Diplomacy ethics

[Jarkko]

If you and I make an agreement, and you leave your behind your backside open while you go on a rampage through something else, you can bet I would be itching to do something about the matter. It is not my advantage to have you get into winning position, so why should I sit on my thumbs and watch you win the game?

However, if you guard your behind well, and we both reap in rewards from the agreement, you can be pretty sure I will stick to the letter of the agreement. Why would I want to make you an enemy (who I apparently wouldn't potentially be able knock out fast enough to avoid your wrath) when we both benefit from the agreement?

[Belac]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

If you and I make an agreement, and you leave your behind your backside open while you go on a rampage through something else, you can bet I would be itching to do something about the matter. It is not my advantage to have you get into winning position, so why should I sit on my thumbs and watch you win the game?

However, if you guard your behind well, and we both reap in rewards from the agreement, you can be pretty sure I will stick to the letter of the agreement. Why would I want to make you an enemy (who I apparently wouldn't potentially be able knock out fast enough to avoid your wrath) when we both benefit from the agreement?

Precisely. In order to defend against an ally stabbing you, you only have to have the resources to make it costly for them. To defend against an enemy or neutral, you need to be able to actually defeat their armies. So you and your ally attack someone together while keeping a bit in the backfield, and you can trust your ally because if they stabbed you they'd start losing to your mutual enemy -and- they'd face a hard fight against you. Eventually, as your mutual enemy is weakened, you find another mutual enemy or prepare for the possibility of your ally directing their whole forces against you. Thus the game becomes a set of cycling alliances.