Violent Video Games and Choosing Christ

I have a question. Well, actually, it was handed to me, but that means that I have it all the same.

(Isn't metaphysical figurative speech fun? Hee hee.)

The question that was handed to me went as follows:

(Yes, I know there's a typo. Please don't bother me, or KiteTales about it. Typos happen.)

Oh, hey! That's me! Well, not exclusively me, as you can see from the 61 Likes, 25 Retweets, and 51 replies at the time I came across this Tweet. Still, I thought I would volunteer to help respond.

The follow-up and my response looked sort of like this:

Complete with my fake user name and fake Twitter handle! Ha ha, you guys still don't get to know my real name. Not until I decide that I'm ok with giving that out. Someday. Maybe. Or not.

And... here we are, doing that! ¡Maravilloso!

Now, if you don't know who KiteTales is, that won't make a difference as far as understanding what I'm about to say. But I also say, you should go watch and consider subscribing to her channel that she shares on YouTube, with a guy named Flex. (As you can tell, I'm all about giving out people's real names on this blog.) I'm not saying that because they're paying me to say that, or even because they feel the need for more subscribers; I just think you might like some of the videos they make. Maybe you'll join the very vocal group of viewers who continually want to know when the next episode of Amiibo Life will be finished. Who knows?

The link is here, by the way: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CsoZoHmPHv7q8Vea6IliQ

My favourite song by this band is called, "Hyut! Hya! Ha!"

And Link is here, by the way. →

But anyway, that was the question today: As a Christian who plays video games, do I feel that viewing violent media contradicts the kind of life that I promise to live?

If you want the "tl;dr"* answer, you can go with what my Tweet said: "Not necessarily."

But if you want to learn something today, and you're not afraid of writings that are longer than five paragraphs, then let us descend past that jump break!




(*This is an irrelevant tangent, but I think it would sound better if that annoying little abbreviation were written as, "dr;tl." Sure, you can say, "Too long; didn't read," but that sounds stilted with the proper punctuation. If you instead wrote it, "Didn't read; too long," that... I don't know, maybe this is a personal preference. Also, I will assume that none of you care. Oh well.)


I guess the place for me to start is with what Christians believe about violence. Or, since I can't speak for every Christian sect, or indeed, for any person other than myself, I'll start with what I feel about violence, and how certain teachings of Christianity have influenced me into thinking the way that I do. I'll start off with one of everyone's favourites, right from the Ten Commandments:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
- Exodus 20:13

(I would show a picture here, but doing a Google image search of those words brings up a lot of... well, kind of angry or saddening content. So I'll leave this as is.)

Almost everyone I've ever talked to seems to agree on the fact that it would have been more accurate if this verse from Exodus had been translated into English not as, "Thou shalt not kill," but rather as, "Thou shalt not murder." Of course, arguments about that distinction are often found mixed into debates about killing in self-defense, war, abortion, sterilization, veganism, euthanasia, and so forth, so I'm not going to go into more detail right now. One debate at a time here.

But I will give you one other verse to consider for the moment. The reference may not be familiar to everyone, but I think the principle it teaches will be:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal, neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."

Of course, it's that final phrase where I think most of the questions come in; "nor do anything like unto it."

So, if something is "like unto" killing, I shouldn't be doing it. Hmm.

You would think that this leaves the answer rather cut-and-dried, and an easy catch-all: "You are commanded not to kill. You are commanded not to do anything that is like killing. Video games do not require you to kill real people, but some of them do require you to do things that are like killing. Therefore, you shouldn't do it."

...But honestly, I don't see it that way. Not exactly, at least.

Violence is Sometimes the Answer. Not Always the Right Answer, but an Answer

Did any of you ever see this video?

I get to sound like a hipster, because I saw this before it became a viral sensation. Actually, at the time that this comedy sketch aired, the people who made this, a group called Studio C, were trying to get their first sketch to one million views on YouTube. They were trying very hard to promote a set of three musical parodies about The Hunger Games. And then out of nowhere, this sketch that they did nothing to promote suddenly performed astronomically well. I was there to see it happen, just as surprised as everyone else. Maybe that's why I feel so nonchalant about this.

