> A Traitor is under no obligation to honour any informal promises they have made with other Noblemen, nor to tell the truth to them, and is encouraged to betray other Noblemen in order to achieve victory.

What is the purpose of this rule?

Every noblemen is already under no obligation to honor any informal promises they make…

If people want to play this game as greedy betraying backstabbers they can. If they want to play the game straight and honest they can. I don’t see why we need a rule telling one person how they are supposed to act.

I continue to disagree with the supposed need for this rule in the first place. 

[Clucky] Nobody ever actually plays BlogNomic as a greedy betraying backstabber in practice, though, do they? We’re playing multiple consecutive games with (by and large) the same group, so dramatically betraying someone in the finale of one dynasty will limit your social capital in the next.

This special case rule is intended to shake things up and add some risk to a dull spreadsheet endgame (which has just woken up with Estate Can Mean Two Things) where a group can combine resources to win, safe in the knowledge that nobody would renege on the deal halfway through.

reasonable points

I an a big fan of that. 

But hey, if you want it, shouldn’t there be 2 traitors? I’m thinking 1/5-1/6 ratio would make sense.

Probably won’t be using this even if activated.

cov. Thought it over and I don’t see how to work it into the dynasty short of the traitor being able to use forged money and I doubt that would be a thing