Diplomacy ethics - Page 8

thejeff · #1 February 3rd, 2010, 01:26 PM

That's the point. Humans don't work that way.

There is an advantage in being regarded as trustworthy. There is an advantage in being untrustworthy. The key is to balance the two.

In the metagame, it would also make sense for the untrustworthy to convince others to disregard evidence that they are untrustworthy.

Jarkko · #2 February 3rd, 2010, 01:33 PM

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 · #3 February 3rd, 2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

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.

vfb · #4 February 3rd, 2010, 05:10 PM

Declaring in the OP that a game has Machavellian rules just gets rid of the drama in the (actually rare, even in a Machavellian rules game) cases that someone does decide to attack prior to a NAP expiring.

thejeff · #5 February 3rd, 2010, 05:25 PM

It seems to me that there should be 3 sets of rules:
Binding: Actual penalties for breaking agreements
Default: Reputation only
Treachery Encouraged: Whatever you like, as nasty as you want. Dirty trick encouraged. Behavior here shouldn't be considered in other games.

I'm not sure which of those last two would be considered "Machavellian". I suspect different people might have different answers.

vfb · #6 February 3rd, 2010, 05:53 PM

IMO "Machavellian" is the last one. But even in a game like that, you still start off with a default "good" reputation. That's what I've seen in the games like that which I set up or joined, anyhow.

There is still very little backstabbing, because:

- Your ability to make future diplomatic agreements in that game will suffer
- You'd better be sure that your backstabbing will quickly kill your foe, because his nation should rightly strike back. With great vengeance and furious anger!

So what's the point? Less OOC drama and whining in the forums, for one. And you reset to a "good" reputation in the next game.

Belac · #7 February 3rd, 2010, 05:59 PM

I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. A well-timed announcement that a NAP-3 will be retired can be as devastating as a full-on sneak attack, especially if you've been talking all friendly-like, discussing alliance possibilities, and the other guy was -absolutely- convinced he could declare war on another of his neighbors.

In other words, binding diplomacy does not mean no deceit and scrupulous honesty. It means you have to be just a little bit more subtle if you want to catch someone out.

(Also, I will very rarely make a formal agreement to not fight until 'x' turn, or to not make peace with 'x' nation, etc. 'I will not do 'y' unless I give you 'x' turns warning' is very different from either of those)

Foodstamp · #8 February 3rd, 2010, 06:09 PM

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

So I broke the sacred rule of what happens in a game stays in a game. The guy begged for peace and he was met with silence and destruction! I wonder how many other players do the same.

vfb · #9 February 3rd, 2010, 06:30 PM

Really? Sounds just like a good strategic decision to me. If you had been Agartha and the other guy had been Pan, it probably would have gone the other way.

By "broke a NAP", you mean "violated", not "cancelled", right?

Foodstamp · #10 February 3rd, 2010, 06:36 PM

Correct. I was at war with another player and he attacked me despite the NAP. Given the situation, I may have pushed him anyway, but knowing who he was made it a no brainer. What I am getting at is his actions in the first game had an influence on the second game even though we are supposed to give people a clean slate from game to game. I don't think I am capable of that!