Lying and betrayal play an integral part in Diplomacy. How, then, can there be any ethical or moral concept to the game? Isn't this a game without ethics?
It's certainly true that a game of Diplomacy will feature lies, half-lies, omissions and betrayal. It's difficult to imagine a game that wouldn't involve these. When the box the game came in used to feature the slogan "Destroying friendships since 1959" nobody should be surprised by this!
But, in reality, experienced players understand that you get more success in Diplomacy by being honest most of the time. It's a game about building trust. There is always going to be a point where that trust is going to be broken if you are to win games, but dishonesty isn't going to be rewarded.
There are some aspects of the game that do require a certain degree of morality and ethical appreciation, therefore. There are players who will tell you that if you can get away with something, then it's all fine and dandy. There are plenty of stories about face-to-face games where a player has smuggled an extra unit onto the board and got away with it.
This is based on the idea that if it isn't prohibited in the rules, then it isn't illegal. This seems a slightly exaggerated view of things. Just because the rules don't say a player can place an illegal army in the board and use it, doesn't mean to say it should be allowed.
Remote play makes this kind of dodgy behaviour almost impossible. However, Allan B Calhamer (do you think he called himself "Allan B Calhamer"? Personally, I doubt it, but then he was American and they like that kind of thing...) published an article about a postal game he was in where the Russian player tried to argue that he should be allowed to build a fleet in Moscow. (Actually, reading it in Diplomacy World #74 it isn't clear whether this is from a real game or not, let alone whether it was a postal game or FTF, but I'm using it as an example of what might happen in a postal game.)
When it comes to online Dip, there arises a number of ethical questions about how the game should be played that don't appear elsewhere. The ability to cheat through either multi-accounting or metagaming; the ability to use screenshots; communicating outside the game; cyber-bullying - all these are questionable practices.
In the series that follows, I will look at some of the ethical questions to arise in Diplomacy, whether these are in FTF or Remote play.
It's certainly true that a game of Diplomacy will feature lies, half-lies, omissions and betrayal. It's difficult to imagine a game that wouldn't involve these. When the box the game came in used to feature the slogan "Destroying friendships since 1959" nobody should be surprised by this!
But, in reality, experienced players understand that you get more success in Diplomacy by being honest most of the time. It's a game about building trust. There is always going to be a point where that trust is going to be broken if you are to win games, but dishonesty isn't going to be rewarded.
There are some aspects of the game that do require a certain degree of morality and ethical appreciation, therefore. There are players who will tell you that if you can get away with something, then it's all fine and dandy. There are plenty of stories about face-to-face games where a player has smuggled an extra unit onto the board and got away with it.
This is based on the idea that if it isn't prohibited in the rules, then it isn't illegal. This seems a slightly exaggerated view of things. Just because the rules don't say a player can place an illegal army in the board and use it, doesn't mean to say it should be allowed.
Remote play makes this kind of dodgy behaviour almost impossible. However, Allan B Calhamer (do you think he called himself "Allan B Calhamer"? Personally, I doubt it, but then he was American and they like that kind of thing...) published an article about a postal game he was in where the Russian player tried to argue that he should be allowed to build a fleet in Moscow. (Actually, reading it in Diplomacy World #74 it isn't clear whether this is from a real game or not, let alone whether it was a postal game or FTF, but I'm using it as an example of what might happen in a postal game.)
When it comes to online Dip, there arises a number of ethical questions about how the game should be played that don't appear elsewhere. The ability to cheat through either multi-accounting or metagaming; the ability to use screenshots; communicating outside the game; cyber-bullying - all these are questionable practices.
In the series that follows, I will look at some of the ethical questions to arise in Diplomacy, whether these are in FTF or Remote play.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?