I have been itching to post this for a while...

[petroleumjelly]

PJ, do you disagree with the principle that it's unethical to make a threat that you can't ethically follow through on?

In life? I would agree (although there are of course certain circumstances I could argue to the contrary: such as if I thought the only way I could save a loved one was to threaten to take somebody's life, blah blah blah).

But in the context of a mafia game? No: I disagree with you.

The other players don't necessarily

know

that I probably would not follow through on the threat, and in fact, the

purpose

of my threat is to give a false perception of possible detriments that will occur should a player make a given action.

How is it unfair to benefit from the perceptions people hold of me in the context of a game? There have in reality been players who have given me a "pass" on calling me scummy because they "fear" me, or "respect" me, or "figure I had some plan I hadn't revealed yet" (and probably other reasons). This works to my benefit. That doesn't mean I shouldn't use that fact to my advantage if I find it proper to do so. In a game, I will use the tools reasonably available to me.

[mikeburnfire]

Come ooon PJ. Answer my question about vampires. Would you hate being one, fighting the mafia and then becoming one midgame?

[Turbovolver]

Trying to catch Cult is comparable to trying to catch scum in Mountainous.

ALERT! ALERT!

[petroleumjelly]

Apologies, Mike.

PJ, you obviously have strong feelings about being a cult recruit, but would you feel the same way if you were a Vampire?

That is, you're told that you're a townie, but if you get targetted by the mafia then you become one of them and join the mafia. It would still require changing your alignment midway though the game, but you'd join the mafia instead of the cult.

If the Vampire was told he was a Townie (and hence was given the sole win condition of winning with the town), I would be against the use of such a role, yes.

[Thestatusquo]

~ "If you try to lynch me today, I will do all that is in my power to have you nightkilled by so-and-so."
~ "If you do not answer my question, I will kill you tonight [with my Vigilante power]."
~ "If you try to track me tonight, I will give you a posting restriction."

You don't see any difference between those and threatening to rat out the cult? I see several.

1) In each case, you are threatening an action to one player, in order to aoid them using anaction on you. Whereas you are threatening to ruin a game, in order to prevent a player from using an action on you. Therefore, you are punishing those who have no ability to control the actions of the cult.

2) Second, and this is a big one. Those are all actions which occur WITHIN the context of a game. Your example is only coherant if you advocate that busting games should be in the range of normal gameplay tactics. Since I know you are not advocating that, the examples are false.

[mikeburnfire]

If the Vampire was told he was a Townie (and hence was given the sole win condition of winning with the town), I would be against the use of such a role, yes.

Aww.... vampires are cool.

What if he was told that he was a vampire, at that he may, at some time during the game, become a mafia?

[petroleumjelly]

1) In each case, you are threatening an action to one player, in order to aoid them using anaction on you. Whereas you are threatening to ruin a game, in order to prevent a player from using an action on you.

Therefore, you are punishing those who have no ability to control the actions of the cult.

I disagree. The actions of the Cult are

controlled

by the Cult. "The Cult" is not equivalent to "the game"; the game can still go on if the cult is outed,

especially

since (and now I

will

get picky with language):

1.) Even if I did "out" anybody, there is no guarantee I would be telling the truth. I had in fact planned on using this strategy if I was ever recruited after having made my threat. The town would still have to

believe

that I am truthfully ratting out

anybody

in order for it to remotely "ruin" a game. As surprisingly as this might sound, I

do

have strategical reasons for the meta-game stances I often take.
2.) I do not recall ever saying

when

I would "rat out the cult", nor how many cultists I would rat out in the first place. It could be I would spill the beans after it was too late for the town to do anything about it.

2) Second, and this is a big one. Those are all actions which occur WITHIN the context of a game. Your example is only coherant if you advocate that busting games should be in the range of normal gameplay tactics. Since I know you are not advocating that, the examples are false.

See above. "Busting games" is relative in any case. And you must

always

consider that just because somebody says something in a game of mafia, it doesn't make it true.

[petroleumjelly]

If the Vampire was told he was a Townie (and hence was given the sole win condition of winning with the town), I would be against the use of such a role, yes.