Well, actually, even though I'm a fan of Studio C, this isn't even among my 50 personal favourite sketches they've done. Why? Mainly because there comes a point when I have a hard time laughing at others' pain. The first few hits in this video are comical, but towards the end... every time I watch it, knowing full well that it's all fake, I wince at each impact, and I feel this overwhelming urge to somehow block the incoming projectiles, and help poor Matt off the ground. Or, I mean, help Scott Sterling. Yeah. Him, I mean. Matt Meese, the actor, he's just fine.

Now, even though I don't find head trauma funny, I do still get some laughs out of this comedy sketch. The commentators' dialogue really drives up the intensity, and seeing Scott Sterling continue to wave to the crowd from his stretcher at the end, it makes me feel like I can still smile.

And the rest of the world went positively wild over this. Soccer/football fans the world over were sharing this and laughing, professional players on every continent found it funny, and websites were even pirating the video to exploit it for views. This was the video that really put Studio C on the map, and thousands of new Studio C fans were created from that day onward. Thousands of people were made so happy because of the fictional character Scott Sterling.

However, not everyone felt the same way. Want to see an actual comment about this video, sent on the day that the video became super-popular, from an unusually conservative Utah Mormon? Too bad; you're going to see it anyway.

I hope you enjoy your ill-gotten popularity, Studio C. By catering to the what is considered "popular," you have successfully joined the ranks of all other distasteful comedy shows. What is described on your YouTube channel as "clean, family-friendly comedy" is now anything but. Just because something is popular does not make it appropriate, and I am ashamed at the face you have given to BYU and its television with your attempt to cater to the lowest common denominator. Your humor is now being labeled as "lowbrow" in online reviews, and rightly so. Depicting intense gore and suffering as "funny" makes me sick to my stomach and ashamed that I was ever a fan of the show. I used to like many of your sketches, but they are now tainted by the probability that you will continue to cater to the world's standard of humor. Even though you may have gained new viewership, here's one viewer you won't be seeing again.

I felt the need to respond to this commenter. Maybe I was bored that day. I won't make you sit through all of what I said; it ranges from how I have seen greater violence out of Mickey Mouse, more malicious intent from Disney and Pixar characters, and seen more intense gore by playing rugby; to how this viewer had no idea what "lowbrow" humour could really entail; to how if this guy thought that this comedy sketch gave a bad face to Brigham Young University (BYU), I could tell him some horror stories about my time attending it as a student that would put this "atrocity" to shame.

The one part I do want to bring up right now (so that I can quote myself, yay,) is this:

"There is a difference between portraying violence and glorifying violence. Violence happens in the real world, even as surprised as some people are to find that out. So if comedy wants to portray anything remotely relevant to real life, then at some point there will be some degree of conflict or violence. But saying that Studio C is violent is like saying that the movie Captain America supports Nazism because it shows a portrayal of Adolf Hitler."

(By the way, after giving my long explanation to this commenter, he responded with something along the lines of, "Wow, this was well-organized and well thought-out. But I don't agree with anything that you say." Right; why would you?)

Turn No Blind Eye

I think this is an important distinction, understanding the difference between portraying violence and glorifying violence. Praising and glorifying violence is, of course, problematic. And yes, I usually, if not always, find that kind of behaviour wrong. But if I thought that any display of violence was inherently wrong, then I never would have read books like this in school:

Without even giving you plot details, I can tell you that this book shows artistic portrayals of horrors you would never want to be a part of "the story of a childhood." It shows drawings of, among other things, a murdered man, drowned in a bathtub; the ruins of a house that has been recently bombed, complete with a dead family under the rubble; and a rather shocking image of a large group of people who have been locked into a theatre, the theatre lit on fire, and the people being left to burn alive, while armed military officers threaten to shoot any bystander who dares to help those trapped victims.

