Security and Responsibility

The games that bear the title of Command and Conquer are usually hailed as welcome additions to the list of real-time strategy games available. And they deserve that acclaim, too: the games are enjoyable and challenging additions to that genre of games. Lately, though, Electronic Arts, the company that is behind the latest Command and Conquer games, is coming under fire from consumers for something completely unrelated to the quality of the games.

I personally own one of the latest additions to the series, Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. After playing it for a while, I find it to be an enjoyable and challenging game, one that certainly lives up to the Command and Conquer title. The tone does border on the ridiculous at times, what with the introduction of Empire of the Rising Sun and its army of Gundam-style transforming mech units alongside other crazy units from the series standard Allies and Soviet sides, but that doesn’t reduce the tactical challenge any.

So after all that, I must say I was somewhat surprised to see the average rating of the game on Amazon.com. With 154 total reviews, the average rating was a mere two stars out of five. (I got those numbers at 1617 hours on 12-31-08.) This alongside a review from 1UP.com giving the game an A- grade. I was pretty curious as to why the Amazon reviewers seemed to dislike the game so much; I certainly hadn’t found that much to dislike.

Well, as it turns out, there is a digital rights management system called SecuROM that Electronic Arts uses in an attempt to protect the game from piracy. And a good deal (not all of them, but many) of the negative reviews on Amazon never even mentioned anything about the game itself, only this security system that comes with the game. Now, I know I haven’t really had any problems with it. My computer hasn’t had any issues; the game runs without problems.

All the same, though, I do respect the decisions of people to refuse to buy the game with that system. After all, the power of the consumer in a capitalist economy is the power to choose what to support. If people want to refrain from buying the game, that’s fair. What I do have the problem with is the victim mentality that seems to be developing here. From what I can see, people are intent on punishing EA, because it’s the evil corporation that’s punishing innocent consumers with this restrictive system.

And frankly, that view makes little to no sense to me. It’s not just seen in the real world, either. From what I can see, some people have an interesting view of the way responsibility works, specifically who has responsibility for a given end result that develops. It’s not one that I agree with. Another example, this time from the annals of role-playing games, helps to illustrate what exactly I mean.

This is an example culled from the forums of Giant in the Playground Games; I have no idea who first proposed it. In this hypothetical scenario, a group of evil cultists are casting a ritual to summon a powerful demon to the world, a ritual which requires a human that the demon will possess. A group of heroic adventurers reach the room in which this ritual is being cast. That said, though, they are all but depleted, having fought through most of the cultists and their allies before reaching that room.

Knowing that the demon is far more powerful than they are, and fearing for the results if it is summoned, the adventurers must attempt to halt the ritual, but they don’t have the remaining strength or time to defeat the cultists that are actually casting the ritual. Thus, their choices are presented as a dichotomy: allow the ritual to complete and the demon to arrive, or kill the innocent human themselves to prevent the ritual’s completion.

Those presenting this scenario usually go on to argue that the morally correct choice is the second. The justification is presented thus: anything other than the assured halt to the ritual that that second option offers is tantamount to allowing the ritual to complete, allowing the demon into the world to wreak whatever havoc it likes. Furthermore, it is impossible to claim that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent, because refusing to do so makes the adventurers responsible for the summoning of the demon and any further havoc that it causes.

The idea that a third choice is present almost never comes up initially. Even when someone does ask, “Well, what about if they fight like all hell anyway, using more morally correct means,” the usual response is, “No, they’re still responsible for the ensuing chaos.” And again, we see this idea of responsibility. We see this idea that a group with limited resources and means that does its best within those bounds becomes the party responsible, regardless of who else is involved.

In the RPG scenario, with the demon, I cannot in good conscience give the adventurers much of the responsibility for the summoning, regardless of their choices. If they do their best within their bounds to halt the summoning and fail, then the responsibility falls primarily on the cultists that summoned the demon and the demon itself. Even if they stand by and do nothing, the responsibility still must be evenly split between them and the people who did the actual summoning.

