For our final interview of the 2025-2026 academic year, Reacting Intern Kyla Toombs sat down with J. Noel Hubler, former Professor of Philosophy and Politics at Lebanon Valley College. His game, Ashoka: Becoming the Dharma King, recently completed its review process and has since been published through UNC Press!
Can you introduce yourself and tell me how you got involved with Reacting to the Past?
Yes, I have since retired, but I was a professor of philosophy and politics at Lebanon Valley College, which is in Pennsylvania near Hershey, PA. I was getting ready to teach a world philosophy class for the first time and I talked to one of my colleagues about it and he said, "Oh, you should do Reacting to the Past." I said, "What's Reacting to the Past?" I wanted to do 3 segments: one on Greece, one on India, and one on China. They had games for Athens and China, but they didn't have anything for ancient India, which is what I wanted to do. So, I decided to write a game about Ashoka, because in Ashoka's reign, there was quite a bit of back and forth going on between the different traditions, between the Buddhists, the Jains, and the Brahmins. It looked to me to be a good area to introduce these various traditions and how they thought about things differently.
That's pretty cool. Can you give me a general game arc of the Ashoka game?
The way the game essentially works is it's set in a council. What I would say about Ashoka is that we know more about him than most ancient monarchs because he left numerous edicts, which are pretty descriptive. One of the things he says is that he wants to hear from all his people, and that they can come and talk to him any time. How true that is we don't know for sure, but he at least indicates an openness to do that. Building on that, it seemed that we could set up a council with representatives from the various traditions. So, this game features a council that discusses various issues.
We start off with whether there should be a ban on animal sacrifice in the kingdom. It's interesting because his edicts aren't entirely consistent on that question. In some places he says that there's no more of it, or that it's been reduced. In other places he lists animals that can't be killed, but it doesn't include every animal. Then there's indications in others that it's restricted to only occur at certain times. It seemed to me that there was enough ambiguity there that we could have a debate. This issue is fairly straightforward because the texts are a little easier on that question. Then the questions get a little more controversial, a little more difficult.
We test the limits of Ashoka's stated policy that all traditions should be respected and they should all learn from each other, which is another thing that makes him an interesting character. Towards the end of the debate, we look at one of the more controversial groups from the period known as the Ajivikas, who apparently taught that everything was determined by fate. The Buddhists and the Jains really condemn these folks because they believe that this is just horrible and it's going to make people do evil things, because they can claim fate made them do it. So, we push Ashoka's tolerance a little bit here to have him say that this is a really bad group and that we shouldn't have them.
We also end up with a debate about the status of women, because that was very controversial at the time. If women were to take on renunciant lifestyles it meant leaving behind the home. This made the Brahmins incredibly uncomfortable. Then, we throw in a little bit of curveball at the very end because it's possible that the king's son has organized a coup against him.
It looks like in the game students are supposed to debate on whether or not nonviolence is a workable political policy? Do you believe that it is?
There's no debate per se. That's more of a background issue. We test in various ways how far Ashoka, who is trying to be nonviolent throughout the game, can take that. One of the first tests is the debate on animal sacrifices. You've got people like the Brahmins whose lifestyle depends on making animal sacrifices. So, it’s a question of if you can really force them not to do animal sacrifice, and how are you going to do that?
But then also during the course of the game Ashoka starts getting trouble from some of the forest people who are mentioned in the edicts for causing trouble in the kingdom. The people are calling for him to go and punish these alleged bandits. Some of the people say to send out soldiers and get them; others say we should send out teachers and try to educate these people in the proper way of living. So, there's a debate along those lines and non-violence is more of a reflection issue at the end.
When we say Ashoka says he wants to be a Dharma king and he espouses non-violence, is that really workable? In terms of my own personal views, I think that politics of non-violence is possible as long as we understand that non-violence doesn't exclude self-defense. Just because I hold a non-violence stance doesn't mean I need to accept violence against me. The same goes for the community. So we can certainly defend ourselves from external threats or from internal threats while still espousing non-violence in good faith.
