About forty minutes into Papers, Please, I denied entry to a woman whose passport photo didn't match her face. She told me her passport was old. She looked older than the photo. She had the right visa, the right entry permit, the right documentation for everything except the photograph, and the rules I'd been given were clear: the photo must match. I stamped DENIED. She left. The rules are the rules. I was doing my job correctly. The next person stepped forward, and I had twelve more to process before my shift ended, and there was a quota, and my family needed the money, and the rules are the rules, and I pushed the thought of the woman and her old passport quite efficiently into the background and got on with it.
I want to be clear that none of that happened. I was sitting at a desk in my living room, pressing a button on a keyboard, in a fictional totalitarian state with a fictional immigration office. There were no real stakes for anyone. And I still felt the pull of the bureaucratic logic — the rules, the quota, the next person, the need to keep moving — strongly enough that it was doing something recognisably real to the way I was making decisions. Papers, Please, designed by the singular Lucas Pope and released in 2013, is one of the only games I have played that made me feel the mechanics of moral disengagement from the inside, as they were occurring, in real time.
Stanley Milgram tried to explain this in 1963. Albert Bandura spent his career explaining why Milgram's subjects didn't feel as bad about it as they should have. The two frameworks together describe something that Papers, Please enacts in about three hours, without a word of lecture.
The Game
Papers, Please was designed solo by Lucas Pope and released in 2013. You play as an immigration officer in Arstotzka, a fictional Soviet-bloc state, stationed in a border checkpoint. Every day, a queue of travellers attempts to enter the country. You examine their documents, check them against an evolving and expanding rulebook, and stamp each person APPROVED or DENIED. Errors are penalised with citations that reduce your pay. Your pay funds your family's rent, heat, food, and medicine. The quota system means speed matters. The rulebook grows more complex daily.
The game's strokes of genius are several. First: the faces. Each traveller has a face, and sometimes a story — a woman looking for her husband who already entered, a man with desperate eyes and a passport that's technically fine, a family with one document missing. You can let them through or turn them away, and the game tracks the consequences. Second: the moral weight distributes across time. No single decision feels definitively monstrous. The cumulative pattern, reviewed at the end of a session, is the thing that troubles. Third: the economic pressure is constant and real within the game's logic. Letting someone through on compassionate grounds may mean your child goes without heat. The rules have teeth.
The Ordinary People Who Did It — The Research
In 1963, the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram published the results of an experiment that disturbed his field so thoroughly that the reverberations are still being felt. Milgram asked ordinary participants to administer what they believed to be electric shocks to another person — a confederate, though the participant didn't know this — as part of an ostensible learning study. When the participant hesitated, an authority figure in a lab coat gave standardised prompts: "Please continue," "The experiment requires that you continue." The shocks, participants believed, escalated to dangerous levels. The confederate responded with increasing distress, and eventually silence. Sixty-five per cent of participants continued to the maximum shock level — not because they were sadists, but because the authority was present, the instructions were clear, and each step was only incrementally worse than the last.
Milgram's explanation centred on what he called the agentic state: the shift that occurs when a person perceives themselves as an agent of another's will rather than an autonomous actor. In the agentic state, responsibility is attributed upward — to the authority — rather than retained by the individual. The person performing the action is "just following instructions," and the moral weight of the consequences is felt, if at all, as belonging to whoever gave the instructions. The procedural frame — it is an experiment, there are rules, I am a participant — provides the cognitive structure that allows the dissonance to be suppressed.
Albert Bandura extended this with his theory of moral disengagement, developed through the 1990s and early 2000s. Where Milgram described the structural conditions for harm, Bandura described the psychological mechanisms by which people silence their moral responses while participating in harmful systems. He identified several: moral justification (the harm serves a legitimate purpose); displacement of responsibility (someone else is ultimately responsible); diffusion of responsibility (many people are involved, so each bears only a fraction); dehumanisation (the people being harmed are categorised in ways that reduce their humanity); and advantageous comparison (this is bad, but look at how much worse things could be). Papers, Please activates most of these mechanisms simultaneously, through design.