This story shows these atrocities because they were, unfortunately, just par for the course in those days of Iran's history.

When I later wrote an essay about this book, I remember writing in my essay that it would be an insult to the people who have suffered, if we were not to pay attention to these events, no matter how gruesome they may have been. If you say out loud, "Sorry, I can't read that book about your history; it's too violent," how does that sound to you? Try it; try saying that with your vocal cords, and see how it makes you feel.

I can easily list off words of prophets that back up my thoughts and feelings on observing violence. Here are a few:

"As ye would that men would do unto you, do ye also unto them likewise."
- Luke 6:31

I would like it if other people would take notice, and would care enough to help me, when I am suffering. Even if it is from violence. Obviously, I should be willing to do the same for them.

"And now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another's burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort... if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?"
- Mosiah 18:8-10

A part of becoming "the people of God," you see, is caring about and serving others, no matter their circumstances. If they have burdens, if they are mourning, if they need comfort, then administer to them. Bear their burdens. Empathize with those in mourning. Comfort those who need it. If this means doing something hard, then do it. If this means becoming acquainted with horrors they've experienced, even the kind no human being should ever be subjected to... well, steel yourself; you should probably at least try to do that too.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
- Matthew 25:40

Kind of self-explanatory, right? I will have more to say about it momentarily, though.

So, to summarize all of this: To see something that is violent is not something that I think is inherently wrong. There are times, in fact, when I feel like it is absolutely necessary for us to bear witness to such things, no matter how it pains us.

But, I suppose the question still going in your mind (assuming anyone ever reads this) is, "Great, but, how does this relate to violence in video games?"

Living, Dying, Gaming

Well, I did just finish quoting Jesus Christ as saying, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Once again, a lot of people would likely assume that I would take this as saying, "Any action I do to anyone is counted and judged against me the same way it would be if I did those things to Christ personally. So, a video game is encouraging me to do something violent, and that is a representation of a real person, and so... if I am saying through one of my pastimes that I am complicit with killing people, then I may as well be killing Christ myself. So I should never do it."

Again, while that would be a fair assumption... no, that's not how I see it. Not exactly, at least.

Allow me first of all to state, I love when I have non-violent options in video games.

I can say that in reference to game choice as a whole, too; a lot of my favourite video games that I have ever played involve little or no killing. In classic Sonic the Hedgehog games, you never kill a single being. (Well, I mean, in real-world physics you might have to debate that... like, how could Dr. Robotnik survive all of the explosions, and what about that animal you rescued, who just jumped into the lava... but in-game, you don't kill.) When you defeat an enemy robot, the living animal who unwillingly powered the machine is set free. When you fight bosses, Robotnik escapes time after time. Nobody really dies at your hands. Way past cool, ol' buddy.

And I could go on with how many games I love that are like that; nobody dies at your hands in MarioKart, Recettear, Luigi's Mansion, Earthbound, any of the Pokémon games, Tetris, Thomas Was Alone, Professor Layton, Dance Dance Revolution, Super Smash Bros., etc. This isn't even including games where it's ambiguous whether anyone dies or not, like the Kirby games, because it's never explained what happens to enemies he swallows, and the fact that enemies re-spawn makes it difficult to say.

Nor is this including games like, say, Tadpole Treble, where your tadpole character does kill — mosquitoes — and several times you see frogs eating the things that frogs eat. Which is to say, there are some games that portray killing for legitimate purpose, in an honest manner, without glorifying it.

But that's not the only time when I feel happy to have a non-violent option in a video game; I'm also happy when games that involve violence of some kind give you the chance not to use it.

I'm sure more than a few people (if anyone ever reads this) will immediately think I'm going to talk about Undertale right here... well, too bad! I'm going to talk about a tabletop, pen and paper role-playing game instead.

