Ethics: Kingmakers and Cults

[Seol]

Yes, I meant you have to assume 1). D'oh.

To elaborate - if roles are mutable, then right from the beginning of the game your win condition is

actually

"win with the town, unless you're recruited, in which case win with the cult" - only, you're not told the second bit, although you can work that out as the game progresses. It's not as if people are always told full role functionality in their role PMs - I could cite backup cops or non-sane cops here. With a win condition like that, playing with the objective of changing teams seems to be a perfectly legitimate tactic to me.

[jeep]

So we've moved away from ethics and into game theory. How is this different than the prisoner's dilema?

-JEEP

[Thok]

So we've moved away from ethics and into game theory. How is this different than the prisoner's dilema?

-JEEP

It's only game theory once we fix the value of each outcome to each player. I think the ethics part is determining roughly how much we feel a draw is worth versus a win versus a loss.

[jeep]

I don't see it. Can you elaborate?

-JEEP

[Dragon Phoenix]

A simple scenario to start us off:

Question 1: 3 Player Endgame

1 Cult (can recruit every night, cannot kill, has no protection)
1 Mafia (can kill every night, unrecruitable)
1 Townie (recruitable, no abilities)

Assume it is 100% certain which player has which role. You are the Townie. What do you do?

I fail to see what the ethical problem is here.

Option1: no lynch. Mafia kills cult and overpowers the townie. Game lost for town.

Option 2: side with the mafia. Cult is lynched, Mafia kills townie. Game lost for town.

Option 3: side with the cult. Mafia is lynched, Cult recruits townie. Game lost for town.

In all cases town loses. so the remaining townie might as well choose to side with the cult and get the personal satisfaction of victory.

As I said at the start, where do ethics come into this?

PS: I did not read all responses - I fully expect that I'm not the first one with this point of view.

[Dead Rikimaru]

PS: I did not read all responses - I fully expect that I'm not the first one with this point of view.

You are not.

[mith]

The purpose of Question 2 is to look at the distinction Fiasco brought up: Are we, as a Townie, playing for the Town to win (/draw), or are we playing for ourselves to win eventually?

Let's say the scenario was the same, but with 2 extra Townies. Now the Town (since they are all knowing) can lynch the Cultist or the Mafia, and then the other the following Day. If they lynch the Cultist, one of them dies, and then the Town wins. If they lynch the Mafia, however, the Cultist recruits one of them, and now it's 2-2 and the Cult recruits the rest of the Town. For the Townies, the choice is between a Town win, or "winning with the Cult". (We'll assume for the sake of discussion that the Cultist would recruit all three of them, rather than recruiting two and lynching the third, since that clouds things a bit.)

I

think

that everyone would agree that the correct play is to lynch the Cultist first. Even though one of the Townies then dies, survival is not the point of the game (unless, of course, it is part of the winning condition), and given an "equal chance of winning" the Townies would choose to win with their original condition.

On the other extreme, we have Question 1 once we have ruled out a draw. Most of you argue that since the Town must lose either way, the correct play is to lynch the Mafia and become a Cultist.

Question 2 falls in between. From a game theory point of view, it asks how much a Win-by-changing-sides is worth relative to a "normal" Win/Draw. But from an ethical stand point, I think (hope) it questions what a "Win" even means.

Consider if, instead of a Townie becoming a Cultist and playing the remainder of the game with a new winning condition, the Townie's account was "possessed" by a new player entirely (or even the Cult leader). Surely we wouldn't argue that the Townie player has "earned" a win just because their "character" was taken over. Why then should it be different in a situation like this, where the Cult wins the instant the Townie is recruited? The ex-Townie player has participated no more in the Cult win than if his account was taken over, except in choosing to let the Cult win

before

it was part of his winning condition.

Time to go pick up my laundry, perhaps more later.

[Seol]

Question 2 falls in between. From a game theory point of view, it asks how much a Win-by-changing-sides is worth relative to a "normal" Win/Draw. But from an ethical stand point, I think (hope) it questions what a "Win" even means.

This is defined by the mod, simple as that. Your original win condition is not gospel and it does not force loyalties on you - any loyalties are loyalties of convenience, nothing more. I would have no compunction in changing sides at the drop of a hat if I thought it would aid my chances of winning.

[Yosarian2]

I disagree, Seol. When the mod designed the game, he assumed, he had to assume, that every player would do their best to make their side win. If your win condition states "you win when all anti-town people are dead", then that is your goal, and you have to do your best to achieve it. If the cult grabs you and brainwashes you, your side might change, but unless and until that happens you have to do your best to destroy the cult. Otherwise, if some townies started playing with the goal of joining the cult and then destroying the town, it would completly unbalance the game; I can't even imagine how you could balance a game with a cult if it's expected that some townies might or might not try to betray the rest of the town to help the cult at some point.

[Seol]

I disagree, Seol. When the mod designed the game, he assumed, he had to assume, that every player would do their best to make their side win.

