1. If you want peace, you will have to agree to no attacks period.
Attacks made for "reasons outside of the war" will not be tolerated
because we do not want any loop holes being abused. What few warriors
you have left are sure to come up with non-war related excuses because
they do not want to stop fighting. A refusal to curb such people is not
an acceptable or fair aspect of a peace agreement.
2. Kinsarmar has survived for the past few months now almost exclusively
due to the support of Vahinites. If you want peace, you WILL make
attempts to control this third party that does most of your fighting for
you. There will never be peace if you allow such to use Kinsarmar as a
safe point to attack Stavenn from. Kinsarmar is fully capable of making
an enemy of those who hide in their city after attacking Stavenn.
Refusal to do so is aiding those who attack Stavenn and not the behavior
of people who want peace.
3. Once again, if you want peace, you will agree to laws ceasing almost
all attacks. A treaty that allows Kinsarmarans to attack Stavennites
from inside of Kinsarmar and also bars us from going into Kinsarmar
after them is unfairly advantageous for you. You say you want something
fair, but this is an obvious loophole you want left so that you can
continue to attack Stavenn unfairly.
4. As I've stated before, if you can come up with an agreeably fair
means of determining if a victim was in or outside of Stavenn when a
cruellament was started, then we can work that in. But I don't think
such a thing is possible, so this is another obvious loophole that would
allow Kinsarmarans to continue attacking people in Stavenn. The fair
thing to do would be for both cities to illegalize this politically
volatile attack. Since all major attacks would cease with the
installation of this treaty, there would in theory be no need to use
cruellament anyway. But we believe you want to keep the option open so
that, once again, you have an unfair loophole to attack us that only
works for you.
5. Stavenn has fewer totem people than Kinsarmar. No totems outside of
the cities. Agreeing to allow totems outside of the cities when
Kinsarmar has much greater totem ability is an obvious advantage to
Kinsarmar, as any starting point can be worked off of at an exponential
rate.
6. Removing a totem inside of a city would be an attack on that city.
Your problem with the open trade agreement apparently revolves around
how you want totems outside of your city. Since that isn't going to be
accepted, what other problems with this agreement can you fabricate?
7. If the Mages and Lorekeepers do not allow citizenship to anywhere but
Kinsarmar, then that would not violate the open citizenship agreement.
The bards at one point allowed citizenship everywhere including Stavenn,
but changed their minds after Jagara killed Luthyr (Lokrien?). As a bit
of an artist myself, I'd say it's obvious that not allowing bards to
experience an entire culture is not artistic at all. If a peace treaty
is made, Stavenn would pose no threat and there is nothing 'against the
ethos' of an artist in joining such a city.
As for the negotiable terms, I feel no need to go into them. Kinsarmar
will pay Stavenn reparations for the war they started, one way or
another. Of course, the Lokrien family would never sacrifice their own
ambitions to do anything positive for Kinsarmar. I will state however
that if the Lokrien family steps down from all leadership positions I
would step down as Imperator, as a sign of the "fairness" you claim is
so important to you.
In closing, I reiterate. You say you want fairness, but you want to be
able to cataclysm people from inside of Kinsarmar and leave a massive
cruellament loophole open, and allow the Vahinites who fight for you to
hide in your city after attacking ours. You make me laugh, and if it
were not politically necessary to point out the many flaws in your
overdone attempt at logic I wouldn't be replying to you at all.
~I Nessaja, Imperator.
Penned by my hand on the 15th of Bellum, in the year 418 AD.
