This will be one of those posts that kinda defies classification. Is it gonna be about video game storytelling? Or more about a bunch of religion and morality stuff? When the game in question is the insanely good Fallout: New Vegas it's often hard to tell the difference because it's a game that does so much so darn well... In a world filled with misery and uncertainty and deathclaws, we find multiple tribes trying to live life the best way they know how. Some of them have fallen into utter nihilism, others have given way to their violent desires, and others still believe in God's love... Though different tribes have very different ideas it is still true that all of them have to contend with the sheer brutality of the wasteland, but naturally this proves more complicated for the godly tribes. For how can you love and obey God, as well as love your fellow men and women, when the world around you is so brutal? How can you truly love and seek to preserve, or at least to refrain from destroying, a person created in the image of God when that person so vehemently persecutes you? Or to put it into video game terms, if you are entering two contradictory inputs at the exact same time, which one should the game read?... It's a real mess, but this brief piece of storytelling presents us with three different christianities, with the characters of Daniel, Joshua, and Randall.
The story of Honest Hearts is relatively simple. You go on a caravan expedition through the canyons of Utah, and just when you make it to Zion National Park all your companions get decimated by a tribe called the White Legs. You are helped by a man who belongs to a similar but far less violent tribe, the Dead Horses, and are then taken to his leader, who is arguably the greatest character in the entire game and certainly one of the greatest characters ever written anywhere – Joshua Graham. He eloquently explains that you have been dragged into a conflict you simply need to help resolve before you can go home. The so-called White Legs seek the extinction of Joshua's tribe, as well as the extinction of the Sorrows, a tribe led by Joshua's friend Daniel. From then on you go on a series of quests to help both tribes... or you can just kill one of their leaders, steal a map and be done with it. But if you do choose to help you will eventually be faced with a tough choice – help the tribes escape Zion with their lives, or help them make a stand against the White Legs. Daniel leans the first way, Joshua leans the second. You are the wild card that breaks the stalemate.
The funny thing, and one that you don't find on most video games, is that both Daniel and Joshua are most certainly men of God. It's also an extremely rare thing to find in the wasteland but it is very true that the Bible has found its way into their hands. They read it every day, they reflect on it, and they make all their decisions in this life with a deep belief in a life to come. Having said that, there are no shortcuts to heaven, and as such they need to deal with the White Legs while they're here, one way or another... but just what is the biblically correct way to do so? Only one thing is for certain – the White Legs are brutal and they will not stop until they are stopped.
1. Daniel
Daniel takes what can be colloquially described as a very New Testament approach. His belief, like Joshua's, is that waging war is bad for the soul, and thus standing their ground in a decisive showdown against the White Legs, even if victorious, would still be an act of violence against the Holy Spirit, because a portion of it resides inside every person, including, as difficult as it is to admit, all of the White Leg raiders that come to steal, kill, and destroy. Also then, practically speaking, this could set in motion a circle of vengeance, as the defeated White Legs would retreat and perhaps in a few year's time return to collect. Lastly, it would awaken a sense of violence within Daniel's own tribe, who would lose their kind and almost naive ways, only to change into a tribe more keen on violence, and more forgetful of God.
As far as scripture goes Daniel has a lot going for him. The famous sermon on the mount blesses those who are poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and maybe even more relevant for this particular case, those who are persecuted. Maybe then in this case you ought to turn the other cheek because, not only is killing wrong, but merely being angry is. And if not fully equivalent, then it is a state of mortal sin nonetheless. How can you actively fight, and even kill, when the fate of your eternal soul weighs much heavier than the momentary afflictions of your body? Along these lines, someone who in many ways I believe to be something of a precursor of Christ once said that to suffer an injustice is always better than to commit one. And so whatever the White Legs choose to do is their own business, and in taking no thought for the morrow, Daniel reckons he's better off loving his enemies, insofar as possible, I suppose, while always fearing God, who is able to kill both the body and the soul... Should the Sorrows fight and retain Zion but become hopelessly violent in the process, then wouldn't they lose something much worse than their home?
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? – Matthew 16:25-26
Daniel recognizes that even if they win a physical war against the White Legs they would nonetheless lose more in the long run. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the saying goes... And in a more general sense, this stark preference for the wellness of the soul seems to presuppose a comparative disregard for the body, which is not something that Daniel, or perhaps even christianity itself, particularly advocates as an active, conscious decision, because after all, his choice is to escape safely... but this does bring into play some notions of meekness and of welcoming the inevitable suffering in this world for the kingdom of God.
