Gentlemen, how do we make nazis a good bbeg faction for a campaign without them being generic...

Fascism has nothing to do with race, but I can see why jew would think that.

Fascism doesn't necessarily, but Nazism does.

Get fucked you butthurt commie, there was nothing wrong with that post.

You would do well to read over and over. He gets it.

As to how to make Nazis scary? None of your PCs are in the in-group... and now they have to fight a nation.

You're referencing the Khmer Rouge, correct? As in the CIA backed Khmer Rouge? Lmao boi

You ground it in reality.

You focus on the characters and their stories as they journey through. And Nazis keep on showing up to ruin the day in the worst way.

Nazism isn't just an ideology focused on Earth and its derivatives, instead it is spread across scores of worlds throughout the multiverse, across times, distances, creeds, and (ironically) races. As it turns out Nazism is a cognitive virus of sorts that has spread across the multiverse, and is trying to stamp out competing ideologies till only it is left throughout time and space. What makes things difficult is that some Nazi worlds have advanced technology or black magic (or both) and are actively trying to spread the insidious tendrils of Nazism sooner. So they will need to be dealt with one way or another. also for fun they can get attacked by Hitler's shade.

>lone figure against a Titan, messianic (heresy) in nature, come to firebomb civilians
Yep, that's standard kike media fare in the 40s.

>fucking kikes in the German media!

Yeah, those Germans sure knew how to make subtle and evocative propaganda!

>Using Bioshock infinite propoganda

Do you not know how Weimar fell? Get some historical knowledge.

don't make them chaotic stupid evil.

Don't be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi party!

they are a huge faction. With a lot of leader figures. Enough Material for interesting NPCs.

Doesn't matter if you use existing characters or make up some generals.

They can be incompetent ,evil guys that came to power because of their relation to the fuhrer.

or old Generals that come from Prussian Military Academies and now have to struggle between the morals they grew up with and the Nazis political Agenda

Read The Man with the Miraculous Hands by Kessel or Death is my Trade by Merle. Both offer an inside view of nazi dignitaries with making them heroes.

*without making them.

Why not make the BBEG not be totally loyal to the ideology of the party. Maybe he joined the party purely for the power, influence, and numerous connections it provides. They could care less about the party's message but the party needs done, he'll get done as long as he gets what he wants in the end. Maybe the PCs can reason with him, perhaps even get him to help them out "under the table"?

topkek

I can feel the burn from here.

Sanders is a liberal scumbag along with Trump. Fuck em all

> Being this much of a butthurt fucking red

>Burn
>Bern

>I can feel the burn from here

>referring to the fact that this guy just got bitchsmacked with the fact that the CIA backed a certain radical faction in Cambodia that happened to be communists

>implying anything to do with Sanders

This is a level of faggotry I haven't quite seen in years.

>actually believes the CIA would back communists

what the fuck am i reading. your boy pinochet's the only one getting CIA money

Yeah, from the outside lookin' in the cia's never really been in favour of freedom when others didn't choose correctly.

the khmer rouge are right up your alley desu, you'd like them

Yeah, it's not like the CIA massively backed FO to weaken the major french unions like the CGT. Or supported Tito against Stalin in Yugoslavia.

Use and research the ideology and system, instead of just using the iconography. Adapt your fictional government to local customs and conditions.

This guy gets it.

>the CIA massively backed FO to weaken the major french unions like the CGT.

FO was backed specifically because it was a non-Communist union so I'm not sure what your point is.

>Or supported Tito against Stalin in Yugoslavia.

Except they didn't? The only US aid Yugoslavia got under Tito was through the Marshall Plan.

Nah.

Nazism and fascism are mostly just retaliation to the absolute brutalism of bolshevik revolutionalism. The whole theory that "Fascism is a mode or a type of capitalist governance" comes from a fact that autist bolshevik spergs can't literally comprehend that when you seize all power, kill or suppress anyone who disagrees with you, and try to align the society according to your own personal microcosm, some people might just oppose you.

Pretty much all fascist goverance in europe managed to reach power after globally operative communists (who were mostly jewish) threw countries into disarray. Germany had several miniature reveolutions (Spartacist uprising, for an example) that were mostly led by jewish agitators, Spain had the whole civil war and Poland was attacked by Soviets.