The Game of Life...s. Of Lives, I Mean; the Game of Lives

I mean, yes, I understand that tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons aren't technically video games... but aside from the fact that the graphics appear inside your mind instead of on a screen, and the number-crunching and stats are done on paper, rather than a computer engine; and the fact that you use your voice and roll dice instead of operating buttons on a controller... it may as well be a video game.

Anyway, this is one of my first and favourite RPG characters:

Well, ok, so that's not actually him, but close enough. And it might as well be.

If you're a devoted Star Wars fan, you might recognize that this reptilian dude is from a race known as Trandoshans.

And if you're a devout Star Wars fan, you might know what kind of personality to typically expect from one of these guys. They are mean to the core. Their entire way of life, up to and including their religion, is centered on killing; their goddess, known as the Scorekeeper, keeps track of "jagannath points," which a Trandoshan accumulates through successful kills and trophies captured from other beings. Hence why so many Trandoshans get into jobs like bounty hunting, mercenary work, hunting in general, and the slave business; it's a good way to appease their deity. You can probably guess how other races perceive these guys.

When I created my character for this Star Wars tabletop RPG, a Trandoshan character, I decided to let him be the one-in-a-million heretic who was nothing like the rest of his species. Sure, he's skilled at bringing death. He can swing a sword hard enough to fracture bone even when hitting with the blunt side — I found that out by accident — and he's an expert marksman with both rifle and pistol. And if he really wants to, he can fight barehanded and end people's lives without even trying to do so.

But here's where he's weird:

He will avoid doing so, whenever possible.

There have been a few chances for my group's characters to buy equipment and weapons. And each time, I picked up a new item that allowed me the option of stunning instead of killing. First it was a rifle that had four power options: Low Power, Med Power, High Power, and Stun. Then it was a pistol with a stun function. And then it was upgrading my character's gauntlets, so that they are now basically wearable tasers.

Not only does the equipment allow me to be non-lethal, but my character is willing to try diplomacy, even if he isn't very good at it. I have tried bargaining, using threat of force rather than real force, sneaking, avoiding confrontation, cooperating, and befriending people, just to see if I can give myself a chance to get this character out of a situation without hurting anyone more than necessary.

I did make up an elaborate backstory to this character, about how and why there came a point in his life when he suddenly felt some kind of conscience awaken in him. So now instead of honouring his ancestral ways, he gives himself points on his personal scorecard every time he does something good, especially if it's sparing a life, freeing a captive, or preventing deaths.

It's kind of hilarious, really.

This is not to say, though, that I never have my character kill people in this game. There are times when enemy grunts are too numerous, and there's no time to leave them alive while they're trying to kill my friends and me, not to mention innocent bystanders. Or there are times when enemy armour makes stunning impossible, or distance makes a knock-out blow impossible, and my only choice is to kill or be killed. On a couple of occasions, I've had my character mercy-kill enemies; once when a man was badly wounded, robbed of his clothing, money, and weapons, and left in a street, unconscious, to slowly die on a hostile world, I ended his life right then. I thought the more humane thing to do was spare him the suffering.

And there have been a few instances when I had this character assassinate some very bad guys, which I deemed to be not only what he would genuinely want for himself, but I personally believed was for the greater good. (I'm talking about people like a mobster who was involved in human trafficking, and in selling out people to the Empire; or a noble who forced commoners to fight in gladiatorial battles to the death, because he found it entertaining. The moment when I decided he had to die was when he was running, heavily armed and in a crazed rage, towards the houses of unarmed civilians, intent on shooting whomever he saw first. I put an end to that. Not much regret at the loss of those guys.)

So you see, I'm not 100% against any and all actions of violence. And apparently, neither is God himself.

The same God who gives the teaching, "Thou shalt not kill," and has said not only, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," but has also said, "Love your enemies," is still the same God who has said, "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies... Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

You see, there is a time and a place for everything. (<Hey, I realize now, that's actually a common quote that people don't realize is Biblical. Cool! Ecclesiastes 3:1, I think.)