Likewise, Electronic Arts is not the oppressor doing horrible things to the victimized consumers. Both EA and the consumer are the victims in this case, just as the adventurers and the populace are both the victims of the demon in the role-playing scenario. The analogue of the demon in the real world scenario is not Electronic Arts, but rather the people that lead EA to think that things like SecuROM are necessary.

Electronic Arts isn’t out to screw their customers over. Their stated intent (from the support section of their website) is this: “This solution serves to protect our software from piracy.” If we don’t like the digital rights management that EA put in its game, then we do have every right to refuse to buy from EA. But it seems to me that it would be more productive to go after the true root of the problem: the people that attempt to avoid paying for the game.

The customers may be the victims in this case, but Electronic Arts isn’t the demon that’s entirely responsible for attempting to add security to their games. The real demons in this case are the people that want to cheat EA out of what they deserve for producing such a good game. If such piracy could be shut down, then things like SecuROM wouldn’t be necessary. That seems like a better focus for our efforts than demonizing EA, when the true responsibility for this lies elsewhere.

The Power of a Gentle Heart:Part II: A Flawed Power?

For some people, the kindness that I illustrated in Nanoha Takamachi from Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha is nothing but weakness. People that act kind are weak, incapable of using their power to solve problems with violence. People that act kind are suicidal, because helping the enemy only delays or hinders one’s own cause. In the dangerous world of Dungeons and Dragons or on a battlefield of any kind, those emotions are nothing but a luxury that anyone who actually wants to win cannot afford to have.

And I can understand such accusations. I believe that they are rooted in nothing more than misunderstandings of what it means to act in that manner. Kindness, honor, and respect are never luxuries, and can be reconciled with the demands of wartime. The question can then be reversed: are we willing to make the effort to meet both the demands of violent conflict and the demands of gentler ways of life?

To some eyes, acting with kindness or honor means holding back. It means not using either one’s full strength, in an effort to be kind to an opponent, or refraining from the use of certain methods due to the demands of honor. Detractors then point to these values and say that they must be a luxury. With lives at stake, all our force and all our methods must be employed to defend them, regardless of the consequences, because anything else may put those lives at greater risk.

The first is clearly a misunderstanding. Showing respect and honor toward an opposing force never meant holding back. In fact, I would be extremely displeased with someone who intentionally held back and tried to call that respect. Respect and honor to an opponent are shown by treating them as equal and recognizing that by using all of one’s talent to fight.

And that is exactly what Nanoha did. Once she had resolved to fight Fate, she used everything she had. In fact, that was the first thing Fate took note of when she recovered late in the series: that Nanoha had always treated her as an equal. In that case, then, clearly the demands of kindness, honor, and respect are not completely opposed to those of conflict.

But what about limited methods? What about, for example, when a person (or a sylph. Insert shout out to Order of the Stick readers here…) refuses to kill on moral grounds? Or when a person refuses to commit an act that they think is dishonorable? Surely such restrictions are incompatible with the demands of a war. As Haley Starshine in Order of the Stick touched on (in this strip), surely such principles must give way to practicality.

And maybe there are times when that is the case. But then again, maybe the reason why those principles end up giving way is only because people aren't trying hard enough to hold to them. After all, the immediate fighting that Haley was drawn into wasn't ended by the defeat of the villain involved, unlike many D&D combat encounters. Rather, Celia, the sylph in question from Order of the Stick, brought about a solution that ended the warfare without betraying her principles. And starting with this strip, the immediate battle ground to a halt in favor of a more peaceful solution to the situation.

I may not be able to offer a certain statement about whether principles or practicality should give way in all situations; what I can say is that it will always be worth the try. Maybe those principles, such as the power of a gentle heart, will be incompatible with war. But one can never be certain until the attempt is made. If Celia hadn't tried to negotiate, it would have obviously failed to end the conflict; if Hinjo (in this strip, over 200 strips back as I type this) hadn't tried to talk to Miko, a surrender could never have happened. Whether it succeeds as it did for Celia, or fails as it did for Hinjo, surely the benefit of using this power, the possible end to the conflict in question (detailed in last week's post), is worth the risk.

