Sue Hemberger wrote: ". . . If everyone falls to the dark then all players lose together. There's the rub. I don't see how a cooperative game that designates all of the players as "good" and urges them to work together to triumph over an unembodied evil does anything to dismantle our war culture. It's an us-against-them with "them" logic in which "they" lack humanity and "we" must suppress internal divisions and urge self-sacrifice. Sounds like the stuff wars are made of." Sue, you're quite right. It even explains why young men would willingly immolate themselves by crashing planes into buildings. What unembodied evil did they believe they were fighting? We've got to overcome the us-vs-them split. We are all "us". How does the dehumanization of some of us creep into the mix? How do flawed ideas take over so destructively? What twisted logic pulls us down that slope? "As for games in which all players win or lose, an 8 year old friend of mine had a really interesting perspective: 'I don't care if I win,' she said. 'It's fun for me when my friends win. But why play a game where no one will win?'" Your little friend is completely right. We all want happy endings. Why can't everyone win after suspenseful efforts by all? "Once everything you do affects whether or not I succeed, the logic goes, I have a legitimate interest (and should have a say) in what you do and I want to make sure you don't screw up. This logic can involve identifying the presumed weakest link and bullying that person into following the will of the majority and/or designating a leader who calls the shots." See? That's why we have a Constitution and representative government and voting. To make sure the weakest link doesn't get bullied, there's a Bill of Rights. A leader who calls the shots is usually referred to as dictator. Hmm. -- Kate Jones