Did he? Or did he have to assume that every player would do the best to make sure

they

won? I think different mods would approach that from different angles, but a good mod would have a game which isn't severely unbalanced by either approach.

If your win condition states "you win when all anti-town people are dead", then that is your goal, and you have to do your best to achieve it.

If your role PM says you're a cop, and you later find out that yes, you're a cop,

but

there are added details you didn't know about at first (namely, you're paranoid), then you'd be stupid not to take those added details into account when deciding your play.

If your role PM says your win condition is "win with town", and you later find out that yes, that is your win condition is win with town,

but

there are added details you didn't know about at first (namely, that a role out there can modify your win condition), then you'd be stupid not to take those added details into account when deciding your play.

Is it unethical for an SK to come out to a psychotherapist?

If the cult grabs you and brainwashes you, your side might change, but unless and until that happens you have to do your best to destroy the cult.

Do I? Why? What's wrong with being brainwashed?

Otherwise, if some townies started playing with the goal of joining the cult and then destroying the town, it would completly unbalance the game; I can't even imagine how you could balance a game with a cult if it's expected that some townies might or might not try to betray the rest of the town to help the cult at some point.

There are tactical reasons to play against the cult - in most situations playing into the cult is a highly risky strategy, and that's what balances it. But if it's not supposed to count as a win, then the person to tell us that should be the Mod. What counts as a win is the final scoreline, nothing more, nothing less.

[Kelly Chen]

Let's say the scenario was the same, but with 2 extra Townies. Now the Town (since they are all knowing) can lynch the Cultist or the Mafia, and then the other the following Day. If they lynch the Cultist, one of them dies, and then the Town wins. If they lynch the Mafia, however, the Cultist recruits one of them, and now it's 2-2 and the Cult recruits the rest of the Town. For the Townies, the choice is between a Town win, or "winning with the Cult". (We'll assume for the sake of discussion that the Cultist would recruit all three of them, rather than recruiting two and lynching the third, since that clouds things a bit.)

I think these are ethically equal options. I would

prefer

to win as town, and I imagine onlookers would prefer to see this.

I still think a game's mechanics are deficient if you have to bring in ethics to make it work right.

When the mod designed the game, he assumed, he had to assume, that every player would do their best to make their side win.

I don't agree with this. If the mod wants the pro-town players to play for a town win, he'd better make sure that they win by doing this.

I already thought cults were a bad idea, but this thread is convincing me further.

[VisMaior]

I think the original question is rather vague and not a good example of the actual problem. The problem should be more like : draw for town, or win for yourself as cult?

[Yosarian2]

Is it unethical for an SK to come out to a psychotherapist?

I would think so, yeah.

If the cult grabs you and brainwashes you, your side might change, but unless and until that happens you have to do your best to destroy the cult.

Do I? Why? What's wrong with being brainwashed?

You have to do your best to destroy the cult, because your win condition says you're supposed to destroy all anti-town people.

Otherwise, if some townies started playing with the goal of joining the cult and then destroying the town, it would completly unbalance the game; I can't even imagine how you could balance a game with a cult if it's expected that some townies might or might not try to betray the rest of the town to help the cult at some point.

There are tactical reasons to play against the cult - in most situations playing into the cult is a highly risky strategy, and that's what balances it. But if it's not supposed to count as a win, then the person to tell us that should be the Mod. What counts as a win is the final scoreline, nothing more, nothing less.

(shrug) Quite a while ago, people came to the conclusion that the game just works better if everyone plays to make their side win, instead of just playing for individual survival. In other words, make the play that makes it most likely for the town to win, even if you get killed. I would tend to take that to it's logical conclusion, and say that you should make the play that makes it most likely for the town to win even if you later get converted, because the game just works better, in my opinion, if all pro-town people are trying to make the town win, all scum are trying to make the scum win, and all cultists are trying to make the cult win.

[Yosarian2]

I already thought cults were a bad idea, but this thread is convincing me further.

But cults are so much fun.

[SpeedyKQ]

If the Mafia agrees to this, should he follow through and not kill? In the unlikely event that the Mafia (or Cultist) has already been in a similar situation and didn't hold up his end of the bargain, should the Townie still feel any obligation to try for the draw?)

If I'm the mafia, hell no, I don't keep my word. If the foolish townie wants to hand me the win on a silver platter, I will graciously accept that win, and the platter, thank you. (The endgame of Checkmate is a great example of this.)

This is an ethical question about honesty within a game that condones and encourages dishonesty as a path to victory. Outside such a game, I have a different viewpoint about the importance of keeping one's word.

Question 2: Same Endgame

Assuming there is a non-zero chance of a draw in the situation posed, should you always try for that draw (risking a loss if the Mafia kills anyway), or should you help lynch the Mafia?

To me, this doesn't change a thing. Lynching the mafia absolutely assures that I will end at a win condition, so there isn't a shred of doubt which action I should take.

