CBJ wrote: ↑Fri, 15. Nov 19, 16:21
It makes perfect sense. A non-aggression pact is not the same as a full alliance; agreeing with someone not to shoot each other doesn't mean agreeing to shoot someone else on their behalf.
Not my point at all
If someone is actively targeting members of their "pact", they're not supposed to worry or do something about it?.. How is that even remotely possible? Pact, faction, club, we can call it whatever we like, whether they signed a treaty with blood from their pinkies or not.
"Hey, you heard, 20 more guys were killed yesterday!"
"Bah, no worries, not our problem!"
"Don't you think there's someone hunting us?"
"Bah, no worries, not our problem!"
"But, you know, there's a fleet wrecking our weed supplier over yonder!"
"Not our problem!"
"But they're coming this way now!!!"
"Not our problem!.."
Such a "pact" won't last a day. I.e., if they function as you describe, the only reason to explain their very existence in the universe is that nobody cares.