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. – Romans 8:36 which is itself Psalms 44:22
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. – Romans 12:17-19
But if living peaceably will all men proves impossible, if persecution does find you, then why would you welcome it? Well, if you truly believe in the eternal soul you'd do whatever it takes to avoid anything that would harm it. Given the choice between a perpetual toothache or a gummy smile I'm sure the choice is easy for most, and so if you truly believe in God and in the afterlife then maybe it should be easy as well. As it is said all over the epistles, the temple of God is not a place, the temple of God is the people because the spirit of God dwells in all people. So you would care for the soul before the body, and likewise, you would care for that spirit over any particular place. In this sense Daniel would also not care as much for Zion because, though special, it's not necessarily any more special than any other place he could go to. For where his treasure is, there will his heart be also...
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. – 1 Corinthians 4:11-13
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; – 2 Corinthians 4:17
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. – 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
So then does Daniel have the right idea? Are christians supposed to live by this very difficult standard no matter what? Are christians supposed to be meek and mild in all things at every moment? I suppose it's hard to say, but likewise it's hard to accuse Daniel of making this stuff up... The meekness of christianity does appear to be inherent to Daniel's preference for escaping Zion, leaving the White Legs to destroy themselves. He would rather leave and continue building the temple of God within, by teaching the Sorrows to love one another and to never repay evil with evil, so that the day Daniel meets his lord and savior it will be as, insofar as possible, an innocent man... And like Daniel says if you choose to go against his wishes, the way of the world is not the way it's meant to be, the world is only how we make it. And whenever the world is violent, Daniel will take no part in it... But then again, what exactly does it mean to be meek?
2. Joshua
Joshua Graham is a very different man... When it comes to him it would be pointless of me to make any pretensions of impartiality. In my opinion, Joshua has the right stance here, something that even Joshua's creator understood, knowing that most players would side with him. First and foremost there are practical implications, or in Joshua's own words, this is a case where faith and practicality coincide. The meek tribes escaping, even if entirely successfully, would mean escaping into the literal and proverbial desert, the complete unknown in a world of nuclear war. It could well be that they'd be escaping the White Legs only to sooner or later run into someone just as bad if not worse. Joshua understands this all too well, but then again his understanding was forged by his violent past. And thus, Joshua makes no pretensions as well, understanding himself as an even worse version of the prodigal son who was welcomed back into Zion after a long history of violence. But does this mean he's still a violent man, or that having known violence he understands it better than Daniel? That's up to you, the player, to decide... As far as religion itself goes it is often said that the right hand of God is judgment, but the left is mercy. If Daniel favors mercy then it could be that Joshua favors judgment, as evidenced by his favorite passage,
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. […] Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. – Psalm 137
Quite violent to be sure, and in stark contrast with Jesus' claims that whoever harms a little one is better off with a millstone around his neck and drowned in the sea... Anyway, those are the four verses of that brief psalm that Joshua quotes. He actually skips verses two to six, which describe how the jews are being held captive by the babylonians who ask to hear a song of Zion. But the jews can't sing such a song in a strange land, so they instead promise to never forget Jerusalem before ending the psalm with an appeal to vengeance and extermination. In essence then, Joshua would never leave his own Zion, and he'd rather deliver unto the White Legs a similar punishment. There are however two things that Joshua seems to forget – first, that such biblical language, though extreme to us nowadays, was often used as hyperbole in ancient times, and second, that the Psalms, even when violent, are not about asking God permission to kill, but are instead ways to deliver unto God your own feelings of vengeance so that you may be unburdened from them.
For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me. – Psalm 18:39-40
Deliver me, O LORD, from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man; Which imagine mischiefs in their heart; continually are they gathered together for war. They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah. – Psalm 140:1-3
Then again however, it does seem to be the case that God appears to have his will made through certain people as instruments of divine justice, or once again in Joshua's words, we can't expect God to do all the work... If God is to deliver the tribes from their persecutors he could do so with a miracle at a larger scale, or he could do so by strengthening the sword, or in this case the .45, of his chosen warriors. Whatever the case might be, it seems that the righteous indignation of the Psalms is fitting for Joshua. The temple of God has ceased to be a mere place after Christ's sacrifice, but Jerusalem remains of significance. Joshua remembers the spiritual side of faith whilst also understanding the more, shall we say, pragmatic side of it. You are still called upon to cherish and respect your own body, to preserve your health and to conduct yourself in a dignified way. But to do so in reality you basically need to live in a peaceful society, and to change any given society into one in which the temple of God can be raised is the essence of the epistles. In other words, it's very difficult for Daniel to win if he's dead... Does Joshua then have some justification in fighting? Maybe.
