Say an adventurer wants Keltham to coordinate with a priest of Asmodeus on a shared interest. She goes to Keltham and says some stuff that she expects could enable coordination. She expects that Keltham, due to his status of a priest of Abadar, would not act on that information in ways that would be damaging to the Evil priest (as it was shared in her expectation that a priest of Abadar would aspire to be Lawful enough not to do that with information that was shared to enable coordination, making someone regret dealing with him). Keltham prefers using this information in a way damaging to the priest of Asmodeus to using it to coordinate. Keltham made no explicit promises about the use of information; the adventurer told him that piece of information first and said it was shared to enable coordination and shouldn’t be acted upon outside of it enabling coordination only afterwards. Would Keltham say “deal, thanks for telling me”, or would he say “lol no I didn’t agree to that prior to being told thanks for telling me”?
It is a predictable consequence of saying “lol no I didn’t agree to that prior to being told thanks for telling me” that Keltham (and other people with similar expressed views regarding information and coordination) won’t be told information intended for coordination in future, including information that Keltham and similar people would have wanted to be able to use in order to coordinate instead of using it against the interests of those giving them the information.
So the question is: just how strongly does Keltham value using this information against the priest, when weighed against the cost of decreasing future opportunities for coordination for himself and others who are perceived to be similar to him?
There are plenty of other factors, such as whether there are established protocols for receiving such information in a way that binds priests of Abadar to not use it against the interests of those conveying it, whether the priest and the adventurer (and future others) could have been expected to know those protocols, and so on.
Yep. (I think there’s also a sense of honor and not screwing people over that’s not just about the value of getting such information in the future, that Keltham would care about.)
Say an adventurer wants Keltham to coordinate with a priest of Asmodeus on a shared interest. She goes to Keltham and says some stuff that she expects could enable coordination. She expects that Keltham, due to his status of a priest of Abadar, would not act on that information in ways that would be damaging to the Evil priest (as it was shared in her expectation that a priest of Abadar would aspire to be Lawful enough not to do that with information that was shared to enable coordination, making someone regret dealing with him). Keltham prefers using this information in a way damaging to the priest of Asmodeus to using it to coordinate. Keltham made no explicit promises about the use of information; the adventurer told him that piece of information first and said it was shared to enable coordination and shouldn’t be acted upon outside of it enabling coordination only afterwards.
Would Keltham say “deal, thanks for telling me”, or would he say “lol no I didn’t agree to that prior to being told thanks for telling me”?
It is a predictable consequence of saying “lol no I didn’t agree to that prior to being told thanks for telling me” that Keltham (and other people with similar expressed views regarding information and coordination) won’t be told information intended for coordination in future, including information that Keltham and similar people would have wanted to be able to use in order to coordinate instead of using it against the interests of those giving them the information.
So the question is: just how strongly does Keltham value using this information against the priest, when weighed against the cost of decreasing future opportunities for coordination for himself and others who are perceived to be similar to him?
There are plenty of other factors, such as whether there are established protocols for receiving such information in a way that binds priests of Abadar to not use it against the interests of those conveying it, whether the priest and the adventurer (and future others) could have been expected to know those protocols, and so on.
Yep. (I think there’s also a sense of honor and not screwing people over that’s not just about the value of getting such information in the future, that Keltham would care about.)