Treaty Interpretation Styles

[Eirikr]

Following a recent series of letters on Atamara, I'm curious how other players deal with treaties. Do you put much work into the wording or do you leave it more open-ended and fill in the gaps as time goes?

My style has always been to write a treaty as deliberately as possible, planning for the future and the present all at once. It's rare to not have an agenda when making a treaty. Even so, it's not possible to see every application or possible conflict and various improvisational choices have to be made. To me, that's where creativity and roleplaying kick in: Finding that loophole and trying to exploit it make for perfect opportunities to not only start a flurry of character interactions, but also for personal character development. Of course, the downside to this is that the arguments sound like lawyers speaking- an event which few find fun.

Another style I commonly see is just working off the "spirit" of the treaty. This approach may also plan for the future and present, but often the wording is just semantics and the wording is meant to convey a general idea, not necessarily the hard-and-fast ruling. When a conflict comes up, the two sides often just agree on a way to handle it that seems most in-line with the original intent of the treaty. This makes the treaty easier to deal with because it is much more adaptable to various situations that arise.

For a more concrete example, let's use the common passage rights clause. (This is only an example, I don't want to drag the Atamara case to the forums. This is intended to be more general and obvious.) Realm A and Realm B write in a treaty: "Realm A and Realm B shall not allow troops to attack over their respective borders." In my style, I might claim a loophole is to allow travel through my realm (let's say Realm A) into Realm C and from Realm C, those troops can attack. Technically, with the wording, this is valid. On the other hand, I'll admit, it probably defeats the purpose of the treaty. A more fluid approach to treaties might suggest that when this issue arises, Realm A and Realm B mutually agree to force troops to circumnavigate their realms if they would like to attack the other signatory.

Maybe your style is completely different. A hybrid? Do you treat military treaty clauses differently than trading treaty clauses? (For example, are you more lenient when setting prices between realms?) Do your styles differ by character (mine do, but only one has been involved in interpreting/writing treaties)?

As I said, I would rather this not develop into various discussions about specific incidents or situations. I'm much more interested in the perception of treaties on a macro OOC level.

[Dante Silverfire]

IC: For a vast majority of my characters that I've played. I interpret treaties by the word of the treaty...unless it benefits me to not do so. Then I'll argue about the spirit of the treaty.

[Bedwyr]

IC: For a vast majority of my characters that I've played. I interpret treaties by the word of the treaty...unless it benefits me to not do so. Then I'll argue about the spirit of the treaty.

Same here.  More or less comes down to what the most beneficial way of interpreting is.

[Telrunya]

This really depends IC on the situation and the character. And just why any Treaty may fall short. You can follow the spirit of the Treaty if your characters desire it, you also can call anyone that doesn't dishonourable bastards.  It also depends on how other Realms interpret the Treaty. And you get a situation where both sides think they are in the right for the other breaking the Treaty, good times

This is just very situation-sensitive depending on relations between both Realms, diplomatic stance on the Continent, character, and how and why the Treaty was written etc. etc. etc.

[Chenier]

Depends on if you want the treaty to last.

If you do, you might want a more elaboate but flexible one, whereas if you don't, you might want a simpler and more rigid (which won't make people feel bad for breaking) or vague (which people will feel like they can do whatever without breaking) one.

When I made peace treaties with Mesh, Sint, Heen, and Hetland, as ruler of Enweil (I may not have personally signed all of these treaties), I intentionally left some tings out, made others vague, and made other points very explicit. Because long-term peace was not my objective.

[Eirikr]

Wow, you are all much bigger snakes than Ravendon.

[Chenier]

In any case, a treaty is only as useful or important as people care for it. The Treaty of the Maroccidens, for example, has a lot of articles, a lot of flexibility, but most importantly, paved the way for a guild to be created. An official vessel of communication, combined with a privileged channel for concertation, goes a long way to consolidate an alliance.

If your big alliance treaty is something people never have to refer to, people will gradually forget about it and not care for it.

I think we did a fine job. Too strict and people grow to dislike it. Too vague and people never need to consult it.

[Eirikr]

In any case, a treaty is only as useful or important as people care for it. The Treaty of the Maroccidens, for example, has a lot of articles, a lot of flexibility, but most importantly, paved the way for a guild to be created. An official vessel of communication, combined with a privileged channel for concertation, goes a long way to consolidate an alliance.

If your big alliance treaty is something people never have to refer to, people will gradually forget about it and not care for it.

I think we did a fine job. Too strict and people grow to dislike it. Too vague and people never need to consult it.

Which island is this on? I'm curious to how it reads and how it affects the interactions between realms.

I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.

[Bedwyr]

I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.

That's the thing.  There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties.  It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island.  If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border.  'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances.  Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.

[Indirik]

Treaties should be simple and straightforward. They shouldn't be too explicit. This allows the greatest possible room for misinterpretation, or alternative interpretation. Thus, more righteous conflict!