Of course your post means that all this is just some evil plan to curb the inevitable communist revolution, but consider the following: Maybe people don't want to have a massive brutal revolution according to the needs of a tiny ideological elite that autisticly considers its design a historical inevitability, and regards everything that doesn't support their excact cause as "subsuming class struggle".

Maybe people wanted to live in a "rebuild a historic white race based on old, real, or imagined ethnic boundaries" (not to mention that nazism was mostly about fighting the jews living in western society, not about third-world, which was barely a political entity in the germany of that time), rather than one massive, globe-spanning, theoreticly designed system that must be enforced by wiping out pretty much everything about culture, history and spiritual that came before.

Not to mention that whenever communism comes to power, the ruling ideological line like the bolsheviks always seeks to shut down all labor unions and all other communal or socialistic experiments not led by the forming party's ideological elite, so it's not like Nazis were that different.

lol

I am sure that CIA told them to crush the bourguose and try to reform the society according to communist idea

They propably would never have done that if it weren't for that darn yankee devil money

... I think this post gave me a concusion from the facepalm. No, I don't have to point out what's wrong with it. It's like you fell asleep during social studies in high school and read the rest on /pol/. Just... go away.

The CIA backed the KR to fight Vietnam (an actual socialist nation). They were a peasant revolutionary force akin to the Spanish Anarchists, saw the class struggle in terms of rural vs urban and wanted to create a morally and ethnically pure Khmer peasant utopia. After Vietnam and Kampuchea's genuine communists threw them out they became imperialist contras.

I never got until now that this "cultural Marxism" thing /pol/ rants about is just a reskinned Nazi-era "cultural Bolshevism".

Depends on the country involved. Communist Russia is very evil, but modern day Cuba, for example, has nothing on the nazis. Cambodia would probably be the best, what with all the mass murder, but the campaign would have to focus entirely on Cambodia, not the rest of the world.

jesus christ /pol/ this is fucking cringeworthy

> Ethnic Nationalism
> Communist

Every time.

There's more to it than that. Nazism was a retaliation towards the weakness of Weimar Germany and the Treaty of Versailles (pushed by the mostly capitalist USA, UK and France) as well as the threat of a Red Uprising. Germany was going through all kinds of shit.

>It's not R-E-A-L communism unless it fits my ideals.
>Destroy most of traditional forms of culture and social interaction = They obviously want le evil ethically pure society!!!!"

How's the real Vietnam doing by the way ? If socialism works as people in this thread seems to think it works, they propably don't have any inequality or societal discrimination.

I love it when fashes get BTFO because their entire ideology is based on feelings and they're incapable of material analysis

Well you've always got the early street brawling, "I just do this because I enjoy violence" Nazis, who would beat up people for not even speaking German. You then have your 'pragmatist' Nazis, i.e; upper class Germans who joined the party to advance their position in society. Prussian land owners, affluent bankers, etc. these people would all quickly fill the ranks of the SS and apply what they considered 'pragmatic' logic to the party.

You also need to involve the general discontent within the party. The Nazi party was effectively made up of several waring factions that were themselves made up of branches of state apparatus, with the leaders of these groups exploring ways they could come closer to Hitler.

But its not Communist. The workers didn't own the means of production. It was also ethnic nationalism.

Also you seem to grievously misunderstand the goals of Communism. It's not "everyone is equal", it's everyone has equal opportunities since the change in material conditions ensures everyone has the same options in life with no distinct barriers.

Also bash the fascist class war now.

Great, now this thread is just a /pol/ invasion. Oie. Sorry OP, hope you got your help before. It's all downhill from here.

>Implying "Other people have more than me because they actually work and I need the state to take their stuff and give it to me" : The Ideology isn't just as retarded

> Thinking that's what Communism or Socialism are about

Here's a useful link.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

>socialism
>everyone works
>everyone has gun
>nobody has money
sounds about right

heh, back in the red scare days, even saying the word manifesto would get you investigated.

You should read Marx. He makes it quite clear the workers need to be armed. He also makes it quite clear that not everyone has to work.

>Destroy most of traditional forms of culture and social interaction = They obviously want le evil ethically pure society!!!!"