One final problem that some see in reconciling conflict with kindness is the idea of helping even an enemy. Even the Dungeons and Dragons sourcebook that describes the highest level of good in that game, the Book of Exalted Deeds, states that healing is not inherently good because of the possibility that such power can be used for selfish or evil purposes. And it seems obvious: healing or otherwise helping an enemy seems like a foolish act to many, because if you do offer them aid, they will use it to further their ends - those same ends that you’re opposed to.

But then, why? Why would Nanoha go to help Fate knowing full well that unless Fate died there, they would have to fight again? Why would Harry Potter stop Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter Pettigrew in the third book of that series? And didn’t both of those acts backfire? Nanoha did end up having to fight Fate again, and Fate gained more of the power crystals that they were competing for. Had Nanoha not intervened, the plans of the villain would have been heavily set back. As for Harry Potter, it was Pettigrew that helped Voldemort to come back, so isn’t it the case that if he had stood by, they might not have had to deal with him again?

The past, however, is a tricky thing to pick apart. While the plans of the villain may have been set back in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, Fate would have been killed had Nanoha not intervened… and it was Fate that saved Nanoha’s life later in the season. Who can say if Nanoha would have survived without showing that kindness to Fate? When you help someone, they usually remember that, and may very well respond in kind at a critical moment.

Similar events came to pass for Harry Potter as well. Much later in the seventh book, Harry was able to call on that past debt. With that example, though, the argument remains that Harry might not have been in that situation in the first place had he not acted as he did in the third book. But that is still only “might” not have. No one can say for sure what the consequences of one specific act are, or whether certain things might have happened anyway.

While that kindness and aid shown even to enemies can thus seem like it is a hindrance, it can end up becoming an important source of aid in the long term. Without the ability to know for certain what will happen in the future, why should it be a weakness to show kindness or respect to anyone? Without the ability to read the future, who can say when that favor might be returned?

Kindness, honor, respect… the power of a gentle heart will never be a weakness and can never be casually tossed aside. None of those require that one has to be stupid; none require that one submit to an enemy. Ultimately, the power of a gentle heart is the ability to remain in control; to preserve the emotions and attitudes that have their primary home in peacetime even when a fight breaks out. And it is that control, that power, that will bring any battle or war to an end faster than any weapon ever will - but only if we're willing to use it. So again I ask: are we willing to try to meet the demands of both superior firepower, necessary for a time of war, and the power of a gentle heart, necessary for a time of peace?

The Power of a Gentle Heart:Part I: To End a War

So due to the many references to Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha on the TVTropes website, I started thinking that it would be nice if I could watch it myself. And thankfully, it was finally released on this side of the Pacific back in December. I bought it as soon as it came out, and have watched it several times since, both in the dubbed English and the subtitled Japanese. (Hopefully it goes without saying that there are about to be spoilers for that series.)

Now, this is not at first glance a series where the battles are resolved through love and kindness, the powers that one generally associates with the phrase “gentle heart.” Nanoha Takamachi’s preferred solution to most actual combat is much more reminiscent of the ideal of peace through superior firepower. With the several different ranged attacks she employed throughout the series, culminating in her only use of the mighty Starlight Breaker in the eleventh episode, it’s all too easy to think that she focuses on overpowering her foes.

And that view, while it has some valid points behind it, is ultimately wrong. The reason for that lies is the use of the phrase “most actual combat.” The battles themselves, taken individually, are never really resolved through anything other than firepower. (Or in later duels, the flight of one side or the other.) From Fate’s first knockout of Nanoha with her Photon Lancer, all the way to their final fight, the battles ended with one side or the other being knocked out or driven away.

But any competent strategist should be able to see that individual battles aren’t what really matter. There’s a reason why the saying “lose the battle, win the war” exists, and that’s because it’s the overall victory that matters. And it is the power of a gentle heart, the power of kindness, that brought about that overall victory in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. When we look at how Nanoha conducted her little personal war with Fate Testarossa over the course of the series, it becomes much more clear just how powerful kindness can be.

