Toward a Theology of Military Games

By Will Abbott

“Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.” -Eric Idle Introduction Military board games are a hobby enjoyed by a variety of people.1 Believers of many faiths as well as atheists and nonbelievers play them. They are therefore a practice (however trivial) which one might approach theologically. To reflect theologically on military board games it is necessary to understand what they are. Military board games can be distinguished from other board games by the use of a military or quasi-military theme on the one hand and from other military simulations by a certain stylization on the other. That is to say that military board games are not fully detailed recreations of actual or potential military engagements. As I have written elsewhere, they have five main structures or parts that define the rules of the game: These are geography, forces, power structure, combat engine, and winning conditions. These structures determine the possibilities of the game. Why do I play these games? Well, why do I play any games? I play them for fun. What do I get out of them? Besides the stimulation of certain chemicals in my brain that induce a sense of pleasure, I take away a sense of strategy and tactics. To reflect theologically on these games, it is necessary to explore certain ways of approaching the games. First, I will look at “scientific” anthropology and military games. Next, I will move to ethics. I will consider military games in light of various positions in war ethics. I will then consider the ethics of playing the games. I will then move into the realm of psychology and suggest some reasons why people might play these games -- reasons beyond the surface ones like I gave above. Building on the psychological aspects of these games, I will suggest some implications of our sense of who we are as a species -- a kind of theological anthropology. Finally, building on all of the preceding, I will make moves toward a theology of military games. Scientific Anthropology Military games have a long history. Chess, one of the earliest games we have of any type, is so old that its origins are lost in history. The word “checkmate” comes from the old Persian phrase shah mat or “the king is dead.” Ancient sets have been found in India and China as well as Iran, so even its location of origin has been disputed. The games of Go and checkers are also ancient. Yet the intricate ones people so often think of when they consider military board games, such as Axis and Allies or Diplomacy, really require modern mass production techniques to catch on. Until such time as small, diverse plastic pieces can be produced easily in such numbers as to allow several sets to exist so that several people might spend the time needed to learn the game, it is impossible for a materially intricate military board game to form around itself a hobby big enough to perpetuate itself. Thus, with military board games we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon simultaneously ancient and modern. In this way they are much like actual warfare -- ancient in origin, yet modern in its sophistication. Military Board Games and War Ethics If military board games are like war in this sense, might the same ethical theories that guide decision making about real wars guide players of military games? Let us examine some of these theories in turn. Just war theory states that there are certain criteria which must be met before going to war can be acceptable. Without looking at the specific criteria, one can conclude that just war theory cannot really apply to military board games. First, no lives are really lost in a military board game. Thus, a war of aggression, which in real life would be condemned by just war theory, has no inherent reason against it,2 because it would not in fact lead to any actual evil. Second, the rules and scenario of the game may make the decision to conduct a war of aggression for you. The player who plays Germany in Axis and Allies is taking the role of the historical aggressor. Applying just war theory to Axis and Allies, then, one might conclude that the German player should never attack, and in fact should withdrawal from all territories except Germany and Southern Europe.3 As such a course of action would lead almost inevitably to an allied win, the result of just war theory applied to Axis and Allies isn't a game. It's a decision. Would that Hitler and Mussolini had actually withdrawn to Germany and Italy in 1942! Third, the rules of jus in bello are often able to be applied only most generally if at all. Even then, since no real lives are lost, these rules do not have the same moral standing. Killing prisoners of war, for example, just isn't possible in Axis and Allies. When a rule cannot be violated it is meaningless.4 These weaknesses of just war theory point out the crucial distinction between military board games and war: In military board games, no real lives are lost.5 Because of this distinction, we find one of the more curious phenomena in game playing: This is that blending in of role-playing by immersion into a persona. There are many varieties of personae. One starts with one's real self. As one abstracts from one's self by dropping off much that is irrelevant to the game, one moves into assuming the persona of a general leader (i.e. President Will, King Eric, Prince Ken, et al.). As additional details from one’s power or role in the game are applied, this type becomes that of a historical person (i.e. Kaiser Wilhelm, Eric the Red, et al.). As the imagination supplies further details and the persona gets further away from the player’s true self, a