just words

“Violence only leads to more violence. We believe your presence here will attract violence. That's why we want you to leave as soon as possible.”

There’s this one scene in Final Fantasy VIII, after Balamb Garden becomes mobile and crashes into Fisherman’s Horizon, where the mayor of said town tells Squall and company to leave as soon as possible because he believes they will attract the Galbadian Army and thus bring ruin to their quaint little fishing village that just so happens to have some of the best background music of any video game ever made.

The mayor has a legitimate point, and he’s also pretty much totally correct, because Balamb does end up attracting the Galbadian Army, and violence does indeed break out in his quaint little fishing village that just so happens to have the best background music of any role-playing game ever made, but when the violence does break out, instead of fighting, the mayor opts to calmly speak with the Galbadian military official in an attempt to come to some sort of peace through open discourse.

Now, I've played Final Fantasy VIII several times, but the last time I had actually completed the game was over ten years ago, so I had forgotten exactly what happens next, but I was hoping it would defy my expectations, pull some sort of twist wherein the mayor does actually manage to convince the Galbadian bad guys to stand down through peaceful discourse, but of course my naivety was quickly made apparent, because of course this is video games, and of course the player must be entertained, and of course it would be boring if the bad guys just packed up and went home after a couple lines of dialogue, so of course this means cool boss battles with lots of flashy effects and violence.

Because, as you might have already guessed, instead of using this scene to reinforce a message of peace, the game instead basically ridicules the mayor’s philosophy of non-violence. The mayor is immediately laughed at, choked out, and told that his village will be razed to the ground no matter what he does, so of course Squall and company have to jump in to save the day, pounding the Galbadian bad guys into a pulp before blowing up their giant death machine with a massive sword laser called Blasting Zone that somehow extends out into space before landing smack dab on the enemy target all without triggering some sort of apocalyptic extinction-level event, and thus the peaceful village, which has some of the best background music of any video game ever, is saved through violent albeit somewhat nonsensical means, thus reinforcing the bloody, cyclical philosophy of violence.

Afterwards, Squall, somewhat sympathetic to the mayor’s philosophy of peace, talks to the guy, saying the following,

“I wish … everything could be settled without resorting to violence ... and there would be no need for battles. Like you've been preaching, it would be wonderful if things could be settled by discussion. The only problem with that is that it takes too much time. Especially if the others are not willing to listen. So I believe that fighting is inevitable at times. It's really sad. That's all I have to say. I hope you understand someday. I think the world needs both people like you and people like us. Thank you for all your help. Goodbye."

Squall’s use of the word “preaching” comes off a bit condescending, but that's more of a translation issue than anything else, and his “takes too much time” comment strikes me as especially odd, considering this is a world in which time magic like “Stop” and “Slow” exist, and his whole “I hope you understand someday” thing comes off arrogant as hell, as if Squall believes his own personal philosophy to be the only viable one and it's just a matter of time and maturity for everyone else to get on his same page, but otherwise I think his heart is in the right place, as his sentiment here more or less mirrors my own, although I hold this position far more begrudgingly than Squall seems to, so ultimately the whole scene still left a sour taste in my mouth, like is this truly the message we want to spread, that the only way to stop violence is through violence, that some people will just not listen to reason and should therefore be beaten to a pulp and blasted with huge space lasers?

The whole thing got me thinking about Japanese role-playing games in general, and how, at least out of the ones I’ve played, which number in the hundreds, they all use violence as a means to resolution, each and every one of them. Every JRPG I’ve played has a battle system in which the good guys are on one side of the screen and the bad guys are on the other, each side exchanging blows in the most flashy ways possible, all in an effort to stop some sort of end-of-the-world threat, be it some mad god or some evil empire. This is opposed to western role-playing games, like Baldur’s Gate or Neverwinter Nights or even Elder Scrolls, wherein violence is indeed there as an option but many in-game situations can actually be solved through dialogue. Hell, many WRPGs even have a “charisma” stat and some sort of speechcraft skill tree which rewards the player for using non-violent means to resolve problems, which, in my experience, is just not something that exists in many JRPGs, if any.

The east-versus-west thing going on in the previous paragraph also raises some interesting sociohistorical questions, considering the whole Hiroshima-Nagasaki thing, after which Japan became relatively non-violent, what with their adoption of a new constitution that expressly renounces war and forbids maintaining any kind of “war potential,” which is all to say that Japanese developers’ strict adherence to violent conflict resolution in video games confuses me somewhat. I can’t help but wonder if it’s some sort of leftover revenge fantasy lingering within their cultural subconscious from the atrocity that was committed against them, and following this line of thinking, perhaps every evil empire in JRPGs, of which there are many, is actually some sort of symbolic stand-in for America, which would be totally understandable, but it’s still a curious thing nonetheless, because the core sentiment that violence begets more violence seems like a demonstrably true fact of life, one that is both unavoidable and incredibly tragic, although Japan is kind of an exception to the rule in this case, because, after the bombs dropped, they did indeed become a more peaceful nation, just at the expense of countless human souls, which begs the question, does it really have to be this way?

I’m not a historian by any means, but surely, back then, whether culturally or militaristically or whatever, Japan had some sort of rigid viewpoint they believed was righteous and correct, a viewpoint they believed necessitated violence for whatever reason, and clearly this viewpoint was one that could not be changed through peaceful discourse. Unfortunately, however, this rigid viewpoint, whatever it actually was, was their undoing, because, whether right or wrong, it facilitated the need for thermonuclear detonation, twice.

At the end of disc 1, right before the assassination attempt on Sorceress Edea, Squall says something that fits here, he says, 

“Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It’s our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us.”

And this is a quote I quite like and agree with. It takes the whole concept of “good” and “evil” out of the equation, making conflict more about personal philosophies and open dialogue. It seems to suggest that, if we could just make our enemies see reason, make them adopt our enlightened viewpoints, then there would be no need for violence at all. Keep in mind, however, this quote was uttered by a mercenary on a mission to assassinate a woman in cold blood, which suggests that, perhaps, even if there’s no such thing as right and wrong, good and evil, some people just can’t be reasoned with and thus need to be taken out for the greater good of humanity, but ultimately it is Squall and Balamb deciding what that “greater good” actually is, which when we get right down to it is just another viewpoint, another perspective, which Squall openly admits is a factor in the whole violent conflict he’s a part of, so perhaps Squall himself is a perpetuator of cyclical violence simply by holding a differing viewpoint?

Perhaps holding a rigid viewpoint on anything at all is part of the problem?

Because, as Squall states later on, “some people just aren’t willing to listen,” and if that’s the case, which it seems to be, just look at the right-left divide in America these days, just what are we to do with these non-listening people? Are we expected to just let those who want to take our human rights take our human rights? Are we expected to just sit around in the lotus position all day hoping we can convince fascists of equality and justice for all? Are we expected to just let Sorceress Edea take over the entire world? 

In a hard-line philosophy of peace, are we expected to just take it?

There seems to be a classic double bind here, a paradox of peace almost, that being, if we rigidly adhere to a peaceful philosophy, we effectively roll over for those who themselves are not very peaceful, opening ourselves up to violence, but if we fight back, violence with violence, we beget more violence. It seems to be a no-win situation almost.

So, thinking back to Squall’s somewhat patronizing speech given to the mayor of Fisherman’s Horizon, which happens to have some of the best background music of any video game ever, maybe he, Squall, actually makes a good point? I don’t know.

I mean, we often say that those who commit atrocities will eventually get what’s coming to them, but how long are we expected to wait for that to happen?

Maybe sometimes we have to take matters into our own hands, maybe that's the only way to save Fisherman's Horizon?