MP: Apotheosis [Running]

[Verjigorm]

The problem with "in good faith" (and this is why I always stay out of discussions involving pathetic attempts to make people make good on promises made, NAPs, etc...) with the obvious exception of binding trades is this...

Once it is set than no arrangement can be broken, it opens the door to the use of treaty as a weapon. Since you cannot attack me, if I can grab a crucial choke point or a certain land before you (or even take provinces from you that were conquered by barbarians, etc.), I can use the treaty as a weapon against you.

Once treaties of this nature come into play the "in good faith" clause goes into effect with all of its subjective glory....

Player 1: You broke our NAP!!! Ummm!!! I'm telling mommy!!

Player 2: Well, you took my High Temple of the Magii when it fell to Barbarians!

Player 1: So? Our NAP didn't say anything about "reserving provinces"....


Blah, Blah, Blah...
In such situations, both players will feel that they are in the right and both will be able to draw supporters. Yes, the NAP was technically broken, but Player 1 was definitely using it an a douchebag-esque manner, so one could see arguments for the "in good faith" side as well...

If you aren't prepared to deal with discussions of a truly political nature (e.g. in which people might change their mind), you aren't prepared to play Dominions in MP.

That aside, once someone starts frequently breaking treaties based solely on fancy, people will eventually get the idea that the best thing to do is to make the treaty and then kill them as soon as an advantage appears. Turnabout is, of course, fair play. NAPs can be very useful if you abide by the arrangement and don't push it by playing nasty with the letter of the law, but once you go douchebag on either side of the scale like using an NAP to strong arm, stifle expansion, or snag provinces or on the other hand breaking treaties without appropriate notice as defined by said treaty, you end up with a monkey sh__ fight...