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. – Proverbs 6:16-19
Obviously all religions, and indeed all systems of morality, would deem it a grave sin to shed innocent blood. It just seems merely intuitive, after all... The difficult thing is determining who is and isn't innocent. Under a hardcore interpretation of the epistles, everyone is sinful, but then again it's easy to find a great difference between the sheer brutality of the White Legs compared to the naive and almost charming ignorance of the Sorrows and the Dead Horses. It seems reasonable to assume that the White Legs, having begun a consistent act of aggression, have momentarily relinquished their inherent right to life. It's not so much that they are now inhuman, it's more that they are not holding the high card. And furthermore, in a slight reverse of some of Daniel's verses, in the same moment when Jesus told his followers to sheathe their swords he likewise told them to buy a sword, a verse often used as justification for self-defense.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. – Luke 22:36-37
Christianity then appears to ride the line between the wellness of the spirit but accordingly to the realities of the physical world. It's not so much that Daniel is wrong, it's more that since God's will is made true through people, then people are bound to act accordingly. Indeed, God himself appears to play by similar rules. For example, Jesus had compassion on the hungry people and thus performed a miracle to feed them, lest they faint along the way, even though when he himself was starving in the desert he refused to be tempted by the Devil. Another example is when he ensures Paul's protection in the city specifically through all the faithful people who inhabit therein... In this way, Joshua's more pragmatic justifications are made flesh. Though it seems all too convenient for non-believers it is largely coherent within scripture that sometimes God performs his miracles through people, which is more or less Joshua's stance. Daniel, however, goes for a very literal interpretation of the sermon on the mount, which itself seems to echo the epistles. Such biblical teachings constitute the absolute peak of moral goodness, something that not a single one of us can truly live up to. Should you try though? I suppose yes, but should you try no matter what? Joshua would say not quite. At a certain point you need to make a stand and build the spiritual temple of God by first tending to the body in which it inhabits.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? – James 2:14-16
Lastly then, as it concerns the White Legs themselves, Joshua seems to be expecting them, not just for the obvious pragmatic reasons, but he seems to be actively expecting persecution in this world. Just like Jesus tells his follows to acquire a sword, he also told them to outright expect torture and persecution. Indeed for the christian, to see everything going swimmingly is the strange thing, but to expect someone from the outside to persecute them is much more in line with the teachings of Jesus, all of which Joshua appears to know intimately, surely because at one point he was the one doing the killing in the name of Caesar.
These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. – John 16:1-3
Is Joshua then correct, or at least more correct than Daniel? I'd say maybe. This constantly turning of the other cheek isn't feasible, and so it's not incumbent on the christian to allow him or herself to be persecuted and tortured for the spirit's sake, especially when being taken would then allow your torturers to torture someone else, someone for whom you are perhaps responsible. Of course Daniel isn't welcoming the White Legs either, but his escape tactic is itself a practical solution to a spiritual problem, and so in that sense it becomes a question of where to draw the line... Joshua appeals to the fleshy reality of christianity, and to the forceful nature of Christ himself, something that a lot of people seem to forget. As Joshua reminds us, when Jesus entered the temple he forcefully expelled the moneychangers. He didn't politely ask them to leave, got slapped once, then twice, and then apologized for the inconvenience. At the end of the day you have to apply your will, as Joshua does.
However, his will can be tempered with mercy. Following Joshua's path means the White Legs are defeated, and so the Sorrows and the Dead Horses are allowed to stay. But there are three variations – Joshua can brutally murder Salt-Upon-Wounds, the leader of the White Legs, or he can slay him in fair combat, or he can show him mercy and let him go. These three options present a gradual mix of judgment and mercy, the first and second marking the immediate annihilation of the White Legs, but with the Sorrows and the Dead Horses becoming quite violent, whereas the third marks an intermediate path wherein they learn to use violence in self-defense, but to show mercy when the enemy is defeated. And even Joshua himself, a man who knows violence more intimately than some people know love, learns to soothe his wounds with mercy.