Yes they were pretty clear about this. Like I said, they were Ethnic Nationalists, you'd like them.

>How's the real Vietnam doing by the wayear?

Pretty good actually considering since 1981, 880 million people were lifted out of poverty. 728 million of the people were from China. Out of the 152 million outside China, over 30 million were from Vietnam. Therefore, socialist countries lifted approximately 760 million people out of poverty while the whole capitalist world achieved only around 120 million. Socialist countries were responsible for over 85 percent of the reduction of the number of people living in poverty and capitalist countries for less than 15 percent. But that doesn't matter because they weren't white right? Lmao fashes are a fucking joke.

>bbeg faction

If you don't know how to use a term, don't use the term.

> I can't rebuke anything on that post so im just
going to say you are wrong and /pol/
that pic
>Dear workers, you will achieve perfect, more shinier liberty if you obey the communist system
>Worker lives by his life until he dies, obeying the system and forgoing his/hers personal dreams so everyone can live under perfect, more shinier liberty.
>Worker dies
>Next generation, none the wiser gets told that if they obey the communist system they will get to have perfect, more shinier liberty.
>Repeat until cynicism in system accelerates to the point where even the high echelons of party can be bought by foreign capitalists/internal gangsters

Iosif Vissarionovitš Džugašvili would have made excellent advertisment operative had he moved to america.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others. I'm sure the non working pigs do a great job leading this socialist utopia?

>You should read Marx.
Specifically Das Kapital, or complete works?

What the fuck are you saying. Under socialism if you don't work you don't eat. Mad you can be a parasite on the back of the workers anymore, bourgie?

This.
"Nazis" are just herds of fascist strongmen, really neither interesting nor original, but individual nazis can be made multifaceted and fascinating.

Don't go straight into Das Kapital. Start with a simple video series like the law of value series on youtube by kapitalism101 so you can get an idea of what Marx was talking about. Then you'll need to develop a basic understanding of Dialectical Materialism. The basic texts for this are Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism and Mao's On Contradiction. Then you can move onto Lenin

Except everyone being equal isn't the case. It's everyone has equal opportunities.

Also I don't know why you're bringing up "utopia", I've not claimed it's going to be a utopia. Also, why would anyone follow anyone who doesn't do any work? This isn't like Capitalism where the wealth of your family and their connections will ensure they can just rule without needing to do anything.

It's almost like you're making a straw man argument.

It's pretty good to read everything. The Manifesto is probably the most important place to begin.

>tiny ideological elite that autisticly considers its design a historical inevitability
...Like the Nazis?

I just feel bad for you, user. I don't know if anyone can do anything for you. What you want isn't going to happen, and you're going to burn out your whole life in bitterness waiting for it.

I can't wait to beat your ass with my antifa chapter next time the fashes show up in town lmao. Fascists are the most cowardly autistic spergs you will ever meet.

>The workers didn't own the means of production
An neither did they in any other form of communist order. Because if workers own the means of production, they may do stupid things with them like sell them for goods, start producing products that are not wanted by others, forego the maintanence of machinary.

What happens when a major part of workers decides that they don't want to work in this factory anyomore and the factory can't function due being undermanned ? How are they going to get more workers since everyone already has a safe, functioning place in system. What if the factory dealt in unsavory things like waste managment, and people wouldn't want to work there ?

What happens when a worker-owned factory produces faulty/toxic product ? Do workers get collective punishment ? Who has the authority to give that ?

Thus all communism boils donw to "You own the means of production, but we, the small ruling politruk class decide what you do with them", since anything else would lead to the eventual collapse of communist order and utopia.

Says the "Once human psyche is scrubbed clean from the evil feelings and fascism etc, everything fall in place for a perfect utopia that will last until the heat deat of universe"- guy

if you don't work you don't eat
not everyone has to work

you literally have no argument so you have to result to strawmanning lmao

There are different stages of a socialist society. In the early stages, you get exactly what you work for

OP I'm sorry you have to deal with actual autistic fascists in your thread

Describe your ideal government to me

He means Communists, man. Filthy reds, or Charlie, or whatever. It's all the same.

Not really: Nazis considered germans to have special place in history. After they managed to take France with ease, they just caught a bad deal of old-school hybris

Communism on the other hand specifies that it absolutlely requires complete world dominance to even function and has to destroy all forms of culture that aren't classconscious.