This fictional RPG character I created, he follows a line of thought quite similar to the one I follow in real life. Simultaneously recognizing that life is sacred, and that in some dire circumstances life needs to be taken, he treats the business of killing others with gravity and reverence.

Actually, I realize that I developed that attitude some years ago, specifically because of another video game.

Pandora's Pox

"Mmm, what's that cologne you're wearing?"

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow was an old favourite of mine. I think it was the first stealth game I ever played for an extended period of time.

I may be in the minority here, but I was fascinated to find out that I had the option of sneaking up behind people, knocking them unconscious, and not killing them. Or that I was given tools on most missions that allowed for non-lethal take-downs. That way, enemies were just obstacles to be overcome, not foes to be put to death. Even though a lot of the people I snagged were active terrorists, even then I liked the idea that I wouldn't always need to be their executioner. I know I didn't think it consciously at the time, but maybe that feeling was borne out of a few Christian ideals: mercy, slowness to anger, and giving individuals the chance to repent and fix their lives.

Again, here was another instance where I didn't avoid violence altogether. There were some cases when it was impossible to proceed or escape without instigating at least one death. The final two missions in particular require you to neutralize (that is, "kill," if the terminology left that too vague) a group of several terrorists, all of whom are about to release samples of the smallpox virus into a busy airport, with the hope of the disease causing a deadly pandemic. If you leave any of those terrorists alive, they will release the virus, no matter how nicely you ask them not to.

I still remember going into that final mission, the moment when I sneaked behind a terrorist, grabbed him, knocked him unconscious, and deposited his body in a corner where no one would see him. He was taken down for the time being, but this time, that wouldn't be good enough. I looked down at him, silenced pistol in hand. I remember thinking of the order I had to fulfill, and the crime this man would commit if I allowed him to live. Turning him over to the police, or even the military, was not an option at that point. It was either killing him, or letting him inflict pain, misery, and death on those who did not deserve it from him.

This is another thing I wasn't thinking at the time, but as I think on it now, this scenario reminds me of a young man named Nephi.

Rather than tell you his story, I'm going to let him tell you his own story. I'm going to eat some cereal while you read this.

Death by Nephi

Well, ok, I will give you a bit of background information first. Sorry; I have to delay eating cereal for a few minutes.

This is near the beginning of a book known as the Book of Mormon, about three or four chapters in. A prophet named Lehi has just fled from the city of Jerusalem with his family, because, as anyone who has read the Old Testament probably knows, people of... well, virtually all time periods, don't very much like prophets who tell them to repent. So, Lehi and company are living in tents, somewhere out in the desert, at this point in the story. One of Lehi's sons, Nephi, tells his account of events, as you'll read below. (If that's not detailed enough, and you want some more background information, click here to read another post I wrote about this story.)

There. Now I can get some cereal. Finally! Enjoy the following. See you in a few minutes.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, returned from speaking with the Lord, to the tent of my father.

And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.

For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness.

[Skipping ahead here... all you miss is that Nephi and his brothers go to Jerusalem, ask Laban nicely for these plates of brass, and he accuses them of being robbers, and yells at them to get out. They then go to their now-abandoned house, pack up a lot of treasure, bring it to Laban, and offer to bargain their treasures for the plates of brass. Laban refuses again, but this time attempts to murder Nephi and his brothers so he can steal their treasure. They run for their lives, and... ok, so you miss quite a bit. I'm just summarizing the skipped part. Read the book if you want the full story. It's free and stuff.]

And it was by night; and I caused that they [my brothers] should hide themselves without the walls. And after they had hid themselves, I, Nephi, crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban.

And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.

Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property,

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause — that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and I took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

As for me, going back to my Splinter Cell story, I acted similarly. I hesitated a moment... a long moment. I adjusted my aim, even though it was not hard to hit an unconscious body right in front of me. I considered this imaginary person that I was about to imaginarily slay, feeling the weight of it, almost as though the situation was real. And though I didn't feel any divine mandate to pull the trigger of the pistol that Sam Fisher was holding, I felt that this was what ought to be done. I murmured to myself, "You did have your chance... sorry about this." And I quietly ended the terrorist's life.

