The Weapons of the Righteous

It’s one of the more interesting things that the characters in Tales of Symphonia say, for an end-of-battle quote anyway. Most of the time, one of the four in the party, the one that dealt the finishing blow, will spout off some quick taunt to the now-dead foes. However, sometimes you get a combination quote out of the party. And when Colette, Genis, and Kratos are in the party, one of those quotes that has managed to stick in my mind is, “Our weapons are love!” “Justice! And-” “-hope.” (Colette, Genis, and Kratos, respectively.)

It bears thinking on. Obviously, no small amount of video games have a war between good and evil, between the righteous and the wicked. In fact, it’s common in all fiction. And I fully believe that those offhand remarks are also completely accurate. There are some qualities, some attributes, that are essential to a righteous cause if it is to be completely successful. Those qualities are what define such a cause; they’re what set the righteous apart from the evil.

And in the fantasy worlds of Dungeons and Dragons, Tales of Symphonia, Shannara… the list goes on. In a story of high fantasy where the righteous heroes are out to save the world, you’ll be able to find those qualities in the adventure somewhere. Yet are they applicable to our own world? Can it be said that the weapons of the righteous are as necessary here as they are in high fantasy?

I do think, for those good causes that people look up to, that the most important weapons are going to be love, justice, and hope. And I think that those causes, from governments to religious organizations, need to remember that an openly militant stance won’t always be an effective weapon. As counterproductive as it may seem, sometimes the most effective weapons are those that do no damage; that are worthless in killing and incapacitating enemies. After all, it’s only with such a weapon that an enemy can be permanently defeated.

At first glance, that statement seems easily contradicted. After all, the Second World War didn’t end with love, it ended with Soviet tanks in Berlin. It seems at first glance that military power has ended most conflicts, not ephemeral concepts like love, justice, and hope. This is only the case, though, if you consider the end of a war to be the end of the respective threat, which it rarely is. That concept is even more visible in the terrorist threats of the modern day, who have no capitals and have so far evaded all efforts to crush them with military force alone.

If we’re going to take the righteous high road of virtue and morality, or claim that we’re better than they are, we can’t simply attempt to eradicate all opposition with sheer firepower. If a righteous cause desires victory over those it considers wrong or evil, the only way to do so is to deploy those weapons unique to such a cause.

The word love usually conjures ideas of true love, boyfriends and girlfriends, and the old fantasy stories of a prince and a princess. But there are more kinds of love than that. There is also the tolerance to accept other people as they are, or the empathy to care about and understand any and all fellow members of the human race. Both applied even to an enemy, even to one who would see you dead. It is those kinds of love that find a place as weapons to defeat such enemies.

Those two forces combined are a powerful weapon, one that has an even greater effect than a weapon that actually does damage. While killing an enemy removes a threat, deploying tolerance and empathy can, under the right circumstances, turn an enemy into an ally. A force that shows such traits, that uses love as its weapon, will gain respect and admiration from all corners. Its allies will respect its capacity for kindness, and be all the more willing to assist; the individuals opposing it will know that they would not be ostracized if they were to switch sides.

Likewise, a “righteous” force that shows no hint of love will find its path to be all the harder. A lack of tolerance or empathy will seem insular and unwelcoming. Allies will dislike helping a force that has no tolerance for any of their unique views, and enemies will fight to the death, knowing that no quarter will be given even if they want to defect. Possibly most damning, the youngest generation will look at that force and see a hostile, unwelcoming presence. This only continues a cycle of death and destruction.

Justice is often a word used to label a righteous cause, but it is also a weapon of such a cause nevertheless. Although the exact definition of justice can at times be debated, one way to define it as a weapon is to call it respect for and adherence to a consistent code of laws. Or in other words, being consistent and open in the way that people are treated is important to a righteous cause.

Such a cause that puts a high value on justice, and treats even its enemy in a fair and consistent manner, will also gain respect and admiration from those around it. Especially if its opponents have no regard for common decency, allies can look to the righteous cause and see even and fair treatment of all. This emphasizes the need to defeat the opposing forces and helps a righteous cause gain widespread support. And as no one person or group can fight alone, such support is very important.