Then there is the thing that can be observed in this thread, aka
>Everyone who doesn't agree with Marx's vision and the abominable things thatit would require to come into fruition has been le brainwashed by evul capitalist system and is propably a borgie parsite.

The picture you posted iismaking fun of shitty leftypol "marxists," not actual Marxist-Leninists

It eases my pain that most of these antifa/communist types here are propably suffering more than me, since their utopia is even more abstract. I just hope they don't hurt many people while trying relieve their excistential crisis of being alienated.

Behold, the amazing cerebral ability of your average antifant

Because none of these groups reached Communism. You don't just arrive at Communism after the revolution.

> If the workers own the means of production, they do many stupid things

These are some great assumptions. There's no point to produce goods with no value, that's a Capitalist concept.

> What happens when a major part of the workers decides they don't want to work in this factory anymore and the factory can't function due to being undermanned?

You downsize your operation or merge with another factory. Automation is also a big thing.

> How are they going to get more workers since everyone already has a safe, functioning place in society?

Well at that stage the number of workers required will be relatively tiny, and even then, depending on system (some Communists wish to keep money, others wish to replace it) you can receive additional rewards for working harder than others.

> What if the factory dealt in unsavory things like waste management?

There are people motivated merely by the fact they're work will ensure they don't have to live in filth.

> What happens when a worker owned factory produces faulty/toxic product

You investigate the problem, you compensate those effected and you punish those responsible. 'Collective punishment' doesn't solve any issues. Also, a factory producing faulty production isn't producing anything of worth, thus no one will trade with them for such a product and their ability to generate value will drop. The basic nature of this scenario means that they'll have to alter their practice if they wish to produce any sort of labour.

I'm not exceptionally well educated on Marxist theory, so it's always good to go and read Marx to find answers to these sorts of questions.

Also, your "Thus all Communism boils down to" is really just a definition of Capitalism.

>These are some great assumptions. There's no point to produce goods with no value, that's a Capitalist concept.
And what if the workers who control the facility decide to produce those things ? Remember, they can do that because OWN the means of production, and may not have proper information what is required, or they may think they know better than those who would use their goods.
>You downsize your operation or merge with another factory. Automation is also a big thing.
Who downsizes/merges it ? The communist ideal would be that workers themselves would hold a council and decide to do that, but what if they don't want to downsize it, or the other factories workers decide they don't want to merge with them. In a situation like that it's much easier to just let things progress without taking responsibility rather than do things thaty require lot of planning and changes into the lives of the people that would be deciding. Automation merely means there are less people to decide that, which while solving other problems, increases the chance that an individual ego or sheer human error may cause problems.
>Well at that stage the number of workers required will be relatively tiny, and even then, depending on system (some Communists wish to keep money, others wish to replace it) you can receive additional rewards for working harder than others.
What would those additional rewards be ? Public acknowledgments to stoke the ego ? Sexual favours :^)? Other material goods (Which may pose a problem, since if certain goods can only be gotten through additional rewards, the people who don't qualify for those may become upset)
>There are people motivated merely by the fact they're work will ensure they don't have to live in filth.
That is actually a good point.
cont.

Why do you think our intelligence agency would care about the ideology of groups they support? We are the greatest nation in the world, we don't hire retards. We hire people who get shit done.

>You investigate the problem, you compensate those effected and you punish those responsible. 'Collective punishment' doesn't solve any issues. Also, a factory producing faulty production isn't producing anything of worth, thus no one will trade with them for such a product and their ability to generate value will drop. The basic nature of this scenario means that they'll have to alter their practice if they wish to produce any sort of labour.
What happens when these workers don't acknowledge the fact that they have done wrong and have the sheer gall to claim that investigations are wrong and sign of "Sovietofascism" or something like that. Also, the excistance of an investigator would be propblematic for soviet theory since they would make their lives by checking on workers, and would have to have authority to make them alter their actions, meaning that they could become "oppressors"
>Also, a factory producing faulty production isn't producing anything of worth, thus no one will trade with them for such a product and their ability to generate value will drop. The basic nature of this scenario means that they'll have to alter their practice if they wish to produce any sort of labour.
But that sounds troublingly capitalist-like ? The communist system that we all know and love wouldn't abandon it workers out in the cold waste of market laws like you described!
>Also, your "Thus all Communism boils down to" is really just a definition of Capitalism.
And what it tells about communism that it will slowly warp into a system where everything is governed by singular corporation in order to function as a coherent, interconnected society. (surely, it would be a corporation with extensive social care safety nets and other goods that aren't in place for an example in modern USA systems, but as claims, they are merely another sign of the horrifying fascismus)

