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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.