I have strong morals and I try to never hurt anyone. But Diplomacy is a game. It's escapism. In Dip, I get to be a sociopath for a few hours, lying, manipulating, using people and attacking the weak for my own advantage. It's fun, and most importantly, no one gets hurt. It's like playing a shooter where I get to kill people. If you can't separate the game and reality, then it probably is a waste of time and you'll just end up hurt. So I urge people to let go of their inhibitions and just have fun.

Not saying that you should lie non-stop, I'm usually upfront about most things in a game because if you're obviously lying, people will simply never trust you. But to win, you will probably have to lie to and betray someone at some point.

It's easy enough to win without lying (or at least it's not much harder than winning any other way), although winning without some form of deception is next to impossible. If I'm honest though I would say that any system or morals that forbids lies but allows deceptions as long as actual lies aren't involved would be more than a little suspect.

Personally my moral code is based mostly on intent. This game creates enjoyment, satisfaction, and a mental workout using the tools of lies and deception. To ban yourself from lying and deceiving is to lessen the enjoyment of your fellow players, and is therefore immoral. The good guys tell lies :)

Simple. I circumvent my personal rules of never lying by making the distinction that I never said just how permanent or temporary an alliance or NAP would be. You don't have to lie to be deceptive. In fact, a person who tells the truth is far more deceptive than a liar.

I'm sure there's a psychogical term for someone who can't tell the difference between a game and reality.

Does your friend also drive on the correct side of the road and stop at all traffic lights in video games?

But, yes, lying does not have to be a large part of the game.

In a game that I was involved in, I had a great alliance going for a number of years. It allowed both me and my ally to grow consistently throughout the game, resulting in the two of us being the most dominant powers. Though I was not in a position for a good stab, nor did I desire to stab such a good partner, I stabbed him because not doing so would have allowed him to gain 16 or 17 centers, and it would have been nearly impossible to stop him from winning. In this case, I broke an agreement we had in order to stop him from winning, rather than winning myself. In my opinion, allowing someone else to win is worse than lying because it goes against the very intent of the game. Can you win without lying? Probably. Does it happen a lot? I've never seen it.

It's only a lie if you never intended to do what you said. If the intent was to keep to an alliance, but then you felt compelled to break it due to circumstances, then you didn't lie. In that case, you merely had a change of plans foisted upon you by the circumstances of the game.

Interesting.

Oh, and the object of thegame is to do the best you can *while having fun*. So sometimes the circumstances say stab to mix up the game and have fun, other times they say stab to stop the solo, and yet other times they say stab to get the solo for yourself. But you should always play to better yourself and keep the game fun and expect everyone else to do the same. Then any stabs should be expected to some degree.

"I circumvent my personal rules of never lying by making the distinction that I never said just how permanent or temporary an alliance or NAP would be."

That's fine to justify it to yourself. Just be careful you don't try to convince the opposition you "didn't lie" with this logic. Somebody tried something very similar to that with me once and it just pissed me off. Far better to apologize for the deception, explain the reasoning, and say you hope circumstances change and you might be able to work together again someday.

@ Draug

I hope your mother doesn't get to read this. If she did I think she'd be very upset :p.

This is an interesting thread, but there are some commentaries to be made.

First of all, the OP refers to a problem-riddled board. A weak France, an idea-less Italy and a weakened nation that creates a strategic imperative.

About that last thing; destroying a weakened nation is not necessarily immoral. In fact, it can be necessary to restore the balance of power on the board. After all, if there are, for example, six centers to be divided by either 2 or 3 players, it's the best that it be done with 3, so each player has 2 centers and some balance is maintained. This balance is lost when 2 players divide the 3 centers among them. Also, the result is the same.

When you're in a situation like you describe, feel free to come to the aid of the weakened nation and then, when you find out you can't help him (or you can, but you pretend not to be aware of that), simply ask for permission to take some of his centers. Honestly discuss the situation with him; that he can't be saved (tell which moves you want to make and how they can't salvage him), but that he can still influence the game by letting the one who was most honest to him have his centers. Also, you can promise this person a survive (if you really managed to establish a relationship of confidence.) Just tell him you will protect his capital city until the end of the game and that you're aiming for the solo. It wouldn't be the first time for me that a deal like that actually passes. I follow through on this, too. I reward loyal nations.

Then about lying; my playing style is very defensive in this respect. In my profile, you'll see just one win, but also just one defeat. Try to maneuver yourself in a position where you can't be lied to. This is very difficult and requires great skill, but it's possible.

Never open up completely to an ally and certainly don't open up more to him than he does to you. Always make sure you have good agreements on your frontiers, and demonstrate willingness to respond to what you perceive as aggression.