fantasy persona may arise (i.e. “Ruler Shiba from the planet Inx” and the like). Moving back to the crucial distinction, the loss of no real life in military board games, those war ethics that start from the position that human life is of intrinsic value and is not to be killed (at least not without justification) -- just war theory and pacifism -- do not have anywhere to stand.6 Almost by default, holy war and realism are the primary ethical approaches used in military games. Most people who have played military board games will note that one or the other approach dominates a particular game. Which approach dominates depends on the power structure. There are three main types of power structures in military board games. The first, which may be represented by chess, is one versus one. The second, which may be represented by Axis and Allies, as side versus side. The distinction here is that in the second case, a side may have more than one player on it. For both of these power structures, however, there is a fixed form of enemies and friends. You do not choose your friends or enemies; the game chooses them for you. In these power structures, therefore, the holy war approach tends to dominate. There is little or no acceptance of former enemies as having a right to exist. The third power structure may be represented by Diplomacy. This power structure is freeform. All players have the right and at least theoretical chance of allying with any other player in the game.7 They also have the right to make enemies of any other player in the game. These rights are not abrogated once choices have been made, but can be changed at any time.8 Because of the relative instability of the alliances in this power structure, realism tends to dominate. Holy war may be tried, but is usually discouraged by advanced players. Realism allows a player to change from ally to enemy as the situation in the game suggests. The effect of the power structures can be seen by a comparison of our two paradigmatic modern games, Diplomacy and Axis and Allies. The later has a side versus side power structure, and thus usually involves holy war mentalities among the players. The elimination of the other side, or utter subjection which would eventually lead to elimination, becomes the goal; the literature does not look to politics or military history for subtle distinctions. In Diplomacy, however, there is a freeform power structure, and realism dominates. In the literature written on the game, there are certain classic books of “realism” which are generally cited: Machiavelli’s The Prince, Clausewitz’s On War, and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.9 Military Board Games and Board Game Ethics Military board games are both military and board games, however, and there are certain ethics that pertain to the board game side of them. There are two main considerations regarding ethics of board games: These are cheating and gamemastering. Cheating can be defined as a violation of the rules of the game for some personal advantage.10 The “Flying Dutchman”, or piece on the board unearned through the usual mechanism of the game, is a classic example of cheating. Cheating can never be permitted as it destroys the geography and force structures, renders the combat engine and power structure irrelevant, and reduces the game to one of who can achieve the winning conditions the fastest. Gamemastering is acting as a gamemaster. A gamemaster is in a position of trust: Other people have asked that person to guide their game for them, usually without much extrinsic reward. The gamemaster can rarely play the game, let alone win it; if he or she can play the game, special provisions are usually made so that he or she remains impartial. Beyond impartiality, the most important function of a gamemaster is the creation and enforcement of house rules. House rules are created for two reasons: First, the official rules of the game often do not cover all possible situations; such things as player loss or adaptation to postal play must often be covered. Second, after playing a game for a while players might feel that some details have been left out; instead of creating a whole new variant, certain house rules are given.11 The gamemaster has the responsibility for maintaining any additions or deviations from the rulebook, as well as enforcing the provisions of the rulebook. These games can get competitive and may take place amongst strangers. Thus the temptation to cheat can be stronger than in a game among friends, and the gamemaster provides a check. The gamemaster also provides a neutral party in case some dispute over the interpretation of the rules arises and can act as teacher for someone new to the game without fear that the new person is being manipulated.12 Psychology and Military Board Games13 With the mention of fear it seems appropriate now to consider some approaches to a psychological understanding of military board games. There are at least five main avenues of viewing the hobby of playing military board games through a psychological lens. The first of these avenues is to understand the playing of military board games as the release or displacement of aggression. This avenue would argue that each of us has certain frustrated desires to harm other people. Military games (much like sports) thus give a way to act out these desires in such a way that does not actually harm anyone. Naturally, this view is not considered a complete explanation. One potential critique of this view would argue that these desires themselves are a problem. As a consequence, they are not to be acted upon, released, or displaced, but eliminated. Enlightenment thus