Scholarlink

<p>Kingmaking occurs when a board game participant who can no longer win attempts to change the winner without improving their own position. This phenomenon often elicits strong negative reactions and is widely regarded as a breach of two normative expectations in gameplay: the <i>Meritocratic Norm</i>, which holds that the most skilled or deserving player ought to win, and the <i>Striving Norm</i>, which demands that all players continue to try to win even when victory is unattainable. While both norms are prominent in player discourse, we argue that they fail to capture what is morally significant about kingmaking. We contend that kingmaking is morally objectionable only when it constitutes a failure to abide by the <i>Lusory Impartiality</i> principle, according to which players must bracket extra-game allegiances and treat each other as equals <i>qua</i> individuals. This norm speaks in favor of a form of <i>Moderate Moralism</i> about games: while many in-game actions are not apt targets of moral evaluation, some—like kingmaking—can have genuine moral import when they express interpersonal disrespect. One upshot is that kingmaking that doesn’t express such disrespect isn’t wrong—and that its salience can even be valuable in some contexts. When motivated by in-game reciprocity, strategic deterrence, or aesthetic storytelling, kingmaking can be justified and may enhance the strategic and narrative value of play.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Ethics of Kingmaking

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月18日

查看全文
  • Alexis Morin-Martel,
  • Gabriel Monette

摘要

Kingmaking occurs when a board game participant who can no longer win attempts to change the winner without improving their own position. This phenomenon often elicits strong negative reactions and is widely regarded as a breach of two normative expectations in gameplay: the Meritocratic Norm, which holds that the most skilled or deserving player ought to win, and the Striving Norm, which demands that all players continue to try to win even when victory is unattainable. While both norms are prominent in player discourse, we argue that they fail to capture what is morally significant about kingmaking. We contend that kingmaking is morally objectionable only when it constitutes a failure to abide by the Lusory Impartiality principle, according to which players must bracket extra-game allegiances and treat each other as equals qua individuals. This norm speaks in favor of a form of Moderate Moralism about games: while many in-game actions are not apt targets of moral evaluation, some—like kingmaking—can have genuine moral import when they express interpersonal disrespect. One upshot is that kingmaking that doesn’t express such disrespect isn’t wrong—and that its salience can even be valuable in some contexts. When motivated by in-game reciprocity, strategic deterrence, or aesthetic storytelling, kingmaking can be justified and may enhance the strategic and narrative value of play.