Diplomacy ethics

[Jarkko]

I think my point was missed. Partly because I wasn't too clear about pointing out

Like GrudgeBringer above sayss to militarist, you either are "in the loop", or you are not. You know the people you trust to always to stick to their agreement, they know you. If you are in the loop, then you can count on the other players in there to cover your back. Wether you stick to agreements or not has no meaning, because those in the loop will kick out those not in.

It is the metagaming that can potentially kill the game, just as nearly happened to PBM Diplomacy in the 80's. Just as GrudgeBringer above says, he has a list of people he counts from game to game to cover his behind. If you are not on his list, there is nothing you can do; you will be on his target-list (because if you are not on the "trusted people who I count on to save my butt and who I thus don't attack what ever happens" -list, then you are automatically on that other list, as he has to attack *somebody* at some point ).

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Why would you bother making an agreement with anyone then?

Because if you never make agreements you will be very dead very soon. Agreements are done (or so I suppose) when two (or more) people can assume to have something to win from the agreement. Agreements are thus by definition *good* things. However, if the agreement turns out to be bad for you (or too good for the other partner), then the smart thing to do would be to break the agreement.

[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.

[thejeff]

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]

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.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would submit that the relevant aspect of diplomacy is not what is promised, but what actions are taken by the other party afterwards. Diplomacy is a method of manipulating other players into doing what you want.

Diplomacy does not just involve negotiations and deals, it can involve threats, blackmail, bribery, etc... The fact that these more aggressive aspects don't see much apparent use in the game is strange. Just talking to other players can manipulate their behavior, even if your discussion reaches no particular conclusion. Consider the impact of selectively sharing intelligence, for example.

When it comes to a deal, the best ones are obviously those with immediate consequences. Ie, arranging with another player who is attacking where so that your armies don't clash. Sure, there is the possibility that they will stab you and attack where you're attacking, but you can defend against that (send enough strength to make it painful and don't reveal how much you plan on sending). And the benefit is immediate, ie, next turn, so the scope for betrayal is small, and this kind of deal potentially benefits both sides. (Either side could lose a substantial force or take large casualties if they don't talk about it). Because both sides benefit, both sides can be expected to follow through most of the time.

So why form non-aggression pacts? I mean, in a machiavellian world, any termination conditions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, right? I would argue that the actual language of your agreement is not the point of the agreement.

First, the point of a non-aggression pact is not to secure a peaceful border until someone announces NAP end. Its to de-militarize the border *now* so you can use your army elsewhere. Similarly, it allows your ally to do the same, so its also to his advantage. Anyone who signs NAPs and doesn't demilitarize the border is, I would argue, a worse violater than someone who breaks NAPs without following the agreed to terms for ending it, and I would consider them to have broken the NAP in spirit if they keep a nominally peaceful border heavily garrisoned. (if they demilitarize it, but later start to garrison it, then its arms race time. But you already got the period of demilitarization at the start as the benefit of the agreement.)

Second, no one is saying there is no cost to stabbing someone. If you break a treaty with someone, even if we believe games are a microcosm from which no metagame emerges, then your ability to negotiate *in that game* in the future suffers. If nothing else, the person you stabbed will be more wary of dealing with you, and others might as well. Consider honorably ending a NAP, starting a war with your former NAP-mate, and then getting stabbed or attacked by someone else. It might be possible to end the war to refocus on the new front. But if you broke the NAP to do it then your new enemy is much less likely to trust you to be willing to agree to peace with you.

Third, maintaining a positive relationship once you've formed one has additional benefits beyond the continuance of the agreement. You're likely to find a more willing trade partner for exchanging gems and forged gear, you have a ready-made military ally, and you have someone you can plausibly rely on to cast remote spells at targets you designate. You give all that up the moment you break the agreement.

Basically, there is a definite cost to breaking deals. This is why a stab has to be worthwhile - you have to have made quite significant gains to offset this cost in order for the stab to be beneficial. The more communication and aid two allies render each other, the higher the cost to one of them stabbing the other.

So in a machiavellian world the best diplomacy is active. No NAP-3 and don't talk to the other guy for 20 turns. Get him involved in your wars, ask to get involved in his, or at least provide strategic support. Make trades that might only be net neutral for yourself occasionally. Be a *good* ally and you won't get stabbed very often. (And be capable of defending yourself if you do get stabbed!)

Basically, diplomacy is far more important in a machiavellian world, because you have to prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest.

[Belac]

Even with binding diplomacy active diplomacy is best, and proving prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest is important.

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest. Your most honest neighbor who has the most unabrogratable NAP-3 with you will retire it and attack you in 3 turns if he likes his other neighbors better. All unbreakable diplomacy does is give you 3 turns' warning (but he probably decided to fight you several turns before breaking the NAP, so he would be hard to dissuade).

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Belac

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again

[Belac]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again

3 turns is not sufficient to prepare against an opponent who has spent several turns preparing before retiring the NAP. It's sufficient warning to get -something- up, but a good player won't retire a NAP without having spent several turns getting ready. So the attacker is doing his final tuneup while the defender is still recruiting/repositioning a main force, unless the defender was prepared through scouting and other means. Signing a NAP and then treating the other player as unable to attack you is never wise.