Playing an Evil Role

Rachel Wagner's discussion of Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is probably the most interesting topic yet. So far, discussion has mostly been about religious ritual in a mostly positive sense, but in this chapter (Ch. 7) she presents the ever problematic notion of evil. If it is possible to perform pious rituals such as attending church, praying, or confessing sins in a virtual environment, then it follows that it should be possible to perform evil as well. If there is an opportunity for good is there not also for evil?

This question is one that any contemporary video gamer would have undoubtedly engaged with at some point, and to some degree I myself have given an answer, implicitly by owning and playing certain games if not explicitly. In the virtual world my rap sheet is formidable, including but not limited to: lying, theft, murder, terrorism, reckless driving, impersonating a police officer, and more murder. If there were a virtual hell I should expect to be represented there someday, but until I learned about Super Columbine Massacre RPG! (SCMRPG!), I've always believed that seemingly evil actions in game worlds were easily distinguished from true evil. Like the possible conclusion that Wagner suggests can be made when "drawing on Huizinga and Crawford," I assumed that "actions that take place within the magic circle of a game are sanitized from the realm of daily life" (171). There is something about SCMRPG! that forces me to reconsider all that.

I think that the difference can be better understood by a quote Wagner uses to highlight the difference between "video games and more rigidly structured stories": in the former "we can always pull away from [a morally reprehensible] character" while in the latter "we as players are always partially to blame" (171). This is highlighted by SCMRPG! because you are forced to play as the undisputed villains and, presumably, the conditions for winning involve recreating a situation that is universally understood to be an instance of extreme failure; of absolute loss. Not only is the narrative unchangeable, but to win, you must perform the actions yourself, you must pull the trigger yourself. The initial problem seems to be that we would allow such evil and tragedy to be placed within a magic circle at all. The situation mirrors the problems of placing holy narratives within the context of the magic circle. The difference being that, with holy narratives danger lies in having fun altering the story, but in narratives of evil the danger is that fun will be had while the evil details of the event remain unchanged, or possibly even amplified. In a sense, evil narrative is just as sacrosanct as holy narrative. It seems like there is just as much opportunity for evil ritual as for good.

So, will I stop stealing from poor villagers in Skyrim, or will I resist sniping unsuspecting city folk when I get bored of the missions in the Grand Theft Auto series? Why? Maybe because I'm still not completely convinced. Or maybe even because there is a sense in which these games can be understood to have a confessional quality. I am reminded of a Jack Johnson song that seems to have been written about the events at Columbine. In it he insists that the blame for the events cannot be simply laid on the two shooters but that in fact "It was you, it was me, it was every man/We've all got the blood on our hands/We only receive what we demand/And if we want hell, then hell's what we'll have" (Cookie Jar). Perhaps by playing a game like Super Columbine Massacre RPG! we might be able to cop up to our share of the "blame" for the events of this tragedy. Perhaps even, if we have fun playing, we will be forced to confront our own depravity, our own evil. That might not be such an evil after all.