Has your personal political beliefs ever influenced a character, game or RP decision? If so, how?

I left a game because this one bitch wanted to play a faux-Muslima and her fuckboy companion was playing a faux-Muslim ninja.

If I won't play with a Muslim at the table, I'm not playing with a Muslim in the party.

I've DM'd two settings and (retroactively) noticed something both of them had in common.
>Both of them feature exactly one republic
>Both of them mostly take place within said republics
>Both republics are in greater or lesser degrees based on the Roman model
>Both republics have more political rights for the commoners than the surrounding kingdoms
>Both republics are established as being really awesome and having really smoothly run organizations, as opposed to the kingdoms around them that are constantly being torn apart by inefficiency and inter-nobility clashes of interest
>The kingdoms aren't even evil or horrible places to live, just horribly run compared to the strawman republic

Pretty understandable.

Fuck off, Todd... I'm not gonna buy your game

>post-apocalyptic campaign
>utopian hivemind fusion of AI and humans exists in the grey-goo scoured ruins of europe
>all you need to do to stop starving is leave behind your want for subjective experiences and just become part of a meta-organism that is larger than you but also part of you

I flesh out a character's personal and political philosophy before any other aspect since I believe that there's no point in being a player character instead of an NPC if all you do is throw around a surface personality propelled by transient wants and needs without any substance behind it. I'm not obnoxious about it; I leave it unstated and mostly just let it inform the character's actions. and I try to vary it up and play positions that don't necessarily match what I personally believe; but obviously all my characters thus tend towards certain positions more than others because at a certain point it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth trying to play wholeheartedly as an ideology I oppose for an extended campaign.

I'm forever DM but I do like to include politics in our campaigns. One time a character wanted to play as a magical princess so her kingdom had a revolution and became a magical republic in her absence.
The new president became the bbeg and the players started a civil war to get her kingdom back, it was heaps of fun

When I play characters in fantasy games I tend to play one of two types: hardcore 1776, taxation is theft libertarians, or authoritarian monarchists who want to make sure that everyone, especially the peasants, knows their place.

Sometimes I've played both in the course of a single campaign in which one character dies and is replaced by the other. The other players complain (in a friendly way because we're all good friends) about both types.
>what do you mean that you want to keep the peasants in their place and support the established order? Are you evil or something?
>What do you mean you want to challenge the established order and empower the peasantry to take control of their own destiny? Are you some sort of rebel or something?

I don't know if you could call it that. I played a rough ex-Rhodesian mercenary. But I have a parent who's from Rhodesia, so is that /pol/ or is that me engaging with my heritage?

With another white African character I played, the GM just read "African" and assumed "black". Quite the surprise when he introduced my character's parents. And I'm politically aware enough that people would 100% call it racist or ignorant if you did that with the races swapped.

I'm building a campaign that's heavily inspired by Roman history, and more specifically, the fall of the Roman Republic. By definition, it will contain a lot of Roman-esque politics, including stuff like their governance of provinces, their disdain for outsiders, their system of slavery, etc. etc.

I'm still wondering whether to bring some of it across, as I expect that the players won't be able to completely leave their modern Western values at the door. Will they want to fight for a people who don't bat an eye at considering others property, or who exclude a lot of races from their political system? Because neither do I want this to devolve into a grand campaign to introduce Western humanism to a setting that has no concept of it.

>But I have a parent who's from Rhodesia, so is that /pol/ or is that me engaging with my heritage?
Depends on whether or not you think Rhodesia's apartheid system was a good thing.

political, no
moral, yes

Honestly I like to use games to explore political systems that I'm kinda glad either are fantasy or aren't the standard anymore.

Let's use some basic logic here.
>His parents are from Rhodesia
>He himself is not
>The most common/plausible explanation for these facts is that his parents at some point fled Rhodesia
>They almost certainly moved to a country that's whiter than Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (when's the last time you heard of a Rhodesian who migrated to Congo?)
>They fled either due to economic reasons, or for their own safety
>user is most likely safe and prosperous
>Meanwhile Zimbabwe doesn't have famines, it has small moments of prosperity that interrupt the status quo where nobody eats
I do wonder whether Rhodesia's apartheid system worked though. I mean, what's worse? Having to spitshine whitey's shoes once in a while or not eating and having no law enforcement?

