Jump to content

Casus Belli System


calculusdesola
 Share

Casus belli system  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Casus belli system? Be neutral and logical. Read the OP through before voting.

    • Yeah, let's do this.
      60
    • No.
      10
    • Other (in reply)
      2


Recommended Posts

CASUS BELLI

 

Ius Gentium: The Law of Nations

((All credits to Aetosion for making this.))
 

Section I: Casus belli: ius ad bellum

 

The following constitute justifications for launching a concerted act of warfare on another nation or settlement.

 

International:

•Borders - Geopolitical or military encroachment upon sovereign territory

(i.e. The claiming of land by a state within the borders of another)

 

•Reconquest - To return to ownership of the aggressor land she previously held

(i.e. The reclamation of land formerly held by a state now held by another)

 

•Property - Significant theft or otherwise deprivation of property by another state

(e.g. The theft of great quantities of a commodity or product like iron or gold)

 

•Self-defense - In defense of a confirmed military attack from another state, or in an instance of situational necessity where no other recourse is available

(i.e. A response to a significant armed attack or attacks by another state)

 

•Cultural - To defend significant cultural entities or practices from persecution of another state

(e.g. A response to serious defamation of religious artifacts dear to a nation by another nation’s government, or the undue persecution of nationals within another state)

 

Intranational:

•Independence - To declare independence from a regime incompatible with the citizenry

(i.e. As a response to a state oppressing its citizens with unjust laws, undue persecution, or significant administrative impropriety, the secession or separation of one body from a nation)

 

•Deposition - To depose a regime incompatible with the citizenry

(i.e. As a response to a state oppressing its citizens with unjust laws, undue persecution, or significant administrative impropriety, the removal of the monarch and administrative body or the accompanying body of laws or both to be replaced by a new governing body or structure or both)

 

•Just law - To fight a war within the provisions established by cultural, common-law, doctrinal, or legal rules within a state.

(e.g. The use of arms to enforce the observance of national succession laws)

 

Section I.II: Limitations on Warfare

 

•Proportionality - The violence of the war of the aggressor state should be commensurate to the offenses of the other belligerent, and there must exist a positive proportionality between expected gains of the war and evils resultant of it.

 

•Right Intention - War should only be declared for a right intention, the correcting of suffered wrongs, and not for the express gain of the aggressor.

 

•As Last Resort - War should only be initiated in ultima ratio, as a last resort when legitimate diplomatic measures and mediation have failed to resolve the issue.

 

Section II: Casus Belli: ius in bello

 

When war is declared, certain principles must be upheld during its course, and certain improprieties must be most gravely avoided.

 

•Malum in se - Atrocities committed not for the cause of warfare but instead with the intent for sadistic amusement* will result in judgement against the offenders by all parties.

 

•Distinction - Distinction between combatants and noncombatants must be maintained. Innocents are not to be harmed.

 

Conduct - Soldiers are representatives of the nations from which they hail. If the soldiers of an army are exhibiting poor and unchivalrous conduct, their fatherland can only be assumed to be unfit to extend its influence.

 

 

((*Don’t troll))

((Latin is used in several places as it RPly represents Flexio, the language of the divines used in the past by staff-sponsored Aengo-Daemonic protagonist/antagonist groups. Also, it just makes this **** read better.))

((This does not regulate raids, only “warclaim” type battles that involve conquest of territory.))

 

((The purpose of this is to facilitate the staff’s aim, as described by Shiftnative, to discourage needless war, while creating an RP manner by which to determine whether or not wars are just or needless, preferable to creating purely OOC barriers against warclaims. In this system, warclaims would not be consensual but instead moderated by this set of rules and an enforcing party that need only ensure these rules are maintained by all sides, signed by everyone in the nation leader chat, more or less. Innocent settlements would not be victims of senseless aggression, while militant or imperialistic states could not hide from the consequences of their actions. Just humor me and look at this from a neutral perspective. The lion's share of everybody I talk to has said that the war rules are currently a disgrace.

 

I know that we can do better. We cannot sit on this status quo and be afraid of changing the rules just because it might make people/RP types we don't like more happy and comfortable on the server. Let's take decisive action and make some changes here, for crying out loud.

 

Feel free to suggest any changes, additions or criticism in your reply, but keep it civil and mature. Read the OP thoroughly before posting, I think you'll actually like what I am proposing. It's fair for all sides and I see no reason why we should not set something like this into the rules, and fast. 4.0 is here, it's time to get real and take initiative, OR we can crumble into nothing and lose a very large fraction of the playerbase.

 

All credits to Aetosion for making this.))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure it looks good on paper but..the rough truth is that the server isn't mature to handle it.

It's just not fit with the current player-base. An idea worth considering but I'm looking from a whole perspective and i want to to vote no. Sooner or later it will turn into just another drama session and there's plenty of loopholes in such a system.

 

We simply ain't ready for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the post is a little frilly, I think these are good guidelines for how wars should be handled. I do think that changing war really needs to be paired with a change to raid rules, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty good.

I would make sure the example for self defense is very clear and perhaps more detailed. Just to make sure. To me that it always the most easily abusable part.

 

Would you tie a Warclaim team to this or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty good.

