Quote:
Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer
However, I played my first turn of my first MP game with the idea of I would play the Paladin with Lawful Good (for you RPG Players), sounds like you may have adopted that also.
|
The funny thing is, based on the D+D alignment metric, you could argue everything from LG to *neutral evil* would honor all agreements they entered into given the existence of a meta-game. Self-interest is enough to motivate people to keep their commitments if they know with near-certainty they will likely be dealing with the same players again.
(Suppose confidence that your treaty partner will honor an agreement is both beneficial to you and conditional on your honoring past agreements with him. Thus breaking an agreement causes an egregious harm to your future agreements, and the benefits to doing so would have to be absolutely enormous to be justified. Given the number of future games you might play with a given person is unbounded, I'm not sure there's any in-game benefit large enough that would justify failing to follow through on your treaty agreements).
Basically, its repeated prisoner's dilemma, and even game theory tells us that the best strategy in that circumstance is to trust everyone the first time, and respond tit-for-tat to their actions.
Now, if someone wanted to play a chaotic alignment, it would be rather entertaining to watch, but would likely blow up in their face.