Faithless player:

[Endoperez]

This one?
I think it became a discussion about should the breakers be announced, and what, exactly, counts as a breach of a NAP. I didn't re-read it all the way, but that's the feeling I get from browsing through it.

Also, this is what KO had to say in that thread:

Kristoffer O said:
> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).

There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

Endoperez casts Word Of God! Chrispedersen resists! Chrispedersen is not paralyzed!