Underrated post. Those goddamned commies where evil as fuck.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Just use Nazis.
Seriously, I have never been in a campaign where we can punch Nazis to death, and that would be fun as hell.
Play up the Weird War 2 and give them absurd Nazi tech based on occultism and Ayylmaos.

Also, bonus points for paradoxically honorable war criminals using weird nazi science and helping out your players against an even worst BBEG before peacing out to the eastern front.

One of the major factors of 'owning the means of production' is knowing how to manage their work place

Well if the situation is that neither down sizing nor merging are viable, the workers council would have to work out a process in which both sides of the disagreement are satisfied or the issue is resolved in a different manner. We're talking about a very specific example here in which the workers would have to be involved.

I'm talking about 'labour vouchers'. These additional awards would simply be whatever extra stuff you could buy with your wages. Anyone not working would receive less labour vouchers, but enough to maintain a comfortable state of life. Lenin's "He who does not work, shall not eat" quote is often brought up, he was working in a very specific environment. People who work hard get extra rewards, but unlike in capitalism these rewards are not the exploitation of other workers.

The members of the worker council would likely be investigating the problem. Also at no point at the workers being 'oppressed'. They can continue to produce faulty product, There's just no benefit to anyone in doing so, and eventually no one will trade with them. No one is being abandoned, since at the end of the day you'll still have the basic labour vouchers needed to maintain your living standard.

Also either I'm explaining it poorly, or you don't understand the system itself, but a corporation really couldn't exist in a Communist society. The inherent nature of it is exploitive and anit-Communist.

That picture is only making fun of Zizek.
Are you all high ? (on lyfe lmao)

socialism would be
>Man taking cash from worker "This is needed to uphold the communist utopia and the politbyro
>Man with gun "If I weren't there, man behind you would be capitalist

mates, op paper all capitalism and cominism work, it only fails because humans are a bunch of little shits that hate each other and/or are way to greedy

Nazism is shit tier fashcore. Italian Fascism, especially when it was rooted in the early Futurist movement, is god tier.

bactra.org/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html

This is the manifesto equivalent of a fucking sick guitar shred.

>"He who does not work, shall not eat"
Amusingly enough, I remember an anti-capitalist graffitti with excact same messange "Freedom in capitalism: work or starve"

But all that explanation leads to what I would consider to be the major flaw in communism: It doesn't admit that people are flawed.
>When things are pondered enough, a conclusion that satisfies absolutely everyone will always be reached
>People will not consider any critique towards their chosen method of work as personal insults, and will always adjust themselves to the obvious option that I have pictured in my head
>People will be content in the regular amount of vouchers, and will happily accept that some people receive additional number of them despite the fact that their achievments may not always be clearly visible to everyone
>No one will ever just plain steal things to get what they suddenly seem to desire (despite the fact that they know that working n days with fair worktimes could get it as well)
>People will not feel betrayed if the larger system doesn't support their mistakes, be they big or small.

Communists often assume that all these things disappear once the population becomes sufficently educated, but I beg to disagree. Most of the time even great revolutionaires and well-read intellectuals were petty and acted on personal compulsions.

Also,I believe I too was mistaken when I claimed that communism would warp into singular corporation. What I meant to say that communism ultimately wouldn't allow systems to operate outside it, since any form of trade not regulated by sufficently Marx-read offical could result in accumulation of capital. This would unfortunately include many other socialist systems, consider the Anarchist-communist schism in Spanish civil war.

Also, I would like to thank you for arguing this in civil and well informed fashion and not downgrading yourself to personal insults like for an example

It's one of Lenin's most criticised quotations and is usually considered to be one of the moments when he realised he'd jumped the gun on a Communist revolution in a place where Communism shouldn't have been possible.