involves getting rid of these desires, and ways for their expression, whether truly harmful or not, are merely a hindrance to enlightenment.14 This critique itself is a sort of religious or theological psychology, rather than a scientific one. It presupposes a certain view of desire as being inimical to being truly and fully human. It tends to come out of an Indian worldview, which sees the elimination of desire as the key to full enlightenment. As a Christian it is not persuasive -- enlightenment is not the elimination of desires and self, but the perfection of the two. Thus, displacement or release of aggression is not inherently problematic, so long as it is done such that no actual harm comes to another person.15 A second avenue, related to the first, is to see military board games as a displacement of militarism. Thus playing these games might be seen as an alternative to working for an active and strong military. Someone who is not in a position in society to have much influence over the military might channel energies which otherwise would go to building it up into military-themed games as a socially acceptable substitute. While this avenue might be one in use by some people, it can hardly be said to be comprehensive. The existence of pacifist and just war theorist players, as mentioned above, is not merely theoretical. There are players who would not support any war or who would not support certain wars (such as the recent conflict in Iraq) yet play military board games. A third avenue is to see military board games as a venue for competition or even superiority. That is, military board games provide a way in which players can vie with each other to see who is the best and can reap the psychological benefits of being better than others -- assuming, of course, that they win. By saying to themselves, “I am the best player in my group,” even in something as trivial as military board games, a certain sense of self-satisfaction can arise. Setting aside the question of whether this sense of self-satisfaction is a desirable one,16 what does this avenue do for those who are not the best players in their groups? This avenue suggests that those who are not the best should play only long enough to figure that out, then quit. This depiction is hardly accurate, even for those who do seek to be the best in their groups. A fourth avenue sees military board games as a particular kind of social activity,17 with all the benefits that such activity conveys. Human beings are social creatures, after all, and this hobby is merely one way of being social that does not have anti-social results as such social activities as street gangs might. Whether or not it is the most effective social activity is not significant so long as it is a harmless and socially appropriate one. A fifth avenue sees military board games as problem solving exercises. The intellect and rational mind is engaged in a kind of training activity for real life problems through these somewhat abstract games, thus giving the player practice in dealing with situations. Theological Anthropology and Military Board Games What military board games say about the human condition is dependent upon which of these options one accepts. It is possible to accept more than one of them. The first three of the avenues suggest that they are some reflection of original sin. By “reflection of original sin” I do not mean to indicate that these games themselves are sinful, whether in an original or a particular sense. Rather, they are things which would not exist apart from original sin, but do not themselves participate in original sin. In some sense, then, the existence of these games is an indication of the existence of original sin, much as your reflection in a mirror is an indication of your own existence.18 There is also a requirement of military activity in some sense. This military activity could exist only as a fantasy,19 more likely at least a history of and most likely a contemporaneity with military activity. If it were otherwise, the games would not be intelligible. Fourth, since they are social activities, their repetition can lead to the development of communities of players. These are the “hobbies” I have mentioned often before. They may take on quasi-governmental functions, organizing themselves for the propagation of the hobby and the coordination of hobby-wide events such as championships, news releases, polls, and awards. Toward a Theology of Military Games But what does all of this military game playing say about God? Well, at the bare minimum, God is a god who creates people who do this sort of thing. Frankly, that is a rather trivial statement about God, and one would be hard pressed to find much difference between this God and a god, otherwise identical to this one, that does not create people who do this sort of thing. The first thing to remember, though, is that military board games are a mere hobby. Would Jesus play them? Who cares, really.20 Playing military board games is not an identity-giving activity. It is not something that, ultimately, matters one bit. And that is just it. We have a God who creates us for, among other things, recreation.21 We have a God who is not all about seriousness. We have a God who likes to play, and likes for us to play, even at things that in real life would be deadly. We have a God who gave us pleasure -- not for wanton use or for displacing God, certainly, but for moderate use. Military board games are merely human tools for this recreation, this non-seriousness, this pleasure, the capacity for which comes from God as a reflection of the imago dei. 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.