There's another layer here. The DM has full control of the story, there was nothing stopping him from making the occupied people as immoral and the occupiers as righteous as possible.
Meaning zionist fucks have such a warped sense of morality that they can't convince people in a reality they made up.
I think there's another layer at work here. Zionists want to believe they still have their humanity and aren't just fascist husks. By benevolently not making their Palistinian proxies a totally racist caricature they jerk themselves off at how fully they are interacting with the "complexity" of the situation. The Last Of Us Part II approach.
I feel like I can easily imagine how the guy might try and concoct a leading situation, but the end goal just comes back to heroic characters ultimately being like "We're not helping your nation do a genocide":
Basically a race of high elves wanting to have a homeland of their own, so they're leaving the Western nations of man to go live far to the South (Israel is just basically South of Europe), in lands their people occupied 3,000 years ago (modern Zionists most likely won't parrot Herzl's open call to colonize). The problem? The land already contains (apologies for what may seem racist; the point is this is how the DM might try and manufacture consent) goblins and orcs who've resided in these lands for the last 1,000 years. They need the players to basically wipe out the inhabitants or terrorize them into leaving so they can begin moving their people from the Western nations to this location. Also the surrounding nations are made up of orcs and goblins, and when this genocide kicks off, they attack and somehow they're the bad guys for trying to intervene in a genocide.
Also a council of lords in the Western nations decided all on their own that this land will go to the high elves, so clearly the land belongs to the high elves. All the races of men and the high elves from the Western nations are clearly the good guys here. Also there are other elves living in these Southern lands, but apparently despite being elves they're barbarians, so the high elves will have to teach them civilization and love of
EuropeanWestern nations of man's arts and music and how to eat like them (apparently European Zionists looked down on Arab Jews as being uncivilized/mentally inferior/barbaric because they wore flipflops, ate with their hands and had no idea or interest in European culture; because there's no escaping the horrific racism of colonialism). Also the enlightened races of men from the West committed a genocide against the high elves so clearly the races of the South owed them territory; it's just basic logic.but apparently despite being elves they're barbarians
One could also slot in Wood Elves and Nature here. Nature is already viewed as Terra Nullus, ripe for colonization, but naturally (pun intended) the forests/plains/etc don't see it that way. It would make an interesting campaign setting, with lots of very understandable motivations (good and bad), if you weren't a Zionist DM.
Sadly the guys I play with regularly don't really play heroic characters (they're not ACTIVELY trying to play bad people, they'll just basically follow the lead a DM gives them), they'd absolutely go along with helping to colonize an area. Heck, the area doesn't need evil races like orcs and goblins, if I put in wood elves or dwarves but they're not designed as part of a story to get the good guys to switch sides, they'll just go along with it. Unless I actively spell it out that they're supposed to be switching sides, they'll sign up as concentration camp guards and just as part of procedure will shoot down civilians trying to flee and will take it as an intended investigative challenge to root out fantasy equivalent Schindler.
I mean I say they're not actively trying to be bad, but I recall one guy at the table who, when an NPC withheld letters intended for the party in return for them wooing a woman he liked, the guy got angry and tried to find the woman first saying he wanted to scar her to punish the other guy; he compared it to when a child is being a brat and you break his game disc to teach him a lesson. I'm happy to say at least everyone at the table was stunned rather than agree.
when an NPC withheld letters intended for the party in return for them wooing a woman he liked, the guy got angry and tried to find the woman first saying he wanted to scar her to punish the other guy; he compared it to when a child is being a brat and you break his game disc to teach him a lesson.
Totally agree. You need a skillful DM and experienced players who want an "open world" for the setting to really work. There is a lot of give-and-take between the players and DM to get the most out of it, mostly to make up rules as novel situations come up. It absolutely falls apart when you have min-max types who want to exploit the systems rather than roleplay them, or players that have a hard time moving outside the DM's storyline.
You might be right and I can't tell whether such performative tolerance (couldn't find a better antonym to bigotry) is better or worse than mere moral deficiency.
You are literally an omnipotent deity and it's still not enough to make Isreal anything but a villian.
NOOOO you can't eat the applerino because.... you just can't ok?!
the reason is spelled out in the bible:
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
god is just a typical king, jelously guarding his unearned privileges. god, the original anticommunist.
lmao I’d love to watch a campaign like that. The party consistently doing the right thing while the DM just seethes more and more.
It might be fun to watch but in my experience if the players and the DM are that out of sync its gonna be a bad experience for everyone playing cause at some point the DM is gonna be forced to railroad you back on track if only cause they don't have any material in the direction you want to go. The best games and DMs I have are basically more complicated versions of "Yes And".
The best games and DMs I have are basically more complicated versions of "Yes And".