Well yeah. I GM, so my political leanings inevitably come about with how I run some events/settings/characters. I do mostly play Shadowrun, though, so thinking big corporations are evil is pretty much baked into the setting.

I do like to think that I'm self-aware enough about it to not make it overbearing. It's also why I try to stick to neutral descriptions of places and people.

No, it really doesn't. Even if that's part of the character (and it wasn't) that's still, you know, not me.

What you're doing is in essence demanding I condemn a political system because I'm a descendent of someone who lived under it as a minor. You're putting an ideological tax on my ancestry. What if a Muslim played an Islamic character in the same setting, with us all being mercenaries who blow shit up (in fact, a non-muslim guy played a muslim character, and the guy living in a muslim country played an atheist, but whatevs). Would you ask him to denounce islamic terrorism as well? I'd wager you'd consider that racist.

No, now I'm sure: I'm not the one bringing politics into this. You are. And so is everyone else who gets triggered at the mention of a country that had a political system they don't agree with. Shit, I played a Russian Spetznaz operator, too. Want me to denounce the crimes of communism as well?

Shitty freedom is always better than rich slavery.

That's the entire basis of enlightened, modern and even post-modern thinking.

Living under a totalitarian despot that runs the country with an iron fist alongside his kleptocratic clique is freedom

The only good despot is a despot in front of the firing squad.

If you don't like it, fuck off and move to Nork land.

>The only good despot is a despot in front of the firing squad.
I forgot to greentext. I was basically explaining what that guy was saying and lampooning how stupid it was, but I forgot to greentext.

Big corporations invariably *are* some shade of evil. The mistake radical idiots make is a) to think they're immune to buying into evil systems, and b) to think that anyone working in or for such a system is completely complicit.

The best example would be unironic communists on Reddit who condemn all soldiers as, and I quote, "imperialist babykillers" while even the biggest commie hardliners would consider them members of the proletariat.

>Big corporations invariably *are* some shade of evil.
I'd say that they're not evil per se, just shortsighted in their pursuit of profit. They have no responsibility but the responsibility to provide profit to their shareholders, which can result in some crazy shit. Especially when those in charge have zero moral qualms.

It is important to say that in my opinion, companies have blindspots.

For example, many of the new tech companies are pretty pro-environment and pro-space exploration for big corporations which is good, but HOLY FUCKING SHIT they're straight up chaotic evil when it comes to privacy and such.

Innovations like advanced robotisation and self-learning computers will allow us to greatly reduce the carbon footprint of society, but it's also destroying the future of labour - both physical labour as intellectual labour.

Yes, obviusly.
All my personality quirks, my beliefs, and my overall way of thinking influence everything about the characters I make, in one way or another.
This holds true for every single character ever made and played, though, so your question is moot.

I put it down to the nature of the system. People evolved to form tribal groups, and our brains are built for a situation where you essentially know everyone involved. In a corporation of any size, people are so far removed from another that natural empathy can't fully kick in.

And that's without going into the nature of that empathy towards the outgroup, because there are plenty of examples of tribal groups being insanely cruel to each other. The documentary The Tribe That Hides From Man has some good reflection on this, and notes how the tribals they visit are probably more caring to each other than Western people are, but that the contrast with how they treat other tribes -with which they are constantly at war- is immense.

Even in the stone age, when there were maybe as many people on the world as in a very small country today we have multiple recorded genocides. I suppose we can have some comfort in the fact that our analytical skills ensure that, eventually, no crime of any magnitude goes unrecorded.

The fuck did you just say?!

Africa was better under the rule of Europeans and that's a fucking fact.

Africa was better for the Europeans under the rule of Europeans and that's a fucking fact.

I love how people forget all the functional democratic governments that existed across Africa just after the decolonisation - that promptly all collapsed due to the CIA and KGB propping up military dictatorships in a massive landgrab.

We are a tribal species, and it is in our nature to care for the members of our own tribe, while being suspicious, or even hostile and genocidal to competing tribes.