Aww.... vampires are cool.

What if he was told that he was a vampire, at that he may, at some time during the game, become a mafia?

I would have to see his exact win condition. I am generally against telling players that their "win condition might magically change to be anti-town at some point",

unless

they are told

what exact conditions must be met

in order for that to happen so they can influence the game to make the achieving of that more or less likely.

[GreenLiquid]

By threatening the cult in game, my purpose is to try to win the game with my win condition as presented to me. It may be the case (in fact, it is the case) that I hate cults.

So essentially, you're saying one of two things:

1) I don't mind breaking the rules and ruining the setup for both players and mod in order to win the game.

2) To avoid being culted, I'm going to threaten to ruin the game, because I don't like cult.

And on two, I don't care whether or not you follow through: is threating to kill someone but then not doing so legal?

The point is, even insinuating you'd be willing to ruin a game for both mod and players is enough to make my stomach churn. I realize the threat was hollow, but that doesn't prevent it from being a threat. When someone even says they're going to out the cult if they are recruited, for

any

reason, it's selfish at best and cruel at worst.

And arguing that blackmailing the mod vs. the players is different doesn't help either. Blackmailing the players with something that will ruin the game is not within the spirit or even the limits of the game. That's like saying that as town, it's ok for me to hack the mod's account and look at the setup because it'll further a town win.

Please understand that I don't mean any offense. But I feel very strongly about players ruining games, and I don't care about reason. As a mod, I'm sure you know that many hours are spent balancing and crafting setups. Would you like someone to even threaten to do that in one of your games? I don't mean to flare any tempers, and if I've upset you I apoligize.

[Adele]

if you rat out your fellow cult-mates, you're not only intentionally destroying your own chances of winning the game, but you're also sabotaging your fellow cult-mates' chances of winning, and you are destroying the Mod's game by ruining the balance.

It's a Bastardmod role. The mod ruined the game for the recruiter by requiring the recruiter to screw up players' WCs and invert the fruits of their labour. So, your WC's not really valid (you get your WC at game's start, and if the mod expects you to conform to an arbitrary change in it halfway through he's an unrealistic bastard), your recruiter screwed you, so why not screw him back, and the mod's running a bastard game - but of course, let's not ruin the balance he worked so hard at.

Consider a cult for a moment like it was a new idea. It's

horrible

completely bastardy, and against the spirit of mafia: an informed minority vs an uninformed majority - people need to have their group defined at game's start.

Whoa, this turned into a rant, but I really see PJ's point here.

Edit: OK, I wouldn't go through with it,

but

I do think surprise alignment changes go beyond bastardyl they are a perversion of the spirit of Mafia itself. The WC you get in your initial role pm should be the Sufficient and Necessary Condition for you to actually win the

game

!

[GreenLiquid]

It's a Bastardmod role. The mod ruined the game for the recruiter by requiring the recruiter to screw up players' WCs and invert the fruits of their labour. So, your WC's not really valid (you get your WC at game's start, and if the mod expects you to conform to an arbitrary change in it halfway through he's an unrealistic bastard), your recruiter screwed you, so why not screw him back, and the mod's running a bastard game - but of course, let's not ruin the balance he worked so hard at.

So if we don't like something, we're free to destroy it or ruin it for others? So if I don't like my role in your game, I can just ruin it for you? Forget about ethics; if you don't like something, destroy it.

I'm not a big fan of scum masons, so I guess next time I'm one I'll out my mason buddies and scummates in my first post.*

*Making a point, not going to do this.

[Glork]

Adele: I'm not defending the existence of cults. I do not particularly like them myself. But as

several

people have already stated, a player's unahppiness does not give them leeway to destroy a game. No matter how you try to justify it, two wrongs do not make a right, and creating the kind of duress and potential devastation that PJ advocated is still, IMHO, completely unacceptable.

[IH]

I can see what PJ is saying. Cults are not a good idea in mafia, mainly

because

of the win condition. Cults change someones win condition they've been working on. I can sympathize with PJ on this.

[Adele]

I agree that outing it is over the line. you notice, I added an edit stating that I wouldn't. That's a breaking of the trust. But so was the mod's behaviour.
I'm not saying the player should ruin the game; I

am

saying that the mod beat them to it.

