[PHILOSOPHY] Excessive Politicization: A Boon Or A Curse?

“Power without morality leads to abuse, and freedom without morality leads to depravity.”

ALASKA, CP Army Hub Headquarters, Lucifer’s Office – Over the years, we built this game into what it is today. Together as players, we made the rules, we hired the judges, and we ran the media, with only our roles as the sole differentiator. Yet, we created something that goes far beyond serving the purpose of a game: we lost the element of joy which we replaced with excessive politicization. One might argue that they get joy from what exists today, but was that really what played a key role in this community’s genesis? We began adopting moral guidelines, as well as political theories, so I took some time off to deliberate not just with you, but also with myself on how the community evolved to become more realistic, and whether or not that is a good thing.

Army A declares war on Army B for no particular reason. What will the outcome be? A major army schedules an invasion on an S/M army. What will the outcome be? The outcome might differ based on circumstances, but what is definite will be the complaints that ensue: “Why are they scheduling invasions on us when we’ve done them no harm, that’s not fair,” or even better, “That’s bullying.” So, what do we do then? Actually, we already did something about it. We began to adopt non-written, just causes for war , and while we may not notice it, the reality is, our moral compass has begun to tingle increasingly, almost as if we’re slowly adapting our own “Just War Theory.”

Before we delve into this theory, let me first give you all a background on what “Just War Theory” really is:

Just War Theory

Just War Theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists, and policymakers. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: “right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second concerns the moral conduct within war.

Now, while this might sound complicated on paper, what we do not realize is that we are slowly developing this very theory into “Army Business.” Legal thinkers always worked towards putting forth their understanding of the Just War Theory, but if there’s one thing that history has depicted with much clarity, then it is the fact that what’s just for one community may not be just for another, and if we were to adopt a universal definition of a Just War Theory, then that would be counterproductive to its very purpose of being just.

Take a look at all of the most recent War Declarations. What do they all share in common?The answer is a just cause, a common objective, or a goal. While what is just for one may not be just for the other, the reality remains that we are slowly but surely adapting to a Just War-like theory. What happens when there’s no real just cause between armies? A public outcry? Of course, rewind to Dark Warriors scheduling invasions on the Golden Troops and the Lime Green Army. Leaders of several S/M Armies rose out in outcry, making popular the hashtag, #StopBullyingSmallArmies. So what did we create here? A Just War Theory for ourselves? Possibly.

S/M Armies coming together demanding justice.

Is that bad? Not necessarily. It obviously aligns with our moral compass, but when we place morality at a pedestal over a game, we miss out on elements of fun. It is understandable when one desires to duplicate real life scenarios in this game, but is that really necessary? Again, I am not saying we should lose our sense of morality, because that leads to chaos and anarchy, and dissolving the society into depravity is not my desire. So, we should hold our moral compasses strong, but at the same time, not so, that our vision becomes unreasonable.

The reasons for a Just War Theory in realistic situations is valid since this accounts for real pain and loss, but adopting such ideologies into a game that is meant to be filled with battles which inadvertently creates fun, might not be our best way ahead. We are slowly losing sight of the fact that we are not actually here to play Game of Thrones. We are here to have fun, and soon, we will be so bound by our own rules and theories that we will slowly fall into a chasm of impasses. So, am I saying we limit the levels of our morality? I’ll leave that to the readers.

That is not the only scenario of excessive politicization. We move on to another:

Treaties

Treaties are perhaps one of the most political aspects of armies. In my opinion, forced treaties after a gruesome war is something that is fair. It definitely serves the purpose of an incentive to win the war, but at the same time, we saw forced treaties extend to months on end, which again is not necessarily bad per se, but at the same time, it does mean months of ceasefire – months of stagnancy.

There are currently 24 treaties registered under the #treaties channel, and these treaties include multiple armies which means there are probably at least 15 or so armies involved in treaties against multiple armies. What that quintessentially means is that these armies are definitely not going to be seeing each other on the battlefield based on their treaties. What’s more is that these treaties are not two week long treaties. Most of them extend until September. Is this really serving the purpose of a game that was built on the premise of fighting armies? The subject of treaties has actually been covered thoroughly by Cassie in her recent report that can be found here.

There has also been an influx of treaties based on alliances. This brings me to my next point. I fully support the idea of creating alliances, but I have to cover this aspect of them so as to ensure I cover the “politicization of armies” thoroughly. Alliances reek of politics and that is a known fact. You play your games, you please your allies, you please the armies in your alliance so they do not leave, you back stab your alliance etc. Alliances are built on the premise of politics. You either play your cards well or your house of cards will come tumbling down. Keeping relations between armies would also mean you are severely restricted on your planned invasion schedule as an alliance would naturally mean you make decisions keeping in mind the best interests of your allies.

Conclusion

So, where am I really going with all of this? Well, it’s quite simple. We adopted politics to be the driving force behind our decisions, and maybe that is a good thing, but what has been observed lately is the lack of the element of joy, of fun, of enjoyment. We took a penguin game and made it a rip off of Game of Thrones. Sometimes battles are fought for the sole purpose of fulfilling a personal agenda, and sometimes we took the battles that were supposed to happen on a Club Penguin Server outside the game. We grew to dislike players solely based on their army affiliation, and our vision has slowly begun be covered by the murky clouds of politics. We are slowly losing our grasp of the idea that this is all just a game, and that our main motive should be to have fun. And of course, I could be completely wrong about this, and that our fun really comes from the way we developed this game today. But is that really the case? Do we really need a just cause to have fun? A non-binding treaty to have fun? A non-conflicted alliance to have fun? Again, this idea is limited to the extent that our community doesn’t fall to a state of anarchy. A certain level of law and order is necessary, but have we taken this small bit of politicization too far?

<><><><><><><><><><><>

What are your thoughts on this theory? Let us know what YOU think in the comments below!

LuciferStar
CP Army Hub Chief Executive Officer

Emcee
CP Army Hub Advisor

Advertisement