The Booth
The checkpoint booth in Papers, Please is a masterpiece of environmental moral design. You never leave it. The travellers come to you as documents first — a stack of papers you check against rules — and as faces second. The game's pixel art is deliberately reductive: everyone looks roughly the same, which is its own argument about what bureaucracy does to individuals. The rulebook is your authority. The quota is your economic pressure. The citation system is your consequence for error, which is defined as procedural error, not moral error. A technically correct DENIED on compassionate grounds is a success in the game's evaluation system. A technically incorrect APPROVED on compassionate grounds is a citation. The booth has rearranged the moral landscape.
Bandura's moral justification mechanism is woven into the fiction: you are protecting Arstotzka, your country, your family, from threats that the state identifies as real. Displacement of responsibility is structural: you didn't write the rules, you're implementing them, and the Ministry of Admission made them. Dehumanisation is assisted by the document-first design: you check the papers before you look at the face, which is not accidental. And diffusion of responsibility is everywhere: you are one officer among many, one day among many, one stamp among hundreds. No single decision matters enough to justify the personal cost of refusing it.
Glory to Arstotzka
Papers, Please has twenty possible endings, and most of them are a direct consequence of how you've played — how many compassionate exceptions you've made, how closely you've followed the rules, whether you've engaged with the resistance movement that emerges over the course of the game. The game is honest about the costs in all directions: pure rule-following produces one kind of ending, pure resistance produces another, and the uncomfortable middle — trying to follow the rules while occasionally letting through the person whose story broke something in you — produces a third. There is no clean outcome. There is only the record of what you chose, day by day, in a booth where the rules said one thing and the faces said another.
In Papers, Please, what kind of officer did you end up being — honestly?
What To Do With This
Milgram and Bandura's research converge on an uncomfortable point: the conditions that produce moral disengagement are structural, not dispositional. They don't require bad people. They require situations with clear authority, procedural framing, incremental escalation, diffused responsibility, and economic or social consequences for non-compliance. These conditions are not rare. They are, in fact, extremely common — in workplaces, in institutions, in bureaucracies of all kinds. The person who processes the claim knowing it will harm someone. The manager who follows the policy knowing the policy is wrong. The employee who raises no objection because the hierarchy has already decided.
The research suggests the most effective countermeasures are ones that reactivate personal moral agency: explicitly attributing responsibility to yourself rather than to the authority, naming the harm rather than processing it as a procedure, and maintaining some connection to the individual humanity of the people affected by your decisions. Papers, Please gives you faces. It gives you stories. The game is, in part, a sustained argument that the faces matter — that the document-first design of real bureaucracies is not neutral but is in fact a moral technology that makes it easier to do harm. Keeping the faces in frame, literally or figuratively, is the work.
The takeaway: Milgram's 1963 obedience experiments showed that ordinary people would cause harm under institutional authority; Bandura's moral disengagement theory described the psychological mechanisms — justification, displacement, diffusion, dehumanisation — that allow them to do so without feeling monstrous. Papers, Please is a three-hour interactive experience of these mechanisms from the inside, and one of the most morally serious games ever made. Glory to Arstotzka. Sorry about the woman with the old passport.
Play It Before You Accept the Next Job That Asks You to Follow Procedures
Papers, Please is available on PC, iOS, and PlayStation Vita, and costs very little. It takes three to four hours for a first playthrough and considerably longer if you want to see all twenty endings, which you probably do. The pixel art is drab by design and the game is not fun in any conventional sense — but it is one of the most precisely effective pieces of moral education I have encountered in any medium, and it achieves this entirely through the experience of playing rather than through anything it explains. Go into it without reading about the endings. Notice what you stamp, and why, and what you tell yourself afterwards. The rules are the rules. You are just following them. Observe how that feels across a two-hour shift, and ask yourself whether it feels familiar from anywhere else.
No comments yet — be the first!