I realise this is contentious, and there may be mods you've designed setups with alignment changes in them. It didn't occur to me 'til I thought about it, but now I have, it seems wrong, wrong, wrong to me that the WC in a person's role pm be an actual or potential lie.

[Mr. Flay]

It's not a lie, it's just not permanent. No one ever said that your Win Condition on N0 was going to be your Win Condition at endgame.

PJ, I'm still having a hard time understanding why you don't see this as ruining the game. It's NOT an

in-game

decision, because at the moment your win condition changed, outing your teammates became contrary to your winning the game. It may help you sleep better at night, but it doesn't follow the setup or the balance of the game. You're trying to assert an authority you don't really have, and I'm not sure how to state that any more clearly. Just threatening to do it would have gotten you lynched in a game I was playing in, as I could not assume you were not yourself already a cultist pulling a double-bluff. It's not ethical and it's not within the parameters of the game.

Now, we've almost all agreed that cults can be bastardy, so how do we go about fixing them?

[Adele]

It's not a lie, it's just not permanent. No one ever said that your Win Condition on N0 was going to be your Win Condition at endgame.

"You win when all the anti-town roles are dead" is an example of a typical townie WC. Are you really going to argue that this doesn't convey permanence? It's saying that

you will win

when the anti-town roles are all dead.

Come on, you could argue that there's no such thing as a mod-abandonment; the mod just changes everyone's WC to "you already lose, and I don't have to tell you so."

[petroleumjelly]

PJ, I'm still having a hard time understanding why you don't see this as ruining the game. It's NOT an in-game decision, because at the moment your win condition changed, outing your teammates became contrary to your winning the game. It may help you sleep better at night, but it doesn't follow the setup or the balance of the game. You're trying to assert an authority you don't really have, and I'm not sure how to state that any more clearly. Just threatening to do it would have gotten you lynched in a game I was playing in, as I could not assume you were not yourself already a cultist pulling a double-bluff. It's not ethical and it's not within the parameters of the game.

I have only threatened this in two games: once in Chrono Trigger, and once in 2-Headed Mafia.

1.) In Chrono Trigger, there was not a Cult. There was no indication of a Cult. I sincerely

doubted

there

was

a Cult. My comment was made flippantly in that game [seeing as I was a confirmed innocent Mason, I can say pretty safely that you would have failed to lynch me if you had even tried], and was not meant to carry any bite. It had no effect on the game whatsoever.

2.) In 2-Headed Mafia, here's something people ought to keep in mind:

I was mafia

. I could not possibly have been recruited. I could not possibly have outed any fellow cultists. Furthermore (again), there town didn't even

know

there was a Cult when I made that comment (and in fact, most of the town

didn't believe there was a Cult at all

). I could not possibly have ruined the game for the mod, and you can rest assured that I was well aware of this. I knew it. The mod knew it.

I made my threat as a strategic move so that the Cult would be deterred from

attempting

to recruit me, since I knew that this could lead to bad news for me as either the Leader themselves could call me at as scum for a failed recruitment, or even if I managed to kill the Leader, I could be called out as scum by a hypothetical Cultist.

Also, GreenLiquid's "comparisons" are becoming more and more ridiculous.

So essentially, you're saying one of two things:

1) I don't mind breaking the rules and ruining the setup for both players and mod in order to win the game.

2) To avoid being culted, I'm going to threaten to ruin the game, because I don't like cult.

And on two, I don't care whether or not you follow through: is threating to kill someone but then not doing so legal?

1.) I was not breaking any rules. Read above.
2.) I knew it was not possible for me to "ruin the game" no matter what, regardless of whether or not I like Cults.

Furthermore, GAMES are different from LIFE and LAW. In Mafia, you are

supposed to lie

if you are not part of the town, and you are

supposed to manipulate people

in order to achieve your win condition.

STOP

trying to compare this to law, because that connection cannot fly.

And arguing that blackmailing the mod vs. the players is different doesn't help either. Blackmailing the players with something that will ruin the game is not within the spirit or even the limits of the game.