Nanoha didn’t want any harm to come to Fate. At first glance, such a position would seem impossible to maintain, considering the number of times they had to fight one another. But the key concern for Nanoha was never to kill Fate. Rather, Nanoha’s goal for most of the series was to re-secure the ancient artifacts that were causing havoc in her area. The only reason that she fought Fate at all was because they were both trying to take possession of those artifacts.

And as the series proceeded, it became abundantly clear that Nanoha was never solely devoted to defeating Fate in battle. It became ever clearer that all Nanoha wanted was to break through the walls of solitude that Fate had put up around herself. In the seventh episode, she insisted on getting only one thing if she actually defeated Fate: a chance to talk to her. In the eighth, she stood in the way of a newcomer about to fire on Fate. Neither is consistent with the idea that Nanoha solves her problems through superior firepower alone; if that was the case, why would she take so little from Fate in victory or intervene to protect her?

The ninth episode of the series confirms once and for all that Nanoha truly possessed the power unique to a gentle heart. When Fate overstressed her power and was about to burn herself out, her more pragmatic superior ordered that they do nothing, and wait until Fate went down before moving in. Nanoha proceeded to refuse that direct order, and moved to aid Fate rather than watch her die. In a truly stunning act of kindness, she went to aid the person she had fought with several times already and agreed to evenly split the artifacts gained, rather than fight over them.

At this point, though, the war between Nanoha and Fate had not been concluded. Neither the firepower of Nanoha’s ally nor the kindness of Nanoha herself had truly solved the conflict once and for all. Again, however, it certainly does appear that the final conclusion was settled by firepower, by the knockout blow delivered by Nanoha’s Starlight Breaker. And again, the battle may have ended in that fashion, but the kindness and respect that Nanoha showed to Fate was far more important.

After all, Nanoha didn’t kill Fate. Even after hitting Fate with her final attack, she made sure that Fate wasn’t killed as a result. And when Fate finally recovered, it was that kindness and that respect that she remembered. It was that kindness and respect that not only kept Fate from striking back at Nanoha but also led her to go and help Nanoha. It was superior firepower that ended most individual battles in their war, but it was a different kind of power that ended the war entirely.

It’s as true anywhere else. Unless one side or the other is completely and totally annihilated, there are still going to be people on both sides of the divide when all is said and done. And those people are going to remember how they were treated, both during and after the conflict. Individual battles will never end a war until those battles become apocalyptic. It is the power of a gentle heart, the power of kindness, respect, and honor, that ends a war. And far more importantly, it is that power that acts as a shield against a future conflict.

If at the conclusion of a war, one side feels slighted or mistreated, future conflict is all but inevitable. If nothing else, the path from the First World War to the Second demonstrates that fact. But if the victor has acted with respect, honor, and even kindness throughout, defeat does not have to be humiliation and does not have to lead to future conflict. This is why the power of a gentle heart, all too often ignored or dismissed, is such an essential part of even a nation at war.

That said, though, some argue that this power is actually a luxury or even a weakness… but that’s an issue for next week.

A New Year's Resolution

The New Year approaches, and a happy holiday season to all. I've decided on a resolution for the new year, and it is 1440 by 900... Oh wait, that's my computer screen's resolution. Never mind. Bad jokes aside, I have created a New Year's resolution for myself. And it is to return fully to my once-a-week, every Saturday at 2000 hours (8 pm for non-military people) update schedule. So starting on January 3, 2009, I will be posting every week with a new musing on whatever video game, anime series, or random topic that has caught my fancy. Hopefully I'll be able to keep that going for at least a month. 

Suggestions as to different subjects have always been and continue to be welcome... and feel free to challenge me by naming a video game (or something else, like an anime series, etc.) and seeing if I can write anything insightful related to it. Understand, however, that one man cannot possibly have played everything, and even if I am familiar with something I may not be familiar enough to write in detail about it.

Well, that's about it. Happy New Year to all, and I hope that you all have a wonderful holiday season, whatever you celebrate.

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.