[Aethyr]

In the spirit of the game, there is something artificial about the "assumption" that NAPs are inviolable. In a world with diverse and powerful beings--all vying for supremacy--why would this be true?

I have no problem with a nation "covering its back side" so it can concentrate all its might against another enemy, it is exactly what I would expect a nation in a weaker position to do.

Likewise, I have no problem with that same nation deciding at some point that its position has changed, and it is now strong enough compete against that enemy head on without the crutch our "NAP" provides. Even if that decision terminates our agreement prematurely and without warning. It is all in the spirit of the game (but you may be sure I will remember). I believe that those who suggest differently may be at best trying to ensure a little too much "stability". At worst, it is potentially unbalancing, and lessens the need for strategic planning--although I will not try to develop that thought in this tread.

Otherwise, I agree with almost everything that HoneyBadger, Stryke11, and Sombre have said.