If you have 2 nodes + 3 arbiters, it means majority = 3 because you have a total of 5 nodes.
So first of all, it means you need to be able to write on 3 nodes if you use the write concern = “majority”. Which is impossible in your case so each write operations emitted with w=“majority” will fail.
Also, because majority = 3, it means that you won’t be able to elect a primary if 3 nodes are down. So for example if your 3 arbiters are down, you will be stuck with 2 secondaries that are not able to elect a primary. This would not happen if you had only one arbiter because the majority would be at 2 so they would be able to elect a primary.
Arbiters in general are not recommended. The minimum configuration that MongoDB Atlas is deploying is 3 nodes RS with P+S+S.
If you use a P+S+A, it means you can only write on 2 machines. If something happens to the P or the S, it means that you are now only able to write to one machine which means that all the write operation with w=“majority” will fail. So P+S+A is not HA for durable write operations (ie using w=“majority”).
With P+S+S, you can continue to write with w=“majority” if you lose one machine (any of them).
With P+S+A, you can continue to write with w=“majority” only if you lose the A so it means your P & S are weak points.
I don’t understand what is your motivation for using more than one arbiter. Can you please explain why you are considering 3? It’s only more troubles. Zero arbiter is the best way to go.
With P+S+S, you can take one machine out for maintenance, backups and rolling upgrades and still accept durable write operations.
With P+S+A, you can’t afford to do this.