Footnotes for “Toward a Theology of Military Games”

By Will Abbott

The question of the stereotype -- a white guy, probably with glasses and without a girlfriend -- is not relevant to the point, nor is the fact that I happen to conform to it. It may in fact not be a practical way to go in a particular situation in a particular game. But the refusal to conduct a war of aggression in that case belongs to realism, not to just war theory. The German player represents both Germany and Italy. Here I am using “cannot” in terms of possibility and not in the ethical mode. Ok, I suppose that someone might get upset over a result and possibly kill someone over it. The killing then is not an actual part of the game, but a real life reaction to the game. At any rate, it is not an act of war, so just war theory does not apply, but civilian and peacetime ethics do. Thus one can be a perfectly good pacifist and play military board games. There must be at least three, or the one versus one structure is usually enforced by the winning conditions. For three or four, however, a balanced game will break down into two on one or two on two, with the pairs often suggested by geography. Therefore, for this power structure to work out properly there should normally be at least five players. The experience of many Diplomacy variant designers backs up this conclusion. In theory a hybrid power structure might exist wherein five or more players might choose allies at the beginning of the game which become permanent. This power structure is really a twist on side versus side. The mechanism for selecting allies would require careful consideration. I have never encountered a game with this sort of power structure. Noticeably absent from this list is any work by Reinhold Niebuhr, the leading 20th century figure of Christian realism. There remains some work to be done in applying Niebuhrian thought to Diplomacy. I am not sufficiently familiar with Niebuhr’s works, however, to do so. Thus the following is not cheating: In the game of Diplomacy during the diplomacy period, a player goes to another player and offers a $20 bill if the second player will make some particular move. The rules do not prohibit it, therefore it is not cheating. Whether it is moral is another question. The distinction between house rules and variants is not a firm one. A rule of thumb might be that a variant requires a change to at least one whole structure, while anything less is a house rule. However, the usage of the terms is not always consistent with this distinction. The Diplomacy variation known as Fleet Rome is usually called a variant, not a house rule, yet it is merely a change to the starting position, not a change to any of the five structures. There are two things going on which this case highlights. First, there are various “hobbies” or communities of military board games players centered around different board games. Each of these has defined the terms “variant” and “house rule” differently. Thus, in Axis and Allies, a house rule is a change to game play, while in Diplomacy it is a change to game conduct, usually associated with postal or Internet play. Generalizing the terms for use in multiple games requires some arbitrary choice of meanings, such that one hobby’s variant might correspond to a house rule in some arbitrary, “neutral” description. Second, something that is named is usually considered a variant, not a house rule. Variants are more significant deviations from the base rulebook than house rules are; indeed, house rules are often meant to supplement or enforce the base rulebook, rather than change it in any meaningful way. Thus, when something is named, it is felt to have a certain measure of independent existence, which a house rule can never have. Thus, the fact that Fleet Rome is called Fleet Rome and not “starting with a fleet instead of an army in Rome” suggests that it is a variant, not a house rule, while the employment of bombers to transport infantry in Axis and Allies is not called “Paratroop Axis and Allies” and thus is not thought of as being a variant, even though the level of change is roughly equal in the two cases. The easing of fear is a service of love, and thus a Christian service. It can therefore be argued that the gamemaster is the one position in a military board game which is especially (though not exclusively) Christian. The gamemaster can also be seen as one who sacrifices his or her own pleasure in participation in the game for the benefit of others, thus being in some small way akedic. The gamemaster can also be seen as a “midwife” through whom the particular instance of the game is born; thus it is in some sense a maiuetic or Socratic role. The junction of these three views of the role of the gamemaster could further be seen as Kierkegaardian, but it is certainly a minor or trivial instance of something Kierkegaardian. I do not pretend that what follows is psychology in the strictest sense. Rather, it is an attempt to look at it through its effects on the psyche or “mind”. The science of psychology would require a more objective look at game playing than I am offering here. This view is perhaps more typical of Buddhism but would not be too foreign to Hinduism. Jainism, with its doctrine of total nonviolence to all living things, would probably reject military board games out of hand as they could potentially injure others' psyches, if not for its representation of actual military violence. The question of psychological violence that may occur to another player in the course of the game is an intriguing one. As mentioned in the note above, Jainism would reject the games under discussion at least for this reason. As a Christian, however, I might argue that love of neighbor as one’s self implies a certain level of love of self which would suggest that someone who would likely suffer psychological damage through a military board game should not play it. If one cannot distinguish enmity in the game from enmity in real life, then these games are not for that person. Many religions, including Christianity, would suggest that it is not. Irony of ironies, military board gaming is seen as a hobby of social misfits! Usually, one would accept the existence of original sin on other less trivial bases and would then see it reflected in the games rather than use the existence of the games to argue for original sin. As might be, to engage in a little fantasy, in some idyllic parallel world; certainly not in our own! Actually, the fantasy possibilities can be seen at the next step up. Certain games -- often variants of other games -- take place in fantasy realms and often involve fantasy powers and abilities. Considering that Jesus is the Son of God, what Jesus would play, drive, or do is not strictly speaking a guide for us. Jesus is divine, and we are not, and that is a fundamental difference. Jesus is fully human too and wouldtherefore be capable both of playing and of enjoying military board games. It is impossible to say how Jesus’ divine nature would react to them. Insert tired quip about “re-creation” here. Will Abbott (add a 'zero' before the 'nine' to e-mail me) If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the mail address above does not work for you, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.