NAP Agreements

[kevindusi]

I have two more open slots. If it's not an issue that I control 3 kingdoms, sign me up!!

[kik1661]

I am very much interested in a privacy game.

[DuPont]

Hey, can we now have gay marriages of state?

[Lord Diamond]

I'd like a proper description of an NAP agreement to THE LETTER posted on the forums-
In all games people are offering them and then it's like they're not following through or people feel "backstabbed" and it's very ambiguous to say the least... Since it's very common for people to say, "How about we have an NAP?" -happens every game- It would be nice to have a universal understanding of what one should expect.

I'm finding that players are using the verbiage to gain advantage (which is fine) in situations to use gamesmanship (which isn't always fine) : play of questionable fairness: the use of unconventional but not strictly illegal tactics to gain an advantage in a competitive game

An example: I make an NAP with Elves player (I'm the Witchlord and vulnerable lets say)-
Next turn I ship the Troll player 60,000 gp and 50,000 f and divine all the Elf pop centers and send the info to the Troll who's launching his assault... Troll goes "What about his wizards?" so I send him the Orb of Anti Magic and Wizard Slayer...

One could argue the Witchlord is doing substantial harm to the Elf player in this scenario- They have an NAP after all...

One could argue that the Witchlord isn't doing any direct damage to the Elf so he's not breaking his word/NAP : Read Gamesmanship...

What exactly is a NAP?

Let’s change the scenario a bit and reexamine how we feel about how badly the Elf was screwed over.

What if the Witchlord and the Troll were openly declared allies for quite some time before the Elf and the Witchlord decided on their NAP? What if the Elf was well aware of this and the only reason he agreed to a NAP with the Witchlord was because he planned to attack the Troll within a turn or two and didn’t want the Witchlord to intervene on behalf of his ally?

Let’s add some extra salt to the wound. Let’s say that almost immediately after signing this NAP, the Elf began gleefully taunting the Witchlord while hiding behind said NAP? “If it weren’t for this NAP, I would crush you within three turns!”. “Some kings, like the Witchlord, think they are SO much better than they really are!”. Would the “spirit of the NAP” apply at all? Or would the Witchlord be justified in sticking to the ‘letter’ of the agreement which comes down to “I won’t attack you”?

Is the Witchlord really underhanded? Or is he a good ally making the best of an unfortunate situation? I say he’s a good ally and that he probably should have built a cancellation clause into his treaty. I’m sure it won’t be an issue in the future.

[DuPont]

Honestly, I think anytime you make an agreement with somebody, you need to discuss what that means in brief. Or if you trust the person, then you know what they are and are not likely to do. The idea that there can be an 'official' description of a NAP doesn't make sense in my opinion - then people would keep looking for loopholes anyway. We are not lawyers (well, I'm not, anyway) and I am not looking for escape clauses. If somebody tries to screw me over with a loophole, I will jump on him with both feet. I don't have time for sophistry.

[Kalrex]

Lets say the Witchlord is casting numerous spells against the Elf- Meanwhile the Elf is upholding his end of the agreement to "Not be aggressive". Myself and Thallion know what your "word" constitutes.
Others have been warned.