I would make sure the example for self defense is very clear and perhaps more details. Just to make sure because to me that it always the most easily abusable part.

 

Would you tie a Warclaim team to this or not?

 

I think what needs to happen is - all the people in the nation leaders chat sign a document or make an agreement to all the administrators, a clause, if you will.  I don't like the idea of a warclaim team.  It would become like the UN trying to prevent war almost, which is not the nature of this system - this system is designed to keep all sides happy but also give RP reasoning and standards to inevitable warfare between nations on the server that work against each other, often due to OOC reasons, another thing I hope to counter with this large proposition.  

 

There should be a sole GM, maybe a Halfling GM even, someone with no ties to any nations or groups who can become the "war monitoring GM" to ensure this set of rules is abided by all the nation leaders and military leaders (me).  It might sound stupid on paper, but in practice, it'd be incredibly efficient - it's something we can and will achieve - it's not even that hard, at all, actually, I might add.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mhm...I suspected that would be how it worked. I think that is great, hopefully all leaders can cooperate on this one. I think it would bring some fun diplomatic roleplay as long as everything isn't resolved through skype. Maybe that's a bit of a naive hope though.

 

Personally I think two Gm's would be more suitable. Even if one doesn't need the second's approval for anything it allows each one to be monitered so they can't start leaning in favor of one nation or the other without being detected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 because I wrote it.

 

Also, I would think 1-3 completely unbiased GMs or hand selected members known for their objectivity would be the best way to monitor the system. Folks like this are incredibly hard to come by, but I can think of a few that would do a solid job. This team shouldn't be heavily involved in the system, just give judgements on it if there are complaints made. The team would be bound to executing the justice of this document, not their own personal opinions.

 

I'd fancy myself a good example, as I'm extremely logical and can separate my thoughts from any potential subjectivity or personal/organizational motives, but if I'm not involved I would be somewhat weary of any individual with political affiliations being in a position of that sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warclaim Team was horrible tbh. All of us except Gaius were heavily bias to Oren, and we liked to keep it that way.

If a team was to be formed, I'd say let Gaius lead it if he was willing. He's the only one of us who did his job right.

I'd dissuade one from a Warclaim Team however. I recall the entire war claim team approving a war claim, and suffering -200 or so rep because the other side didn't like it.

Let GMs do it, they won't have to babysit the Warclaim team and can do it instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put a GM team leader, put Gaius? as the Head of Council. Then add all the Nation leaders (Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Kha, Halflings, and CT monks.) When a Warclaim is posted, have all the NLs and Council Head vote. Make a post in the Warclaim (Make a seperate account for the Team so people don't OOCly hate anyone. Keeps it anonymous. Have the War Council vote on new War rules (These work great, tbh +1, much like.) Then boom. War problem is solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put a GM team leader, put Gaius? as the Head of Council. Then add all the Nation leaders (Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Kha, Halflings, and CT monks.) When a Warclaim is posted, have all the NLs and Council Head vote. Make a post in the Warclaim (Make a seperate account for the Team so people don't OOCly hate anyone. Keeps it anonymous. Have the War Council vote on new War rules (These work great, tbh +1, much like.) Then boom. War problem is solved.

 

Overcomplicated and involves nation leaders, which spells icky raging. 

 

I would just go for unbiased folks. If they're not doing a good job, they will be replaced. The difference between this and the old warclaim team, is that the new team would be expressly bound to the proposed rules, and only function as "constitutional justices" who rule purely within the laws themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 from me. The only thing I'd suggest is adding the killing of authority figures (Orenian Royalty + Council Members, Dwarven Council members, Elven Sohaer and Okarirs, Orcish Rex, Targoth, High Shaman and Wargoths) in another's territory with the permission, condonance, or order of another authority figure (as said above).

Also with a Casus Belli system I don't think there's really any need for a Warclaim Team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overcomplicated and involves nation leaders, which spells icky raging. 

 

I would just go for unbiased folks. If they're not doing a good job, they will be replaced. The difference between this and the old warclaim team, is that the new team would be expressly bound to the proposed rules, and only function as "constitutional justices" who rule purely within the laws themselves.

 

Agreed, this system is an OOC overseer to things that happen in RP. Having RP leaders and such become the ruling body over such a thing would more than certainly result in the misallocation of justices in accordance with what is outlined and defined in the original post. Having someone who has zero affiliation with any party would be the most opportune of options. If they are poor at what they do then leave it to a vote via those whom have been involved in conflicts that said individual ruled over.

To find said people, an application process can be enacted to pick the initial "Judges" and then brought back in instances where a judge would need to be replaced. Aspiring team members would prove their unaffiliation or fair-ruling abilities in their application, from there an Admin or Developer can select the right people based their words or a little investigating- if we care enough.

 

Just a thought, I'm certain there are smarter minds than me thinking all this up anyhow.

 

Edit: In the end, we all have access to these rules and if someone is blatantly acting outside of what has been defined then it should be a no-brainer denial that can even come from any of the sides involved. Teams are an added security but are by no means necessary for this to function.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideas are sound - I think they should be added.

 

However, I do have one concern. The post confused the heck out of me, is there any way simplified rules could be made? There's already enough confusion with the current rules as they are now. It would be daft to make them even more tangled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...