zarvinny wrote:tahitiwahini, i think the point people are trying to make is that it is generally bad manners to have non-aggression pacts when only 3 players are alive in a game.
However, I believe that even with 3 players, they can still be ethical if the player left out of the pact is very strong, and that the pact is ONLY between 2 borders, as opposed to a full blown alliance.
A total non-aggression pact is when 2 players agree not to attack each other on any borders, which is almost like an alliance in which you almost become a team for a specified amount of time.
Here is my opinion: in most random games, it is okay to establish NAP's and alliances and really, anything. However, some players do not like alliances and establish their own, private games, in which alliances are not even discussed, it is simply common knowledge to attack whoever is strongest. Even in these games, politics and discussion come into play. Some even imply alliances without actually asking for them (JohnnyRocket24).
Thank you for your succinct comments expressed very clearly, which you managed to make without any accompanying insults. This is the kind of feedback i was looking for.
I'm not sure I agree with your opinions but they at least give me a basis for thinking about the issue more clearly.
Here's where I'm having my difficulty. I would be happy if the rule is that NAP's are illegal. That would make my decision easier, I simply wouldn't use them and I wouldn't be disadvantaged by others using them. It would remove a large degree of diplomacy from the strategy involved in crafting a successful world conquest, and in that sense perhaps make the game of Risk less interesting and complex, but at least the playing field would be even in this respect.
However, it seems that most people regard NAP's as legal (as indeed my original opponent who left the neutral comment, albeit with negative content, did) and most people further regard them as an essentially ethical technique to weaken a stronger player (to level the playing field as some have characterized it). The difficulty for me is that some go on from there to state that there are conditions under which it is unethical to use NAP's. My inquiries have been directed toward finding out what those circumstances are.
The first element seems to be that while it is OK to weaken an opponent through the existance of an NAP to which he is not a party, it is improper if the weakening is carried to its logical conclusion and the opponent is eliminated. I'm not sure I agree here. The opponent who is not a party to the NAP is always harmed by the existance of the NAP. And it is obviously true that the parties to the NAP are always benefited by the existance of the NAP (or believe themselves to be benefited else they wouldn't join the NAP). Given these two assumptions which I contend are universally true I'm left feeling like the man in this old story:
A man asks a woman whether she would go to bed with him for $100.
The woman, insulted of course, tells the man she would never sleep with him for $100. "The idea is ridiculous and insulting," she says.
The man says, "Well, OK, would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?"
The woman doesn't respond immediately, obviously thinking about the situation in a new light.
The man says, "Well, what do you say? I need your answer now."
The woman replies, "Give me some time to think about it. Don't rush me."
To which the man replies: "What's taking you so long. We've already established what you are, the rest is just dickering about price."
In other words, if the your ethics cause you no concern about weakening an opponet using NAP's (and make no mistake all NAP's weaken your opponents -- the energy of the NAP members which would be dissipated against each other can now be brought to bear on the non-NAP members), then why the sudden religion about eliminating the opponent.
Take the extreme case, when a non-NAP member is reduced to a single army and the NAP is then terminated. The NAP didn't kill the opponent, so it's an ethical NAP. I think we all know what happens to the opponent with one army in the next round. I believe the elminated opponent would find the fact that the NAP wasn't in effect at the time of his death, cold comfort indeed.
If it's then a matter of degree of damage to the non-NAP, what is a suitable measure of the damage. In other words, is it OK to weaken the strongest player through a NAP to the point where he is no longer the strongest player at which point the NAP if it were to be an ethical NAP would have to be terminated. In what characteristic should the strength be measured: armies, countries, number of armies deployable in the next round?
Anyway, these are the kinds of issues I'm trying to deal with. I'm looking for that line over which one must not cross and still be considered to be using NAP's ethically.
I appreciate you comments about what you are calling a total non-agression pact. I'm thinking you are more justified in thinking that this more likely constitutes bad manners, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint the reason why I think so. A total non-agression pact does seem to be to be tantamount to an alliance. The question whether an NAP is an alliance is much murkier when the NAP is basically limited to two countries (say Greenland and Iceland in the classic gameboard).
I'm still wrestling with why a technique that is appropriate and ethical in a 4 player game becomes less appropriate and ethical in a 3 player game. I do grant that in a multiplayer game the non-NAP member has the ability to form his own NAPs with other players to counterbalance the effects of the NAP to which he is not a party. However, I don't see how the absence of this remedy for the non-NAP member in a 3 player game renders the NAP unethical or inappropriate. It seems to me this is a risk of being in a 3 player game and is assumed equally by all the participants in such a game. Perhaps it is bad manners of a sort, but after all this is a game of world domination rather than a tea social. We are talking about (albeit in the abstract) killing men and subjugating countries to military occupation. Perhaps concern about bad manners is misplaced in such a context.
I welcome further discussion on these points.
Anyone is welcome to make comments of the sort made by some on this thread that I have not found to be helpful (I'm sure they know who they are), and indeed add me to their ignore list if they so wish, but I fail to see how that advances the conversation or our understanding of the proper role of NAPs in risk, which was the purpose of my starting this thread in the first place.
I found your comments to be most stimulating and thank you once again for taking the time to express them.