[Seol]

If the cult grabs you and brainwashes you, your side might change, but unless and until that happens you have to do your best to destroy the cult.

Do I? Why? What's wrong with being brainwashed?

You have to do your best to destroy the cult, because your win condition says you're supposed to destroy all anti-town people.

And you cunningly snipped my "hidden wincon appendix" argument.

I'll repeat it in stronger terms, and see if you respond. Having a "win with town" win condition is effectively analagous to having a win condition of "You win with cult, unless you fail to get yourself recruited, in which case you win with town". It's not put like that in your role PM, but once you know there's a cult, you know that is

mechanically identical

to your true win condition. You have to derive that information, but that doesn't make it any less true.

As for the "game works better" argument, well, I agree it works better, but that should be reflected in amending the rules - which is exactly what happened. I can only think of one game run recently which had a "you have to be alive to win" rule, and I thought there was a good reason why it should be implemented in that game (I now think I was wrong). However, even if I thought the game worked better in a "win with teams" setup, I would play to survive if that's what the game told me I needed to do to win.

[Thok]

Is it unethical for an SK to come out to a psychotherapist?

According to many of the players in Married to the Mob, it apparently is. Or at least you better be sure that the psychologist actually is a psychologist and not scum making a wild role claim.

I obviously disagree.

[Seol]

Is it unethical for an SK to come out to a psychotherapist?

According to many of the players in Married to the Mob, it apparently is. Or at least you better be sure that the psychologist actually is a psychologist and not scum making a wild role claim.

Oh, it might be tactically unsound, but I don't see how it's unethical...

[Yosarian2]

I'll repeat it in stronger terms, and see if you respond. Having a "win with town" win condition is effectively analagous to having a win condition of "You win with cult, unless you fail to get yourself recruited, in which case you win with town". It's not put like that in your role PM, but once you know there's a cult, you know that is

mechanically identical

to your true win condition. You have to derive that information, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. You could also look at it the way I did earlier, which is to say "You win with the town, unless you get yourself recruited, in which case you have basically lost this game by failing to meet your win condition, and will then start another game as cult with a different win condition." I would think either point of view would be equally valid, unless the mod specified it one way or the other.

[SpeedyKQ]

I

think

that everyone would agree that the correct play is to lynch the Cultist first. Even though one of the Townies then dies, survival is not the point of the game (unless, of course, it is part of the winning condition), and given an "equal chance of winning" the Townies would choose to win with their original condition.

I would say lynching either is "correct" because either way I end up with a win.

This

actually would be a thorny kingmaker kind of choice. One way, I'd make the cultist win. The other way, I'd make all the dead townies win. So I'd either have to make a value judgement outside of the game as to who I liked better, or flip a coin.

I suppose one could argue that making the dead townies win is the better choice because more people get to win that way, but in any case, a sense of "loyalty" is meaningless to me in a game with mutable teams.

[SpeedyKQ]

You could also look at it the way I did earlier, which is to say "You win with the town, unless you get yourself recruited, in which case you have basically lost this game by failing to meet your win condition, and will then start another game as cult with a different win condition." I would think either point of view would be equally valid, unless the mod specified it one way or the other.

But the mod doesn't specify that you lose if you get recruited. So you don't. If he specifically

did

say this, then I'd see things your way.

Why should a player impose imaginary loss-conditions on himself?

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) Well, if your initial win condition is "you win with the town", and the town does not win, then you failed to win with the town, and one could argue that you have therefore failed to meet your win condition and therefore lost.

Besides, from a flavor point of view, it just seems wrong to be play Star Trek mafia and decide to try to get assimilated by the Borg so that you'll win with the Borg. I'm not sure how the mod could lay that out in the rules, though.

[Kelly Chen]

If instead of win/lose we used a scoring system, you could punish town players who get recruited. But the more you punish them for it, the less incentive they have to show up and keep playing...

[Seol]

(shrug) Well, if your initial win condition is "you win with the town", and the town does not win, then you failed to win with the town, and one could argue that you have therefore failed to meet your win condition and therefore lost.

Besides, from a flavor point of view, it just seems wrong to be play Star Trek mafia and decide to try to get assimilated by the Borg so that you'll win with the Borg. I'm not sure how the mod could lay that out in the rules, though.

Well, fundamentally, that's roleplaying. If you want to play that way, fair enough I guess, but that's not really how Mafia works as far as I'm concerned - it's an abstract framework, that's all. I don't see any merit in perceiving wins as losses.

It does beg the question of how cults should be used, though... personally, I think they're an absolute minefield of a role and should never be used.

(hint: this means my next game will feature a cult)

[fadeblue]

I'm not sure how the mod could lay that out in the rules, though.

How about this: Your end score = (the # of win conditions you fulfill at the end of the game) / (the # of win conditions you have had during the game).

Thus, getting recruited to win with the cult is worth less than avoiding recruitment and winning with the town.