Diplomacy ethics

[Sombre]

But the agreement will be broken the second it is not in the interests of the other party. Since you can count on them to follow their interests anyway, what's the point of having an agreement? I mean I see why you'd communicate and say 'I am attacking this guy' if you thought that would encourage other people to attack him. But there's no point in saying 'we won't attack each other until this guy is dealt with' because it adds nothing to 'I am attacking this guy'. In fact I see no reason why they'd believe you are actually attacking the guy unless they can see it for themselves, in which case there's no point in you telling them.

Obviously I'm not being serious. Humans don't work that way. But logically if agreements aren't binding and there's no difference between telling the truth or lying (because all is fair), they're pointless. I just find it strange that people would bother with them when there's no penalty for breaking them.