That's like saying that as town, it's ok for me to hack the mod's account and look at the setup because it'll further a town win.

DO YOU NOT READ?

I use the

tools

available to me to further my win condition,

so long as those tools are within the realm of the game

.

Hacking into the mod's computer is not within the realm of the game. Threatening to "beat people up" is not within the realm of the game. Blackmailing players with out-of-game circumstances is not within the realm of the game.

Threatening players with in-game detriments for taking actions, however, is completely within the realm of the game.

So if we don't like something, we're free to destroy it or ruin it for others? So if I don't like my role in your game, I can just ruin it for you? Forget about ethics; if you don't like something, destroy it.

I'm not a big fan of scum masons, so I guess next time I'm one I'll out my mason buddies and scummates in my first post.*

I pursue the eradication of Cult roles out-of-games. Also, again, read back:

If you are

given

a role (such as a Scum Mason), you are given a Win Condition which you must thereby follow. It is the arbitrary changing of Win Conditions which most irks me with Cults. Furthermore, you are taking an

out-of-game

stance which has

nothing to do with choices players make in games

(nobody can change whether or not you are randomly given a scum mason role by a mod). My threats are

in-game stances

which state that

if

the Cult tries to recruit me, they will suffer the consequences. And in any case, both times I used this, there was (1) no cult nor even a reasonable stretch that there may have been a Cult, and (2) I could not have been recruited to the cult in the first place.

[remussaidow]

Ok, PJ, so would it be ok, if the mod posts in the rules that "your alignment may switch at some point in the game. If this happens, you're win condition changes to fit that alignmetnt. You do not win with your old alignment," to include the cults? (and vampires)

[petroleumjelly]

Try reading my thread on Cults to find your answer. I would suggest bringing a tent and some popcorn, though.

Thread found here.

[Mgm]

Cults always have a fighting chance, whether they're a surprise or not.

The reason why I personally dislike Cults is because they're purely anti-town. A Mafia can ignore a Cult, as long as they have the numbers advantage over the Cult. In the meanwhile, town can't believe Cop claims, Doc claims, Mason claims, pretty much anything, as they can all be cultivated.

Easily remedied. Last time I had a cult in one of my games, only vanilla townies could be recruited.

[Mgm]

I play by the win condition

given to me

. Screwing

me

over by changing

my

alignment and win condition midway through a game is something

I

consider

wrong

. So far as

I

am concerned, ethics require that Mods

do not use cults in the first place

.

So really your beef is with changing your aligment midway through the game. I once was recruited into the mafia during night 2 and went on to win the game with them (after nearly getting lynched 4 minutes after the deadline). Would you consider a one-off recruitment by mafia unethical too?

[Zindaras]

Trying to catch Cult is comparable to trying to catch scum in Mountainous.

ALERT! ALERT!

Hmm? What's wrong with that?

You can't use claims to "clear" people of being Cult, so you're forced to rely purely on behaviour.

Easily remedied. Last time I had a cult in one of my games, only vanilla townies could be recruited.

As I said to Glork, the problem with this is that the

town does not know that

. The town doesn't know what the Cult can or cannot recruit. Only if

every

cult in

every

game can only recruit vanillas or millers or whatever, can the town use that to clear people from being Cult.

[StallingChamp]

I agree with PJ on this issue.

[Fiasco]

"You win when all the anti-town roles are dead" is an example of a typical townie WC. Are you really going to argue that this doesn't convey permanence?

I don't know. If my role says "every night, you can pick a player to investigate", and there's a role that decides to steal away my cop ability on night 3, is the mod breaking the player's trust? Cults have been around for a long time, and nearly everyone is going to understand an implied "except if your win condition changes".

How is it unfair to benefit from the perceptions people hold of me in the context of a game?

It isn't, not in general, but it's unfair to benefit from cultivating the perception that you'll wreck games if things don't go your way. I'm going to think about how to argue that it's unethical to make a threat that you can't ethically follow through on, but I firmly believe it to be true and I think it's the core issue here.

[StallingChamp]

NO!

Losing (well changing, really) abilities is NOT the same as chaning your WC.