Did I celebrate that action? No, I did not. And even though I soon after defeated the main bad guy, and I saved the day, I felt a sombre relief instead of exhilaration. Any time saving the day comes with the loss of life, sombre relief is the best I can feel. Or as I once heard someone say it, "No victory in war is 'complete.'"

Was it for the better? Did I feel like my use of virtual violence was justified — and necessary, even?

...*Sigh.*

Yes, I did. I did not relish the feeling of ending someone's life, but yes, I felt like it was, in that instance, the right thing to do. In fact, it taught me to empathize with this boy named Nephi, in a way I never had before. From that day onward, I have always contemplated the moral balance and the emotional impact that confronts anyone, real or fictional, who has the choice to inflict death.

Use Some Mercy, Human

I guess I'm supposed to say, "PSYCH!" or something now, because...

...despite something I said earlier, I am going to talk about Undertale.

I don't need to say very much about the game itself, I'm sure; so much has been said about it already. Here's one of my favourite examples of that, in fact:

But in spite of not needing to say much about the game as a whole, I do find it relates strongly to the whole point I'm trying to make here.

It's pretty common knowledge, even among people who haven't played Undertale, that there are three routes, or runs, that the player can take. They are usually called by their nicknames: Pacifist, Neutral, and Genocide. As these nicknames imply, a Pacifist run involves not killing anybody; a Genocide run involves killing anyone and everyone you can; and a Neutral run consists of anything in between, whether that be killing only one single monster, or killing all monsters except for one.

Since Undertale is a game that is filled with content, possessing different story lines and encounters, of course a lot of players have curiosity and a desire to experience all of the content. So, they try out several of the different ways the story can play out, seeking out multiple possible endings to the game. I mean, they did just pay money for all of the content; why not experience all of it?

But I never saw it that way.

It's very unusual, what Undertale does. It offers you the opportunity to go on an adventure without hurting anyone. It lets you know, right from the beginning, "That FIGHT option exists, yes, but... you don't have to use it." And also near the beginning, a monster named Froggit urges you, "Use some MERCY, human."

So, you guys are telling me, I can come experience an adventure in this world, I can get lost in the wonder and fun and beauty of this story, and you're telling me that while I do that, I don't have to fight, and that mercy is a viable option?

I already love saving the animals in Super Metroid. I spare Shura in all continuities of Fire Emblem: Fates. I scream at the asterisk holders of Luxendarc, (well, really I'm screaming at my 3DS,) telling them that we don't have to fight. I spare the critters in Starcraft. I exclusively choose the Light side in the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. So, what I'm saying, Undertale, is... sign me right up, eh.

Spoken to a true pacifist. Those words make sense if you understand what the acronym, LOVE, stands for. Also, fun fact: I only ever did a Pacifist run in this game, and so did KiteTales. If she ever sees this, she'll know what this is like.

I know that most people don't think of it this way either, but I looked at Undertale and saw an analogy for life in general. Well, admittedly, a lot of people do see parallels between Undertale and real life. But I think the specific kinds of parallels I saw, which I will explain in a moment, were probably not common ones.

Life is somewhat like a game, filled with content, possessing different potential story lines and encounters. Of course people have a curiosity and desire to experience all the content. I mean, they are here in a life that contains all the content; why not experience all of it?

...No, sorry; I don't see life that way either.

In life, on the one hand, we can choose to do things that are aggressive and self-serving; we can choose to fight. Our manner of fighting doesn't always have to be physical; it doesn't even have to be openly combative. It can be manifest in taking on a simple "us vs. them" mindset. Or it can be a deeply-rooted selfishness, a desire to do absolutely anything to succeed and bring honour to ourselves, with no regard to how this affects other people. Or maybe it takes nothing more than being constantly mean and negative, and thereby becoming an obstacle for other people to overcome.

