again, redhouse, breaking the DMZ may or may not have been a good lie, but that kind of bullshit "obvious lie" that you've described is just going to enrage your opponent.

If you're going to break an agreed upon DMZ immediately, just say straight up, "yes, I lied, I'm coming after you, I'm sorry, but this is why I did it, good luck."

Do you see the difference? The former says, "I lied, and I'm going to keep lying because I assume you're an idiot and will fall for it." The latter says, "I lied, but I'm reasonable. Yes, we're going to butt heads but I'm a guy you can work with if the situation changes."

Now, I think a REALLY good player would answer differently than I have, but that's what I've figured out so far.

Yeah but /I/ wouldn't say it, /because/ it would enrage my opponent, it's just that I've heard my opponents say it to me.

haha me too man. Those are the kind of lies that cause the issues I was talking about earlier. I think a huge key to diplomacy is being able to realize when the board has changed enough to make your neighbors reconsider their options. One needs to check for this every single turn and apply it to your strategy.

That, to me, is far more influential on whether I trust what somebody says than whether they've lied to me in the past is.

^^ damn my grammar is horrible.

I do not understand people who play Diplomacy like the OP's friend.

@brainbomb - Does your friend play Settlers of Catan? If he rolls a 7 does he refuse to steal a resource from another player because stealing is wrong?

I just can't wrap my head around this. Why play if you're aren't trying to win?

@Yellowjacket - Exactly right, IMO. I don't get mad when people lie to me or when they attack me. I get mad when they lie gratuitously and/or attack stupidly.

I will often work with people who stabbed me just a turn or two ago, if I think that stabbing me was a reasonable move. With these guys I can (sometimes) get them to not stab me again by changing the board dynamics in some way so that it's no longer beneficial. And although I don't "trust" them in the sense of always believing what they say, I know I can "trust" them to do things that are in their own interest. Which at least makes them reliable. So if stabbing me is bad for them, I can expect them not to do it.

It's the guys who both lie gratuitously and who stab foolishly that I can't trust. If I know that you're both willing to lie to me, but also incapable of figuring out when attacking me is a good or bad move, then you're pretty much impossible to work with.

If one person stabs me in Spring 1901, I know that they are a weak player. When two do, though, I get worried.

I was playing that game with brainbomb and the player in question. His personality puts him very squarely into the PPSC mentality, in that he feels an ally's victory achieved with his help is victory enough for himself. To answer the questions directly:

No, playing Diplomacy isn't a waste of time if you're personally/morally opposed to lying. Firstly, there are many ways of justifying being fast and loose with the truth. Sure there are outright lies, but also lies of omission and of vagueness. You can justify it being in the spirit of the game. If one's opposition is not so easily overcome, why not be straightforward with everything? It does put you at a bit of a disadvantage, but in a circle of F2F players, reputations have a habit of growing, and it can be turned to your advantage.

It's an understandable sentiment to tone down the ruthlessness against new players, but at the same time they will invariably be stabbed by an ally if they play enough games. Everyone learns to adapt, so why let them waste their time building up this illusion of endless loyalty?

The last point may turn out being the most difficult one for the player in question to adapt. There are times when you need to prop up a neighbor against a bigger threat, and other times when it's more appropriate to rush in and take everything you can. Learning which situation calls for each approach only comes with experience.

Like I said, his mentality is very PPSC-oriented, and since there are no points to distribute after a F2F game, his own opinion of the result is the only one that matters to him. That said, brainbomb, hassle him to sign up on webdip and I'm sure he'll very quickly settle into whatever style suits him best.

@Dys, YJ, et al: Yeah. The selfish or shortsighted lies are really the only ones that are worth getting frustrated about. If someone pulls off a masterful ploy and completely explodes my position, it's almost a thing of beauty.

...of course it's also the role of the stabbee to spew vehement obscenities and threats of unholy rage, regardless of how great a stab is.

I don't know the player in question, so my thoughts/questions are more general I guess. But from the description, it sounds like this guy's style goes beyond merely not being willing to lie. It sounds like he is unwilling to do anything "mean" to another player because to do so is wrong in some way.

IMO, it's one thing to be unwilling to outright lie to someone because you've got a reputation to maintain. It's another entirely to refuse to attack other players because you don't want to be the aggressor. Whether you're a pacifist in real life doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant. I'm not attacking "you". I'm moving little blocks of wood around a game board in an attempt to win. It seems pretty morally neutral.

(As an aside I think a lot of the mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that their various deceits weren't really "lies" are kind of silly. If my intention is to deceive you as to my plans for the purpose of getting the upper hand on you, why does it matter in a moral sense if I technically "lied"? If lying was in some way morally "wrong" - which of course I don't think it is - then why is deceiving you through other means any less "wrong"?)

I never lie, I just change my mind.

@spyman: without telling anyone first.

haha spyman I think that is the heart of it, seriously.

I make promises to everybody and I honestly intend to keep them all, even though they are mutually exclusive. And then when a choice needs to be made well it just kind of works itself out :P

sociopathy in diplomacy indeed.

It's not sociopathy if your enemy is dead afterwards.

But really the best way to actually explain why you deceived someone and stabbed them is to say you made two promises, and they didn't conflict until just before you stabbed. The first promise you made, and the more important one, was made at the start of the game when you joined. This promise was to all the other players involved that you would "do whatever was in your power to gain 18 centres, and failing that, to draw."

If you didn't stab when it was necessary you would have broke that promise. When I make agreements, I hold true to them wherever possible, unless I can see that it would break my agreement I made by joining the game, in which case I am forced to stab them.

It comes down, in part, to how you personally define win. I play with a similar style (though not quite as strict as your friend there, it sounds like), and if your goal is to be part of a winning 2- or 3-way draw, the style can work out pretty well. But unless you're playing against fools, don't expect to be able to steal that solo win without backstabbing somewhere.

Of course you can ............ ever played a gunboat !!

@jichen - A draw isn't a win. If it was, you'd get all the points, the GR boost, and the notch in the win column. No, a draw is not a win and anyone who plays as if it is quite honestly is a moron.

@ Draugnar: Of course this is a game, so the point of it is to have fun. Which means everyone's free to define their own end-goal as they please. Personally, I couldn't care less how Webdip's servers record wins-losses.

Of course, strictly speaking your argument is also a bit disingenuous. A 2- or 3-way draw does boost GR, and your first point also applies to PPSC games. It's fine if you're part of the purist WTA-only crowd, but again, to each his own.