Beyond the role of women, the game also includes torture as a issue. How do your students respond to these more sensitive subjects?
I'll take them one at a time. With women, the thing that is interesting about that is the women that I've had in the class, sometimes they've been cast in the role of Brahmins. They seem almost to have a good time with it, presenting these views that women are not trustworthy, that they need to be in the home, and they need to be taking care of the children. They really kind of get into those roles, and it's actually the women that usually do better with those roles than the men do. The men are much more uncomfortable presenting that because I think it's kind of like, oh, they're going to think I really think this. Also, I think women have had a long experience with observing how men treat them and think about them, and men are less conscious of how it works in the other direction.
In terms of torture, that issue only enters incidentally at the end. What happens is as part of the coup attempt, the son of the king is trying to organize a coup and he needs to get some supporters. But there's a small number of spies also in the council, and if they get wind of this and accuse certain people, those people are then tortured. It doesn't happen in the classroom. Instead, I take the person out of the classroom and tell them that they are being tortured, and that now that they've been tortured they can say anything that they want. Because that's pretty much what torture is good for.
When they can go back in, and it's happened in the past, they will often say “these people are involved with me” and those people all get exiled or executed. In one class, one of the people was not involved, but they were named by the person who was tortured. So, in the debrief I always explain that this is the point of the torture part of the game. That when you've got this culture of spies and torture that you don't get good information. It's not reliable. If somebody's been tortured then legally their testimony is no longer valid. That's why I want to make the point that in a spy/torture culture, anybody can be accused and be found guilty and there's no value in it. It just creates a climate of fear and possible retribution with all sorts of bad outcomes.
You just mentioned a coup and that it could be led against the king if there were enough co-conspirators. Have you ever seen a coup successfully pulled off against the king in any of the games played?
Yes, it has happened. It really depends on the person who's cast as Radha, the king's son, who's trying to lead the coup. A lot of times the students who are in that role don't really pursue it, but when they do, they have a good chance of success. I'll say one other thing about the coup gambit as well. Even when it doesn’t happen, the coup does serve to keep the king on their toes in the sense that they know that it is a possibility. So, they have to try to keep everybody happy. I've talked to students who have been in the role. They really want to make sure that they're not alienating any of the groups. It serves a function even when it doesn't happen and is just a possibility.
Were there any other games that were influential in the development of your game?
I would say that probably the one that really helped me the most was Threshold of Democracy. It's interesting because I always teach that one just before the India game. It's amazing the difference you get between those two games because the Athens game is democratic, wild, open, and a little bit chaotic. Then they get into the king's court where everybody settles down and they're all really respectful of the king. The atmosphere completely changes. I always point that out in the debrief and say how different the dynamics are, especially the political dynamics between the democratic system where you can pretty much say anything you want. Some of the students then feel a little bit challenged in this shift of gears. In this context where you're dealing with different religious traditions, how do you even formulate arguments because everybody has their own beliefs? They have to learn to make arguments that appeal across traditions, which Ashoka encourages them to do.
How did the play test at the Summer Institute shape the final draft of the game?
That was really a great experience. What was particularly interesting was that they had a mix of professors from other institutions, but there were a small number of the Barnard students who were also involved. They really added a lot to the game because they were just really good. In fact, there was a successful coup in that one. The Radha character was really good, and she worked it flawlessly and pulled it off. The king in that game, she was also one of the Barnard students, and she was kind of devastated. She was like, "Come on, what?"
Is there anything else you'd like readers to know about the game or your experience teaching it?
No, just that I really always enjoy teaching these games. I find that what's interesting is that when you're doing a Reacting Game there's always the preparation sections, but then you really get excited when it's day one and the game actually starts. It's when you're going to class and you're just never sure how things are going to unfold. In fact, a friend of mine over at UPenn has me come in once a semester to do a game and we do the Ashoka game in his Indian philosophy class and do a different game in his Indian mythology class. So, I still get to do that and that's kind of fun too.