3. Randall
And the third and last man, who I until now only mentioned in passing, is of course Randall Clark. And Randall, like Joshua, is one of the best written characters in the history of gaming. No, make that one of the best written characters in the history of everything as well... The strange thing about him though is that the player never meets him, at least not in the flesh. We meet him only through the various diary pages he left behind. And so for the sake of brevity I can say Randall was a former army man turned scientist. He would often travel away from the city where he lived with his wife and son so he could spend time alone in caves studying geology. One fateful day, upon returning home, he saw the fall of an atomic bomb... It was no use to return, he knew his wife and son to be dead. So he doubled back to the cave where he had been and he did the last thing he wanted to do – survive. All through the years, however, he just wanted to die, but something managed to drive him forward and to struggle and struggle and struggle some more, very much like it is recurrent in all amazingly written characters of fiction.
One day, Randall witnessed a tribe of children who had miraculously found their way into Zion, and so he began to watch them, but very quickly began to watch over them. He'd help them however he could, he'd bring them gifts that would help them survive and he would leave them messages in which he had written all kinds of useful stuff, but all kinds of loving stuff too. And though I could go on and on, it is sufficient to say this is the man that marks the third christianity in this story, and in my opinion he marks a perfect synthesis between the previous two, as well as perhaps the right answer all along.
This is because Randall was a kind man, like Daniel, although a bit inexpressive, but he was also a resourceful man, like Joshua, although in a fallen world such resourcefulness often translates into violence... The children he began to watch over instantly became his sons and daughters, all of whom he'd stop at nothing to protect, even going so far as to torment any would-be attackers, becoming to them something of a vengeful spirit of the mountains, when in reality he was nothing but an old man fighting with what little energy he had left in order to leave behind a living legacy. It's not just that Randall was ready to die if need be, in fact he wanted to die every day of his life since the bombs fell... It's just that dying for the right cause would be a welcome gift, and that cause was to ensure long-lasting peace for all the children of Zion.
Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. – Acts 21:13
This endeavor obviously involved quite a lot of violence, for Randall had to eliminate any threats by force, either avenging his flock or preventing the persecutors from striking in the first place. In the wasteland it's not such a bad bet to assume that people have evil intentions, nor is it that difficult to pass judgment to begin with. And having made so many mistakes in his life he wouldn't make any more of them, and so he'd stop at anything to preserve the children's safety, and in some way their innocence too. If he had God-given permission to do this or not I suppose it's not for me to say, but I guess I just can't help to see this man as one who perfectly embodies the loving-kindess of Daniel along with the righteous indignation of Joshua. And the fact of the matter is that, in the end, Randall was successful, since the last tribe he protected before his death would eventually become the Sorrows, who are now being scattered away from Zion, like so many lost sheep.
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. – Matthew 18:10-14
Zion would become this man's final resting place, as it was the Sorrows' birthing place. In this sense it is somewhat of a shame that, in-game, discovering Randall's story has no bearing on the main character's decisions. Discovering the truth should sway both Daniel and Joshua, bending both of their resolves into a more measured steel. Daniel needs to learn to defend, Joshua needs to learn to forgive... To leave Zion behind to a vicious tribe would be an insult to Randall's memory, who protected the children and gave them this holy place as a gift for all the sorrows in their lives, but then again to see the children transformed into the manner of evil that Randall once protected them from would likewise break the old man's heart... Let them always have Zion and let them always have each other. And as for anyone who would like to one day make Zion their home they would always have a simple way of acquiring membership, by simply following God's law, which is not unlike Randall's.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. – John 13:34-35
And so when death approached, Randall imparted unto his children one final message of wisdom, one that strikes me as nothing more and nothing less than the true meaning of the christian teachings, one in which God's wrath and God's love are perfectly entwined in an otherwise simple message from an otherwise simple man. Because Randall wasn't a man of God, but he was a man of love... And I can't help but notice how, at the end of the day, such things should be simple, and in a similar way in which people make the world violent they also make love complicated. And so now, being incapable of writing something better, I hereby end this essay with Randall Clark's final words.
I've been leaving notes for them, and gifts. They like the books. Started with stories but moved on to weapons manuals, medical books, practical stuff. In the notes, well it's embarrassing, almost like those cards people used to give to each other, everything sweet and loving. I tell them to read and to learn and to make the most of their new home. I tell them that I'm giving them Zion as a gift to make up for all the sorrows of their lives so far and all the sorrows man has visited on man. I tell them to be kind to each other and modest. I tell them never to hurt each other but that if someone else comes along and tries to hurt them to strike back with righteous anger. Stuff like that. [...]
Well, the little ones will need it. Species will need it if it's to continue. That blind drive onward. I wish them well. It's been a gift to me, at the end of it all, to behold innocence.
Goodbye, Zion.
Comments
Post a Comment