To a religious leader a few hundred years back, a 'game' is something totally different from what you and I know as a game. For instance: if you're leading men,

To a religious leader a few hundred years back, a 'game' is something totally different from what you and I know as a game. For instance: if you're leading men, and for some reason they're getting drunk and 'gaming' (hazard/dice/whatever) between each other, then that probably might be leading to real internal strife, conflict, violence, desperation etc. It would make sense in that reality, for a leader to subscribe and to propagate teachings/philosophies/doctrines which cut off that possibility. It's not something I 'like' much either, but it's super interesting to think about why various things were 'banned' (or encouraged!) in different historical realities. These things weren't done by stupid people for stupid reasons. The video/computer games we have today frequently serve as literature: a source of wisdom, means of companionship, educational simulations of reality. They're a powerful form of art/influence, and we're already seeing some authoritarian states ban or prohibit them.