Don't hesitate to lie to players who lied to you first. Then tell them that you believe you had your revenge, that you're both equal now.
Then, you lie to him again. The second time, tell him that you had no choice but to lie, because although the first lie has been avenged, you were in a bad position all the same, because of the bad initiative the other person took not to keep working with you.
Then, you lie to him again. The third time, you explain that you simply don't accept being lied to and are going to kill him. Be sure to laugh, slap him on the shoulder, call him a cool guy and everything. Apologize, but with a smile on your face. You are now the alpha and you have to play your role mercilessly. Make sure this person does not make the same mistake in a future game.

Of course, you should only have to lie once and then you're going to kill the guy.

Learn how to play the victim. Because when you're being lied to, you are in fact the victim. Point out to other players that you've been stabbed, and show the moves which prove that you've been stabbed. Force the liar in the defensive.

You'll be fine.

I disagree with the last half of Redhouse's post.

The victim card gets old fast, and you'll burn bridges doing that - if something goes wrong with your plans you'll be a lot happier with this foe willing to trust you. I think its best to stick to the old adage, "Only lie if you know you can get away with it, or if the reward outweighs the risk."

The point is, people respect a lie if it was clean.

The absolute worst thing you can do is commit a lie that puts both your nations in a gridlock of distrust. If a neighbor feels you will only lie to him for a good payoff, it makes you more trustworthy. If he feels you'll lie, "just because" or "for a possible tactical edge on that one SC" then he's not going to believe a word you say.

Yeah, you shouldn't overdo it and even err toward underplaying that role, but a post like "so I just got stabbed by Germany - I tried to support him into X, but he stabbed me, so I'm reorienting myself" can have a good effect for you. Right YJ?

oh yeah, you can play it off against other nations all you want. I just don't think the payoff of playing the victim towards the nation who stabbed you is going to be high - especially if you feel that justifies lying back.

There is no "justification" for lying beyond "was it the right thing to do?" Lying for the sake of payback just creates gridlock and screws you both over.

In the midgame,I weigh the ability to work with me of a player who I've clashed with not by, "how honest has he been?" or "do we have the same enemies?"

It's invariably, "have his lies been good ones?"

of course, if he's ALWAYS been honest, then yeah, his lies have been good ones :P

Re: victim, no I definitely wasn't planning on throwing that towards the player who stabbed me, but potential new allies. And even then, like you say, cautiously.

Re: how honest has he been? I definitely do keep track of that. Surely strategic interests are paramount, but I definitely keep a record (either written or in my mind) about how honest players have been and reward them for it if I ever come in a position where that reward comes at no cost to myself (for example, in an alliance shuffle, I definitely weigh that in)

It's not a lie if you believe it.

Everytime I have played the game with this guy he has been unwilling to do anything i've suggested because it involved having to attack someone. He always says he doesnt want "me" to get too powerful. Its amazing to see someone play the game without the winning mindset, he sees winning as not ruining any moral fortitude. He truly just plays the game much like a pacifist variant. In real life hes a very nonviolent person too so it sort of makes sense. He had an army in Syria, a fleet in Eastern med, and no chance for Turkey to defend himself, and because he felt sorry for possibly being the aggressor he simply pulled his units back to Italy.

Lol. I guess this guy's problem has little to do with morale though :-)

@Oct - My mother spent her entire working career in politics... If anybody gets Diplomacy and manipulating people, she does.

@ Draug

That explains a lot

Yeah, I was raised with a backstabbing, scheming witch for a mom and a brilliant but emotionally cold engineer for a dad. So I became a software developer. :-D

It was either that, politics, or seminary school, I'd imagine :P

God know on seminary school. I can quote the shit out of the bible, doesn't mean I believe it to be some literal truth or have the "faith of a grain of mustard seed". Nope, it was musician or computers and the typical musician doesn't make what the typical tech geek makes.

God no (weird typo)

"Lie" is such a strong word.

Spring 1901 is a jump ball. I know what I'd like to do, I know what everyone else is telling me they're going to do, but I don't actually know what they're going to do.

So the only way I can plan for the next few years is to have several alternative sets of plans, which I necessarily diverge from as the board develops.

I suppose this could be interpreted as "lying."

I actually think lying to ONE nation in spring '01 is permissible. There are some players supposedly who will never forgive you, but I feel that it is almost necessary to do so if you hope to secure your place on the winning side within your sphere.

Being wishy-washy and saying "lets see" usually just results in the others allying against you.

Austria I think is the only one who is allowed to say, "lets see" because the others will actually believe he isn't coming directly for them. That's my experience anyways.