DnD with no character sheets is my favorite way to get kids into TTRPG's. Make it all up as you go along. Roll with whatever stupid bullshit they come up with, and throw something even stupider back at them. Write it all down. THEN we make the character sheets, after a couple sessions.
e: Anyway, this is why one of my son's friends mains a wizard with tons of air magic. Because he's a fart wizard.
Players consistently rolling
on being based checks while the Zionist prick seethes is just so funnyi had a DM boot me from a campaign for 'being manipulative' and 'murder hoboing' after i kept killing blatantly racist nazi characters that our multicultural nation was fighting to survive genocide against. said that i didnt ever give the DM time to roleplay things (because i would gat the nazis in the head with a critfish build). maybe make less cartoonishly evil characters? why would i ever talk to a guy that kills babies
i also unknowingly joined a campaign where the dm admitted that all the goblins the players were killing were jews after i pressed him on his monologue about goblin bankers
said that i didnt ever give the DM time to roleplay things (because i would gat the nazis in the head with a critfish build). maybe make less cartoonishly evil characters? why would i ever talk to a guy that kills babies
Or if you have cartoonishly evil characters they need to be in an environment where the player can not get away with killing them. There's a reason all the nobility live in a walled quarter of the city with its own defences.
tbf we did a guerilla raid on the walled quarter and created an inferno centered on the guy's mansion after slaughtering a veritable army of nazi minions (which were overleveled, but we persevered through hit and run tactics, lmao)
we were just too cool for the dm i guess
I read a criticism of 'come and see' that I'd never considered, that it was quite liberal. They pointed out how (in the movie) the partisans struggled internally with flat out killing the nazis, and how Flyora while shooting at a picture (hallucination?) of Hitler kept seeing him get younger and younger until he was staring at Baby Hitler and he couldn't pull the trigger.
The poster was saying that it's okay to just flat out kill literal nazis and it shouldn't be causing any internal struggle as they're literally wiping you out, and picturing Hitler as a baby is stupid as you can't time travel and he's not a baby while he's conducting a genocide.
With that first paragraph, at least, I get where they're coming from but I feel like it's likely that they've never actually killed somebody. Yes, it's morally acceptable and good to kill Nazis, and also taking a life is a thing that sticks with you in ways you don't expect (from what I've heard; I've never killed anybody either). I just feel like that's a weird thing to criticize the film for. I really doubt anybody goes away from Come And See believing that killing Nazis is wrong or bad, just that war is hell.
I could be totally off-base here; I haven't see the film in a long time. But that criticism just strikes me as not really warranted
There was a fair bit to the guy's post; he also talked about the director of which I don't think he was a giant fan of, but he got a little into Soviet film history and I don't really know much about Soviet film history (or the USSR in general) so I slightly zoned out after a number of posts (the heck is perestroika?), but I managed to find his thread:
https://twitter.com/IskoLat/status/1781403799631847501
I can picture it now
He was probably like
You have to enforce the status quo, they're feeble savages!And the players were like
No, we will shatter their chains and free them from the yoke of tyrannyThe first thing every DM learns is that the group will never do what you want them to.
DM: "You see a music festival outside the concentration camp."
Player: "I roll for initiative."
DM: "Against the enemies in the concentration camp right?"
Players: "..."
DM: "Against the unarmed goblins inside the concentration camp... Right?"
Based but which player "rolls for initative" on their own? How the fuck does that even work when the DM hasn't even declared start of combat?
Works fine as a declaration of intent, same as "I attack them", it's just acknowledging how attacking someone functions within the rules of the game.
It's also funny, because said DMs set themselves up to make the anti-semitism allegations as unconvincing as possible, because the players had no idea who the groups were based on.
my first time playing a ttrpg was a very odd pathfinder campaign about escaping a slave plantation. this was in kentucky so the vibes were off. whole thing ended up sideways when the dm that cooked that up couldn't stop getting too hammered for us to make progress.
I believe it because whoever that guy is did this with the whole of Last of us 2.
It would be funny if the DM thought the problem was that they didn't make it obvious enough the Israel analogy was meant to be Israel, so they try to make it more obvious, but then the players think the DM is a neo-nazi doing a Jewish conspiracy allegory.
It's not as if they're terribly different, even the distinction that the DM is a zionist wouldn't change a lot. Their views on the Holocaust are practically the same as neo-nazis. Consider how many zionists
- Ignore the non-jewish victims of the Holocaust, some 11 million people
- Try to minimise the numbers, claim they're exaggerated
- Look down on Holocaust victims, see them as weak
and that's not even taking into account what they say in the comfort of their homes. Just speaking or writing in Hebrew, even in the most public of settings, they immediately reveal their thirst for blood.
