Realpolitik is itself a manifestation of a philosophical idea known as consequentialism. That is, the morality of an action is determined by the consequences of the action. Or, "the ends justify the means."

Opposed to this is deontology - the idea that actions are universally right or universally wrong, regardless of the outcome. That is, an action is right or wrong based on rules that have been established.

Here is a hypothetical (though very familiar) scenario that explains the dilemma. The United States must decide whether or not to support (financially and/or militarily) an authoritarian ruler of a country in an unstable part of the world. The ruler is - while not yet tried in a recognized court of law - no doubt persecuting many of his own citizens, denying them universally accepted rights. Yet, the ruler's presence provides stability in that region, and his departure would undoubtedly lead to a myriad of humanitarian issues.

The consequentialist would support the ruler on the grounds that more lives are saved and/or improved by his presence than by his absence. The deotologist would block support of the ruler on the grounds that his regime is guilty of crimes and should be brought to trial.

Again, this is hypothetical, but obviously bears some telltale signs of actual events. My intention is not to have us argue the hypothetical, but to use it to illustrate the two sides, and to promote discussion.

This seemed like an interesting forum in which to pose this question. As I said, the game of Diplomacy is quite clearly a game of consequentialism. And, like most games, it is also a simplification or simulation of an aspect of the real world. So, does the game properly reflect the "correct" philosophy of real-world diplomacy?

I have my own opinion on this, of course, but I would like to hear from others first.