Or... maybe we could not do that. I don't think that all the content of life is worth experiencing, you know.

For some obvious instances: just because there exists a potential future where I decide to become a serial killer, that doesn't mean that I should ever even consider doing it. Just because another possible future involves me living a relatively normal life, having a family of my own, but being emotionally abusive to wife and children, that doesn't mean that's a course of life I want or should experience. Just because there is one possible future I could take where I get into a lucrative business, become as greedy and power-hungry as the devil himself, exploit people for my own gain, and essentially trade my soul for money, that doesn't mean I have any good reason to try experiencing such a timeline.

And there are much less obvious, but nonetheless real and important examples of how you can figuratively choose the FIGHT option instead of the MERCY option in life.

Ever stop to ask yourself that question, Mephilia?
Well... did you?

Perhaps nobody would think that this has anything to do with choosing "FIGHT," but consider the choice of taking drugs. I'm... actually, kind of appalled by how many people in my life have encouraged me to try taking drugs. Like, not pressured me to do it, but encouraged me to try hallucinogens and such. Well, guess what? I have had several bad experiences from the times that doctors were trying to figure out which antidepressant to prescribe to me; I already know what it's like, and there is absolutely nothing of worth to be gained from it. I'm not interested in experiencing any more absence of mind or loss of self-control, thanks. And aside from how unpleasant it was, I'm also not interested in becoming a liability and a burden to the people around me. I already have the full host of hell, half the world, and my own physical body fighting against me on a daily basis as it is. Struggling to live any kind of life while taking harmful drugs, and forcing other people to join me in such a pointless battle, is not a fight even remotely worth fighting. I will never treat brain-altering substances like a form of recreation. It is much more merciful to myself and to others this way.

Again, life is much like Undertale; all of the different decisions and pathways lie before you, but that doesn't mean you have to experience every alternative in order to understand those alternatives. In life, just like in Undertale, you may very well find that you feel happier and more contented when you choose the good; choose to be kind, choose to be pacific, choose the right.

"The merciful obtain mercy," as it has been said. Maybe you could use some mercy, human.

And Thus We See

So, one last time, putting it simply: do I think that taking part in violent media — video games in particular — draws me away from Christ, and makes me less like Him?

As I said earlier, "Not necessarily." But now, I hope, you know what I mean when I say that.

I find my easiest and most effective gauge of the matter is, "How does this make me feel?"

I don't know how many people turn to it often, but I remember sharing it often (missionary life was awesome), the words found in Galatians 5:19-23.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

When I'm playing a video game, does shooting a terrorist in the head still leave me with enough room in my mind, and enough sensitivity of heart, even in that very moment, to feel gentleness, meekness, goodness, and even peace? If so, then I don't think I have anything to worry about.

When I'm playing a video game, does pulling an unsuspecting man out of his car, running him over with said car, stealing said car, and using it to rob and murder people before ultimately destroying it, allow some part of me to continue feeling right, or do I feel an uncomfortable mixture of hatred, revelling (enjoying oneself noisily, and usually irreverently and excessively), and uncleanness? Basically, does my conscience prick me, make me feel uneasy, and let me know deep within myself that I should not be ok with what I am doing? If so, maybe that certain bit of violence is something I'm better off not experiencing.

Original comic can be found here: http://renrink.tumblr.com/post/132864556088/previous-kinda-next-so-i-had-an-idea
Consider reading it; I admit, it was so touching, that it actually made me cry a little.

And there you have it. If you ever see this, Commander KiteTales (heh, the old nickname lives), I hope that answers your question.

As for the rest of you decidedly not-KiteTales people... hopefully this is of some use to you in some way.

Now, I... wow. I should have gone to bed about four hours ago. Oh well; I don't have work or anything tomorrow [today]. It'll be ok.

And thus, I verily go to bed 'n' such. Editing will come later, if at all. (*Update: Yeah, I've been editing. Hi.)

Dios esté consigo.

- TAB III