Honor is like paper money. It's worth the faith we put into it.

Honor is important, but you are still in the game to win. We shouldn't confuse an ally with a friend. You have a working relationship with your ally, because it's mutually beneficial. Once your ally is no longer an asset, the allegiance is no longer to your benefit. At that point, feel free to break the allegiance according to whatever rules the game has in place, and if you are not a benefit to your ally, you should not be shocked if he/she turns on you. That's just part of the game. Rarely, have I needed to do this, but no alliance can last until the end. There can be only one.

Deception, misdirection, and even betrayal are important elements of this game. They make it exciting. I have done these things, but I will not do anything truly dishonorable. Examples of truly dishonorable acts are breaking unenforceable rules, strategic booting , and joining a 4-player FFA with 2 close friends or clan members. This dishonor ruins the game and creates only hollow victories. I do not care for victories I have not earned.

Note: This is my stance in the game, only. For real life allegiances, I think we should stand by our word. But in real life, we don't have to ultimately defeat everybody.

Edited 6/2/2015 05:17:28

As for the "honor" vs "honour" debate. Who cares? Language evolves and changes. There are differences in language by country (even those who share English) and differences by region. Someone from Baton Rouge uses a different version of English than someone from Boston or Los Angeles. What's important is that we understand each other. No need to quibble over the exact spelling. Let's just consider "honor" and "honour" to be synonymous.

It's actually spelled onnur. You can all go home now, folks.

Moving on, I'm going to admit that I do sometimes manipulate my allies in games, but I try to stay allied with them unless either they go rogue and do something I don't agree with, or if I have a very low chance of survival if I remain allied with them. When there are two people left in a diplo, it's essentially an FFA or a 1v1 at that point, so I try to attack whoever it is unless I'm much smaller. I just try to salvage a VTE if I have a low chance of beating them.

I know I'm not the most moral person on here, but strategy is strategy.

Honor is important, but you are still in the game to win. We shouldn't confuse an ally with a friend. You have a working relationship with your ally, because it's mutually beneficial. Once your ally is no longer an asset, the allegiance is no longer to your benefit. At that point, feel free to break the allegiance according to whatever rules the game has in place, and if you are not a benefit to your ally, you should not be shocked if he/she turns on you. That's just part of the game. Rarely, have I needed to do this, but no alliance can last until the end. There can be only one.

Deception, misdirection, and even betrayal are important elements of this game. They make it exciting. I have done these things, but I will not do anything truly dishonorable. Examples of truly dishonorable acts are breaking unenforceable rules, strategic booting , and joining a 4-player FFA with 2 close friends or clan members. This dishonor ruins the game and creates only hollow victories. I do not care for victories I have not earned.

Note: This is my stance in the game, only. For real life allegiances, I think we should stand by our word. But in real life, we don't have to ultimately defeat everybody.

I generally agree with this, although I admittedly have tactically booted a few times. And the rule of having to declare on your enemies before attacking them is unenforceable in the end, but other people should see it coming and attempt it as well.

Edited 6/2/2015 13:24:00

Why should, or shouldn't, we Honour our word?
You shouldn't because it is a diplomacy game. I think that not honouring your word is somethimes part of that. Honouring your word instead of not honouring it is sometimes an better option though.

further questions:

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
Not expected to, but if you want to hand over your land to your allies when dying then you should do so the best you can. The person who is killing you does not have to respect your wishes in this case, in my opinion

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
That depends, you/the attackers can come up with the terms of coming back in the game during the game itself.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
Turning on to an ally is fine as long as the personal message of the host doesn't say otherwise.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you
The best moment for you to attack your partner in your opinion, then you turn down on your partner. That can be at last 5 or last 2 or just anytime.

Should you give them warning?
If you want to, then go ahead, but you do not need to give them a warning. That can be a bit of a jerk move though.