Board Thread:Midian Ideas/@comment-4701109-20140821002122/@comment-24302820-20140912120227

Some random ideas, I'm not really wedded to any of them at the moment; all are open to discussion:

No direct targeting of the person of one's enemy. You target their spheres of influence rather than send assassins or an army to their door. Assassins against henchmen, or army versus army however, is fair game. Only when your enemy's power base has been crushed, can you close in for the final strike.

Vengeance must be openly declared, with a fair opportunity for the opposed to respond, either in kind or with a peace gesture. This response must itself be acknowledged, either with a reciprocal peace offering (thus ending hostilities) or a formal acknowledgement of receipt of the acceptance of enmity. Peace offerings must be material. That is, it can be a formal treaty or ceasefire agreement, or be some sort of gift. A messenger or letter in response just saying, "Whoah, man, peace," isn't sufficient.

There could be some rule against innocent bystanders being involved, like containment of open fighting, or minor children being off-limits.

Some weapons or attack types could be off limits. I'm thinking Geneva Convention or Kanly type stuff, like no nukes or hollow points. We'll agree to kill one another like civilised men.

A ruler who oversees conflict parties should take no sides, being instead a neutral arbiter. This should hopefully reduce some conflicts to less violent ass-kissing, rather than an entrenched 'they're all against me' mindset, which would prolong and intensify the conflict. This higher authority can intervene (on their own, or if requested) to cease hostilities.

All peace overtures must be responded to, even if it's just a temporary ceasefire. You don't have to accept peace just because it's offered, but you're even more of a dick if you pretend not to know that your enemy wants to call a halt.

Messengers bearing peace overtures, or any message covered under these Accords, is not to be harmed or detained. Messengers caught spying (actually caught, with evidence or witnesses, not just suspected) may be treated as spies. The 'messenger' part of their job was made thereby secondary by the espionage.

Someone coming as a guest must be treated as such. That is, if your enemy comes personally to discus peace, terms of your surrender, rules of engagement, or just sports, you cannot attack them. This only applies if said enemy openly states that they are coming for a peaceful meeting. It does not apply if the enemy comes in force: bringing a few hundred well-armed bodyguards 'just to talk' is a thinly veiled threat, and may be treated as such. You aren't under any obligation to feed or house them or summat, but you must promise their safety from your own people.

Only half of an enemy's assets can be kept by the victor as spoils. The remainder must be charitably distributed, especially to those not party to the conflict who may have been harmed by it. However, this disposition is carried out by the victor (as they now have possession of those assets) so exactly what constitutes a fair half is rather subjective. Other signatories to the Accords, by consensus, can step in collectively in cases of unfair distribution. In general, this applies to all stipulations of the Accords as well: they are enforced by the collective will and power of the powers that signed it.