This article is another reprint from Diplomacy World #63. This issue, published in 1991, is 32 pages long; however, the text refers to a contest on page 87, which indicates that it too may have been a reprint. In any case: like the article on drawing that we've also reprinted in this issue, this article raises the question of what can be considered 'ethical' behavior in a game of Diplomacy. Given that the stated goal of the game is to defeat all six others, is it ever legitimate for one player to throw the game to another? Read on to find out what David has to say… Be sure to check out the Diplomacy World site for more issues of Diplomacy World! At this year's DixieCon, there was some discussion about the play of a particular player in several of the games. The charge was, basically, that said person played the game in a manner not consistent with either the rules or of fair tournament play. His crime? Handing the win to one player out of spite towards another player. Novices may be somewhat perplexed as to why such behavior would be objectionable to Diplomacy players. When I started playing the game, our gaming group did not consider second place to be a bad thing, so there was nothing inherently wrong with helping another person to win the game as long as there was sufficient rewards in doing so. When I entered the tournament and postal hobbies, though, I found out that most hobbyists would never think in such terms. To such people, the purpose of the game is primarily to keep another player from winning, i.e. make sure that a stalemate line is set up to preclude a win. Hopefully, the resulting draw will include you, but if not at least you have done your job by preventing the win. After I learned that's the way the experienced players are supposed to play, I proceeded to act upon this assumption in the last game of my first Diplomacy tournament. I was a big Germany, and I stabbed my French ally, played by the experienced hobbyist and publisher Marc Peters. Instead of defending his homeland from the rampaging Italy, as I expected him to do pursuant to the "prevent a win" strategy, he proceeded to hand Italy the win to make sure I wasn't in a draw! At first this seems inconsistent. If the goal is really to prevent a win, then why didn't Marc negotiate with me about setting up a stalemate line to stop Morgan Gurley's Italy from winning? The answer is that there is no simplistic "goal of the game" that applies to every situation. While the initial goal of Diplomacy is to win or be in the draw, there are times when taking a different position in negotiation or actually doing something else in your moves is perfectly OK. One's goal in Diplomacy differs from person to person, and often from game to game. Survival isn't even always the primary goal, at least not for me. Flip ahead quickly to Gary Behnen's contest on page 87. You will notice that in that game, my one-center position agreed to give up their only center in order to help Gary win. Why? Because if I did not do so, the guy who stabbed me would have won the next turn. Often the only way to try to convince a stabber to make peace with you, the stabbee, is to threaten to throw the game to someone else. There is absolutely nothing infantile or unethical about the threat to do so. It is the actual carrying it out that people hate. I would argue that such hatred is irrational. If it's OK to threaten to do something, I say it's OK to carry it out (at least in the context of a Diplomacy game.) The tactic will always be disregarded by the stabber unless it is actually carried out from time to time in actual games. The stabber should not be able to stab with impunity, knowing that the stabbee is bound by some ethical obligation to resist someone else's push for a win. If this were true, the stabbee could be forced out of a draw or even eliminated by tying his hands behind his back as the stabber continues his assault. Now, let's return to the player at this year's DixieCon. In two different games, he supported one player to a win at the expense of one or more other players who either stabbed him or refused to cooperate with him. I find nothing wrong with such actions on his part. (I did largely the same thing myself as the Papacy in the 1499 variant tournament.) The problem can be, nonetheless, with the manner in which the tactic is pulled off. One must be fun, but rational in one's carrying out of the threat to throw the game. One must always be open to negotiation with the other party so as to make sure there is no appearance of ill will. Remember that this tactic is not truly a question of spite or hatred for the stabber; it is simply a way of showing the stabber what the logical consequence of his actions will be. If he responds with emotional antics or other such behavior, it is his problem rather than yours. Provided, of course, that you did not start the emotional war yourself. David Hood, c/o the Editor (editor@diplom.org) If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the envelope above does not work for you, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.