Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

The Morality of the Aggression




There is a certain duplicity of thought, an unspoken but visible rule that aggression is immoral and unjust, while at the same time belligerent parties use the open world forum as a tinker-toy to create an illusion of strength and grandeur, all the while they cowardly wait for another party to cast the first stone. In the past wars of aggression have been used to eliminate threats, and gain political capital by blocs such as One Vision and Continuum, and ever since Karma the acts of aggression have been overtly tarnished.

Is honor never a valid reason to fight? Is not alliance pride alone, the willingness to show your mettle on the battlefield not reason enough to fight? Apparently it is not. Instead we cowards satiate our desires by making false announcements to ridicule each other under the guise of politics. Look at the similarly outrageous and childish "Pretender to the Throne" theater acts that are going on between the Mushroom Kingdom and Pacifica. While sufficient for a cheap laugh, these stage acts have taken the place of meaningful political rivalry. Neither alliance is willing to jeopardize it or it's allies pixels in the name of good political sense, which is only a poor veil for cowardice.

Why is it immoral that the strong should triumph over the weak? Never has anyone made the statement, but never the less, the cyberverse follows it. An alliance is decried as tyrannical when they crush a weaker opponent, yet in the early years, one sided wars drove the politics of the game. Everyone immediately assumes that disbanding an alliance is a bad thing, but never considers the impact that the exodus of former members from that alliance has on the rest of the community. Some of our more exciting politicians are from disbanded alliances, AlmigtyGrub comes to mind. Another outcome is that sometimes alliances experience a new incarnation that remedies the mistakes of the old community. Umbrella came from Genmay. Viridian Entente is stronger in its second incarnation than its first. The strong will survive and the weak shall perish.

The imminent death of twenty thousand men,

That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,

Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot

Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,

Which is not tomb enough and continent

To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,

My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!

Has honor and pride died a meaningless death in all real alliances, except those consisting of a sole individual? So much so that valid provocation for war goes unduly ignored in favor of idle thumb twiddling on the forums?



Recommended Comments

Only a fool allows his opponents to dictate the beginning and end of his wars.

Only a fool starts a war he cannot finish.

Only a fool gives a reason to his enemy's allies to intervene on their behalf.

History disagrees with everything you have said.

The rawest power is often demonstrated via temperance and patience. The greatest weakness often demonstrated in rash action.

There is nothing wrong with aggression, but misused it is ignorant. Even if ignorance is ammoral, it's also deadly. It is easy to mistake calculation for cowardice. It is easy to hide behind calculation as an excuse for cowardice. Interpreting which is which is the rub.

I will say this though.. in a game basic on statistics.. calculation is priceless.

Link to comment

Honor in some situations is reason to fight. However, it has nothing to do with aggression, in my opinion.



1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.

2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.

3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.


There is nothing "honorable" in the above, even when used for political gain. It's all about violating through force the rights of another, be it an individual nation or alliance. Even if the motivation is to force others to act in a way one considers "right" (aka: small alliances should disband anyway or tech raiding is wrong and should be "illegal"), it's still violating the boarders of an individual nation/alliance through force.

People can feel free to advocate aggression as far as I'm concerned if they wish. However, the only arguments for aggression that I have any respect for are what I see as honest ones. Arguments based on political gain and increasing an alliances power (for instance, an alliance taking over a particular sphere to control the senate seats). However, fighting for such causes is not "honor", it's patriotism.

I also have sympathy for arguments based on doing to others what they have done to you, but unless one is defending one's alliance or an ally (and I'm not saying the "ally" relationship has to be made public, at least not with this argument), it is not a matter of "honor" but of revenge and/or punishment for past deeds. Again, maybe that's okay, but it isn't honorable.

Honor = honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor. "Might makes right" fails the fairness requirement.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...