[Chenier]

That's the thing.  There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties.  It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island.  If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border.  'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances.  Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.

Which is why such treaties should be made with short-term in mind. Don't sign a peace treaty that involves a tribute over 10 months, for example. Concessions should be made relatively quickly, before the defeated party has a chance of rebuilding. Non-action can be spread over longer, but don't plan on it being enforced too well past 5 months or so.

But yea, a key factor in a treaty that favors one side is having that side actually able to swoop in and claim compensation if it isn't respected. Themselves or via allies.

Which island is this on? I'm curious to how it reads and how it affects the interactions between realms.

I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.

The Treaty of the Maroccidens is public and can be found on the wiki. It binds Terran, D'Hara, and Barca, on Dwilight. It led to the creation of the Véinsørmoot guild. So far, it has survived all crises and strains that were exerted upon it, and the federation stands united. Here's another hint for a successful alliance treaty: make it extremely clear that while all parties are obligated to help each other against unprovoked attacks, in no way are they forced to help in a war initiated by one of the members.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot/Treaty_of_the_Maroccidens
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot/Charter_of_the_V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot

[Eirikr]

That's the thing.  There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties.  It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island.  If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border.  'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances.  Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.

Wonderfully written! I very much agree. Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing... But that same character is also willing to fight that 50k CS for his beliefs (though, in this case, I'd be surprised if 3k CS showed up at our door).

Also, I find it interesting how pretty much everyone assumed a treaty for an alliance. The case that led me to this curiosity actually involves two nations at peace, but with a long history of working together. It's been a rocky road...

[Chenier]

Wonderfully written! I very much agree. Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing... But that same character is also willing to fight that 50k CS for his beliefs (though, in this case, I'd be surprised if 3k CS showed up at our door).

Also, I find it interesting how pretty much everyone assumed a treaty for an alliance. The case that led me to this curiosity actually involves two nations at peace, but with a long history of working together. It's been a rocky road...

I just gave examples of that, and of ceasefires, because that's what I have the most experience with. I've seen a bunch of general friendship treaties, but they tend to be so vague and meaningless that people forget them after a while.

[Bedwyr]

Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing...

Bear in mind that if you think about things on a suitably long term it becomes more important to keep to treaty terms.  If you have major ambitions, people have to trust your word, at least to a certain point, or you'll never get anything done.  But the problem is there is always a way around a treaty where you can claim you are justified, and if you win then your interpretation becomes predominant.  Either you claim they weren't holding to the spirit or the terms, and produce suitable evidence to back it up, and you haven't broken your word.  I've lost track of the number of times Jenred has done that, for instance, and the interesting thing is that he isn't lying.  What he says is perfectly true, assuming his interpretation of events, and his point of view generally had a few thousand swords to back it up.

The more interesting trick is to know the people/realms/institutions you are dealing with, and how they interpret things.  Make a treaty with, say, Riombara, and you'd better expect things to turn on the strict wording.  Make a treaty with a Zonasan, and expect things to turn on the "honorable spirit" of the treaty.  And often times it's even more complicated than that.  Maybe you make a treaty with Ohnar West with Galiard leading it, but then Ohnar West goes through several upheavals, spawns Toupellon, then Toupellon collapses into Sorraine and Cathay, and you can pick up some of the bits of the treaty with Galiard, but the Ohnar West you originally signed the treaty with doesn't have any resemblance to the Ohnar West that exists now besides base geography and the name.

Or, maybe you make an alliance between Papania, Ohnar West, and Arcaea, where all three agree to help the other out in both defensive and offensive wars, but Ohnar West and Papania go to war over something that was Papania's fault but probably doesn't justify a war.  Yeah, you could have written a treaty to cover that, but no one would have dreamed it necessary because they were good friends...Then.

Everyone can always find generally true and probably legitimate ways of interpreting treaties how they need to, and they will be quite (genuinely, often) offended if you try to say they are breaking their word.  They don't see it that way, because they are looking at the situation completely differently than you are.  Treaties only work when you can get enough people on all the sides to want them to work.

[Eirikr]

I'm not sure how the two are mutually exclusive. I guess your point is more that you should adapt to the other realm rather than try to impose your way of doing things?

I was saying that my character in this position (Ravendon) has always been pretty strict on words and such. I've spent several days working on how to reword a very common treaty clause to essentially add a loophole for much farther down the road. For example, I wrote in a "diplomat clause" (that is, a clause that makes a realm mediate for peace when one of its allies is attacked by the other signatory... I'll give a more concrete explanation when my character recovers and I can see it) a loophole that allows us to not necessarily mediate for peace and also provides an option for renegotiating the treaty. (Of course, this was done to allow us to declare war on said ally with the other signatory's help. ) That case is a little more cut and dry, though. It has everything right there in the treaty, whereas the treaty that caused a problem doesn't mention the issue being debated at all.

Maybe we should rename Coria to "Riocoria"?