other hostile actions and word, leading to OORP, forum hate and things we don't want to happen. But then again, that's what my slightly pessimistic-paranoid mind tells.
Brahman, the whole issue is to write down what you wrote there but in-RP. Even OORP "gentlemens' agreement" would do the job better than nothing. By the way. Queen, in-RP, signed because the treaty was acceptable. So why not the Queen (whoever RPs her) writes down the terms that she finds acceptable? Exactly. No unilateral crap will do the job.
eoJhahiJ, what is the point of leaving a storyline-wise ally white (neutral) if not being able to pew-pew the "ally" when necessary? ;-)
Update: If This whole pact thing is being sorted out. as Pancakes said below, consider the comment above void and null. My apologises if it sounds rude.
Feel free to PM me regarding any grammar/spelling/other language mistakes I have made in my posts.
' Wrote:Zelot, it seems that you want to adhere to the storyline selectively, when it provides you a maximum degree of freedom of RP. To my humble paranoid mind it seems that you want your group to not play out your main weakness (and at the same time most interesting part of RP) - relying on Bretonian supplies and such. There has been a precedent, I believe (with H-fuel), which fuels bad feelings even more. While trying to prevent being forced into restrictive circumstances not envisioned by the storyline you are in fact forcing Exiles into freedom of <strike>pew-pew</strike> RP not envisioned by the storyline.
Because of this, I am afraid it will turn to shooting each other very soon. Or other hostile actions and word, leading to OORP, forum hate and things we don't want to happen. But then again, that's what my slightly pessimistic-paranoid mind tells.
Brahman, the whole issue is to write down what you wrote there but in-RP. Even OORP "gentlemens' agreement" would do the job better than nothing. By the way. Queen, in-RP, signed because the treaty was acceptable. So why not the Queen (whoever RPs her) writes down the terms that she finds acceptable? Exactly. No unilateral crap will do the job.
eoJhahiJ, what is the point of leaving a storyline-wise ally white (neutral) if not being able to pew-pew the "ally" when necessary? ;-)
Why noone cried when bretonia were without LD-14, GMG were suppliying them via rheinland ye.
In the same way samura will be supplying ronin forces, since they want their emperor back incharge of kusari. We will be rellying high on bret supplies from the start.. later will be easier. As was stated before... it's not that simple to forgot all and say... oh man we are now closest friends.. because there bigger boy who can crush us both, it's only cooperation, not full friendship.... thus neutrality.