The contrast is a “righteous” cause that disregards justice in some form. A cause that does so, perhaps by applying a different standard to the enemy, will be viewed as having the same flaws of the cause that it is opposing. A cause that denounces a certain practice while engaging in that practice itself will be seen as hypocritical. In either case, the youngest generation will rightly question how righteous such a cause is.

The last and possibly most important weapon is hope. Technically, hope is not a weapon to be used on an enemy, unlike justice or love. It is, however, a weapon that backs up the efforts of all of the people fighting in a given cause’s name. It is the weapon that gives people the strength and the will to take up a cause in the first place. Hope, the belief that a cause will succeed in its goals, enables a person to fight to bring about those goals.

If a cause fails to provide hope, no one will be able to fight, either with conventional weapons or with love and justice. Without someone to say that victory is possible, or with a belief that victory cannot be found, no one will stand up and try to bring about what is right. A group that says, “Yes, we can” will find widespread support from many different corners; a group that says, “No, we can’t” will never even exist.

Love. Justice. Hope. An offhand comment, yes, but one that so clearly demonstrates what is important to the truly righteous of both this world and any other.

Taking Games Too Seriously

Anyone who’s ever played video games probably knows the type of person I’m talking about, for whom games are serious business. I’m talking about those people that focus entirely on winning. For some, the only goal is to play the game, and as long as they don’t lose, effectiveness isn’t a huge concern. But then, there are people as well who maximize their effectiveness and become as powerful as can be achieved in the game.

Neither is wrong, despite what ardent fans of both types would try to tell you. We all enjoy videogames differently, after all. Some people just play the game, and don’t care that they’re not perfect. I, myself, fall more into that category. I don’t usually focus on spending the time to maximize my power level, and generally just enjoy playing the game even if I’m not perfectly effective. Indeed, I often have fun playing in ways that defy effectiveness.

On the other hand, some people take pride in becoming as powerful as possible. Enjoyment comes through victory, usually against other human players. In addition, gamers of this type also take pride in the effort they go to and the results that that produces.

The problems usually arise when people in the first category, usually referred to as casual gamers, and people in the second category, usually called competitive gamers, end up competing against one another. Barring a level of luck usually referred to as a miracle, the competitive gamer inevitably wins such a contest.

From here, the flame war develops. The casual gamers that have been defeated cry foul, calling the techniques that the competitive gamer employed any of a number of negative labels including “cheap” and “exploit.” Competitive gamers respond with anger, feeling that their efforts were the result of hard work, not of cheap tactics. Understanding on any side is hard to find.

Even without actually competing, either category can still get riled up at the other. A casual gamer will see a competitive one engaging in repetitive actions, usually to improve statistics in a game, and will wonder out loud why said competitive gamer is wasting time when he could be enjoying the game. A competitive one will see a casual gamer use a less-than-effective strategy, and will inform that casual gamer that he’s not playing the game intelligently.

One wonders why anyone would bother to waste that amount of time fighting over games that are almost always marketed to children. You’re fighting over Mario Kart, people; we don’t need to care that much about it! The only thing to do is to realize that people are going to find enjoyment in different ways.

As I said earlier, I fall more on the casual side. But I’d like to believe that I’m more forgiving than some casual gamers, like the ones that take offense when competitive ones handily defeat them. I recognize that maximizing effectiveness isn’t easy, and I don’t waste my time getting annoyed when I lose. When I lose, most of the time it’s because the opponent is better than I am. And I’d much rather recognize their victory than tell them that they’re not enjoying themselves correctly.

There’s a flip side to that too, though. Some people don’t focus on maximizing their effectiveness. And as much as I acknowledge superior skill when I lose to a competitive gamer, that respect runs out real fast if they start saying, “ha ha, you suck, you don’t know how to play the game,” or anything similar to that. Yeah, I’m not doing the same things that you are, and I lost probably because of that. That doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying myself correctly.

Taking games too seriously doesn’t have to mean focusing on winning. For me, I think the phrase would be better applied to people who think that their way of playing a game is the only correct way. It’s hard, if not impossible, to find two people with the exact same personality, you know. So why should we think that we all get enjoyment in the same ways?