I'd agree one of the problems is the flaws of people, but it's not just about educating everyone. It's about ensuring a change in material conditions occurs that makes many of these problems unable to come to pass. Theft, etc. would in many cases become pointless.

And yes, one of the major points of Communism is that a system opposed it can't really can't exist outside of it. You can't have a Capitalist state and a Communist state living next to each other, because the Communist state will become focussed on defending itself which results in a perpetual war scenario. Western aggression and fear of the Soviet Union can be cited as one of the major reasons it became such a shithole.

However you raise a good point about the Anarcho Communist schism, and I agree with you on that. Leftists really need to stop being so sectarian. The problem is usually a mix of personal and historical divides, but really Anarchists and Communists have the same goal but with a different approach. I think with cooperation, the two sides could easily work to some sort of agreement. I don't believe everyone has to be totally beholden to Marx's ideals, since obviously he'd of made revisions.

And yeah, arguing in a civil manner is the only way to ever win people over properly in my mind.

Also, I forgot to note.

Marx does discuss the flaws of people, however he places them manly down to material conditions. People living in poorer material conditions would act worse, etc. etc. However you do make a good point on the subject of how personal disagreements can be damaging, but I'd argue in a system like capitalism, these faults are exacerbated due to a dog eats dog culture. Also in the case of people stealing things, yeah, it's going to happen, it's just the scale of it will be massively lower.

Also, back to OP. While it's an overused troupe, futuretech Nazis can be really fun if done in a smart way.

>in a place where Communism shouldn't have been possible
Why excactly ? The term implies that communism requires capitalism to exist in order to produce properly communistic society, and that history has certain interchangable and inevitable fate which is in my opinion, one of the most bizarre parts of communist theory.
>You can't have a Capitalist state and a Communist state living next to each other, because the Communist state will become focussed on defending itself
Then again, communism actually states that a world-wide revolution is necessary: The current situation is more due the fact that USA proved to be the better in the questionable art of global backstabbing. It's also interesting to see how the two ideologies have become somewhat similar: compare the recent liberal revolutions in middle-east to communist agitation in central europe after the establishment of Soviet Union.
>futuretech Nazis can be really fun if done in a smart way
Consider the following: World War II somehow cools down before Germany and Soviet Union invades Poland. Now The two prominent powers of europe Germany and Soviet Union, are competing on the field of space research. Sample characters:
American/japanese spy who is sent to spy on any space-project, since USA/japan is severely lagging behind techwise
Begrudged Finnish/Romanian/Polish soldier-of-fortune who is either on Nazi/soviet side (or possibly a double-agent)
Laosian emissary who is lost on space over possibly deliberate bureocratic misshap
Chinese Saboteur, sent to protest the lack of Soviet support against Japanese/Chinese notcommunists/The Lamadom of Tibet

Some of them meet on Mars, and have to struggle in the fallout of a major disaster engineered by London city bankers, who are still amd on the dissolution of British empire

>It's everyone has equal opportunities.
Soooo... it's a meritocracy ? Much like we have today.

>He makes it quite clear the workers need to be armed.
Then why have socialist nations around the world repeatedly pushed gun control? E.g. Red China, USSR, Venezuela?

Or are they not socialist?

Effectively, Marx considered industrialized nations with a distinct working class to be the basis of a revolt. Russia was largely made up of peasantry with a tiny middle class.

We don't. People don't have equal conditions or opportunities.

Because these 'socialist' nations often proved to be far from it, or ended up being surrounded by enemies which allowed authoritarians in the ruling parties to take control and develop dictatorships. They had socialist influences, and I'd argue the USSR was the furthest ahead in some areas, but it didn't really give the workers control of the means of production and the divide between the army and people became too great.

Also, by definition, they aren't socialist. Just because I call myself something does not mean I am something. Venezuela's 'socialist' party has no interest in really giving the people the means of production. 'Red' China has a leading party who uses the country as it's own personal ATM machine. It's completely opposed to basic socialist principles.

*Marx also believed that industrialized nations with a large middle and working class to be the basis of revolt.

Also I believe he argued that the peasantry still to a degree owned some of the means of production, and he didn't consider them to have the education required or to be in the material conditions that would push forward a revolt.

>somebody actually believe this