{1}My question is this: in a multiplayer game, is it right that all players team up to curb the strongest and best player? {2}Is it ethical to create temporary alliances? {3} What is the boundary that separates a tactical alliance from manipulation?
1- Sometimes, sure. For each player, the goal is to win. If someone pulls out ahead very quickly in terms of mana, card advantage, and board presence, it's only natural that they find themselves in an archenemy situation, and if they don't, they simply win. A lot of the time, a game will be relatively even, and you won't need to collaborate. In the case you mention, he has Void Winnower and Bane of Bala Ged; your other opponent does not have a way to deal with these, but your way of dealing with them is at sorcery speed. If you have instant speed removal, you would have to make your decision before Bane attacks anyway, lest he is tempted to swing into you with it, since once that trigger is on the stack you could be set very far behind. So this situation depends mostly on the general board state, cards in hand, and where casting Toxic Deluge leaves you. Obviously you'll have used a card and a chunk of life. But if your other opponent has a board full of enchantments or something else that Deluge won't remove, letting those eldrazi swing in might be your best bet at winning. It's not so much collaboration then as it is playing your own odds.
2- Sure! And if you prove that your word is reliable, you definitely can leverage it to your advantage at times. Sometimes it's as innocuous as pointing out potential situations that could arise from an opposing permanent being on the board. "Maybe you should attack that Narset, Enlightened Master. We wouldn't want him to play Wheel of Fortune and leave us dead." It might not even be your primary reason for wanting it gone, but if they agree with you and get rid of the problem, you've removed something without going down a card, which inches you ahead.
3- A tactical alliance is manipulation, but remember, the person you are dealing with is willingly accepting that manipulation, meaning that it is not unethical to "use" someone this way. If they refuse to cooperate with you, don't take it personally, of course. And I find that being honest with these things and avoiding backstabbing situations like the plague is key to keeping a good reputation when playing in person. It's much harder to do this stuff on MTGO, but it's bad practice to start betraying people there.
Keep in mind that if you wish to keep a "lone wolf" mindset, people may become suspicious of you, which is bad because you have a plan to win the game eventually, and if people are picking apart your strategy at random you lose. Be affable when you can be.
Whenever I cast a spell, it's always the wrong one.
I imagine what you mean is that when you target something to blow it up, someone pipes in and says, "No, you should have blown THAT up instead!" Or, perhaps, "Use your instants at instant speed!" Or maybe it's something else. Elaborate if it's not just typical table talk/whine, because it's worrying the way you wrote that.
1- Sometimes, sure. For each player, the goal is to win. If someone pulls out ahead very quickly in terms of mana, card advantage, and board presence, it's only natural that they find themselves in an archenemy situation, and if they don't, they simply win. A lot of the time, a game will be relatively even, and you won't need to collaborate. In the case you mention, he has Void Winnower and Bane of Bala Ged; your other opponent does not have a way to deal with these, but your way of dealing with them is at sorcery speed. If you have instant speed removal, you would have to make your decision before Bane attacks anyway, lest he is tempted to swing into you with it, since once that trigger is on the stack you could be set very far behind. So this situation depends mostly on the general board state, cards in hand, and where casting Toxic Deluge leaves you. Obviously you'll have used a card and a chunk of life. But if your other opponent has a board full of enchantments or something else that Deluge won't remove, letting those eldrazi swing in might be your best bet at winning. It's not so much collaboration then as it is playing your own odds.
2- Sure! And if you prove that your word is reliable, you definitely can leverage it to your advantage at times. Sometimes it's as innocuous as pointing out potential situations that could arise from an opposing permanent being on the board. "Maybe you should attack that Narset, Enlightened Master. We wouldn't want him to play Wheel of Fortune and leave us dead." It might not even be your primary reason for wanting it gone, but if they agree with you and get rid of the problem, you've removed something without going down a card, which inches you ahead.
3- A tactical alliance is manipulation, but remember, the person you are dealing with is willingly accepting that manipulation, meaning that it is not unethical to "use" someone this way. If they refuse to cooperate with you, don't take it personally, of course. And I find that being honest with these things and avoiding backstabbing situations like the plague is key to keeping a good reputation when playing in person. It's much harder to do this stuff on MTGO, but it's bad practice to start betraying people there.
Keep in mind that if you wish to keep a "lone wolf" mindset, people may become suspicious of you, which is bad because you have a plan to win the game eventually, and if people are picking apart your strategy at random you lose. Be affable when you can be.
I imagine what you mean is that when you target something to blow it up, someone pipes in and says, "No, you should have blown THAT up instead!" Or, perhaps, "Use your instants at instant speed!" Or maybe it's something else. Elaborate if it's not just typical table talk/whine, because it's worrying the way you wrote that.