We all enjoy different things, and because of that, it borders on the idiotic to tell someone that they’re not enjoying themselves. If I enjoy playing casually (which I do) then who is anyone else to tell me that I can’t have fun unless I play competitively? If someone else enjoys playing competitively (which I know some people who do) then who am I to tell them that they can’t have fun unless they play casually?

Taking video games seriously enough to focus on winning isn’t a bad thing. It’s when people take it to the point where they argue with other gamers that they’re playing too seriously. Why should I spend my time arguing with others about how to play a game when I could be enjoying myself playing that game?

For a Better World

We all want one, right? I know I’m an idealist, determined to have the world be just a little bit better than it was when I leave it. I hold very strong moral convictions and I think that the world would be a better place to live in if more people held themselves to that same moral standard. And I’d be very surprised if anyone were to tell me, “I want the world as a whole to be worse off than it is now.” Well, anyone I’m on speaking terms with, since I can’t really speak for modern-day bandits or pirates, I guess.

But how do we get there? How can we create a better world? I’m not sure that anyone has the answer to that question. The only partial answer I can offer is that we can do a part of what needs to be done. My brother, in training at the United States Naval Academy, is going to defend the lives and freedom of the people of that nation, and both he and I believe that that will help to improve the world. I plan on going into law, on being a judge. I guess, then, that I’ll be helping to ensure that our legal system does its job, and I believe that I can leave the world a little bit better off through that path.

Unfortunately, the problem is that sometimes people focus far too much on trying to make the world better than it is. The problem comes when people start doing anything necessary to improve the world, to the extreme of committing what can charitably be called atrocities in the name of making a better world. The question then becomes: how, if at all, can one justify doing something that could be called evil in the name of making a better world?

The first and by far the most common justification is that sometimes, it has to be done. One excellent example can be found in the movie Serenity, a movie in which the primary antagonist openly stated, “What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.” This after killing an entire settlement’s worth of civilians down to the last child, simply to deny the protagonists a place to rest and recover.

Similar examples are often suggested and debated on forums for role-playing games like the GiantITP forums, and can also be raised by TV shows like 24. Often, the questions raised in these circumstances have to do with committing evil for the greater good. Is it morally right to kill a person that will be used as a sacrifice to summon an evil demon that could destroy the world? Is it acceptable to torture someone to protect people?

In all of these situations, the justification is that although these acts are all evil, they have to be done. No one can allow the demon to be summoned; no one can stop the terrorist plot without torturing some of those responsible, and the operative of the government in Serenity has to keep his superiors’ secrets from the rest of the world, at any cost. All in the name of creating a better world for the people that they protect.

But what makes a better world? What exactly is it that these people are defending when they commit such acts? Because here’s what I see: I see a so-called defender of justice killing someone who’s all but an innocent bystander, simply because that person was the one captured by the evil cultists. I see a police officer violating all of our standards of human rights. I see a brutal murderer keeping an important piece of information from society. I can only speak for myself, but I think that a better world is a world held to a higher moral standard than that!

Committing such atrocities as torture and murder gives up on the idea of a better world, regardless of the intention behind them. Carrying out such actions is tantamount to saying, “We can’t create a better world without doing such things.” And is a world where such atrocities are accepted as necessary really a better world than the one we have now? Do you want to live in a world where torture is a necessary tool? Or summary execution, without trial? Because that is the world that is created by such actions.

To avoid creating such a world, those who want to create one have to strive for perfection. Even if it’s impossible to be perfect, it is in trying that we come as close to that goal as we possibly can. As I’ve already said, I want the world to be better; I want to try to improve the world. And the best, indeed the only, way I know how to do that is to stand by what I believe is right, and never stop trying to act on those beliefs.

Explanations

Alright, well....

The only partial explanation that I can offer is that I have just recently moved into Brandeis University. And as classes have gotten moving, I've had homework to do, and I haven't had anywhere near as much time available for blogging. Combine that with a lack of good ideas for topics to write about, and, well... you get a month with no new posts.

There will be something tomorrow around 8 pm, because I just scheduled it. So there will be new stuff to read.

Lack of ideas here

I apologize for having nothing last week, and nothing on this week either. Admittedly, it's starting to seem harder for me to find interesting things to write about, which obviously means less posts to this blog.

I'll try to have something next week.