This is why multiculturalism will fail. You cannot force the masses of humanity to adapt to a model of society we are biologically predisposed to utterly reject in favor of advocating for our own tribal interests and fighting against competing tribes.

>be anarchist
>fav alignment to play is chaotic good
>fav enemy is lawful evil

Just as that other guy might be projecting, I think you're projecting as well. By the same argument Western democracies in Europe weren't *really* democratic either, due to them being so important to the US sphere of influence.

You're just saying the opposite of what he is, and it's equally without nuance.

>You're just saying the opposite of what he is, and it's equally without nuance.
Of course it's without nuance. Redditors don't understand nuance anyway, so why bother?

>ooga booga dooga

I think your philosophy on mankind is about 10,000 years outdated.

And apparently "dooga" means "grass" in Somali.

Taxation is theft though.

>I like to portray genocide of innocents as a bad thing
Cuck

Nice arguments.

My views are not based on philosophy, but on nature and understanding the fact that we humans are animals with behavioral patterns that are typical to our species. One of them is tribalism. We are biologically still basically the same as we were 10,000 years ago. Our societies have developed far faster than we have.
What is your basis on assuming that we have changed sufficiently during the last 200 years that tribalism is no longer part of our behavior?

Or are you a postmodernist scumbag who denies science and the fact that we humans are animals with certain specific behavior traits?

Are you going to GM a GURPS game in about 2 weeks ? If so then I think I know who you are.

>Are you going to GM a GURPS game in about 2 weeks ?
Nah, I'm a D&D babby. I'd like to know about that GURPS game/setting though.

>last 200
Last 60 more like it, if you consider nationalism to be tribalism on a grander scale.

>he thinks he's free
Go to /pol/, ask for coincidences. You'll find that there are many (((coincidences)))

I HATE bureaucracy, so, as the totally neutral GM i am, i build a city ruled by bureaucrats, send the players there to warn them of the barbarian hordes, but since bureaucrats doesn't work (fast enough) the barbarian burned the City, and all was well.

Not my own political views but I did put my players through the wringer and made them figure out how political their own players were. I had them do shit for a kingdom and they didn't like the king so they decided he had to go. But since I filled out his court with other political figures who might not be best for the job. They could have assassinated the king any time, but worried about the fallout of what would happen. It was fun, they ended up becoming a secret oligarchy to one of the less scumbag court members but were legitimately surprised when the group was ousted after he took the crown and found out his promotion was by design.
Fun shit

Good luck paving your own roads and buying your own guns and ammo so you don't get pulled over and raped to death on them, faggot

>Or are you a postmodernist scumbag who denies science and the fact that we humans are animals with certain specific behavior traits?
I see, you're a little Reddit meme baby.

You're fucking retarded.

We're animals that are self-aware and can self-actualize, we can act against our own instincts if it benefits us.

It's still theft even if the guy stealing thinks he's doing you a favour.

I already have my own guns and ammo.

I see you still have no argument.

I never denied that we can't act against our instincts, though few can do so consistently, and it rarely is very beneficial. We would not have developed those instincts if they were not beneficial to us.

Yes. A number of different times, for different games. Sometimes I also play on the opposite side, or totally apolitical, or generically conservative, as well.

Every game of Eclipse Phase I've ever played, I've made a character who is extremely ideologically fanatical. Not always, but especially in alignment with my own ideology (anarcho-nationalism). In-setting, this is par for the course, really, since a big part of the game's internal politics are actually just serious politics. Oddly enough, it never caused conflict with the rest of the group, even when there were ancapistani gerontocrats and the most debauched, horrible stereotypes of SJW otherkin in the party. I think it's because, in Eclipse Phase, almost everyone is some flavor of anarchist, and therefore just lets people they hate conglomerate millions of miles away from them without much issue.

Aside from EP, a couple of notable instances.

I played a Traveller-esque GURPS game as a mad scientist who committed a genocide on some space Muslims and was like full on pic related basically. Other than some interparty bantz, the game ran totally smoothly, though it could be because my group always has intense political shitposting OOC and treats the game as separate.

As a GM I've run a number of politically charged games, usually I attempt to chart a balanced approach and make everyone /sort of/ a bad guy, though. I did a Rogue Trader game which prominently featured a non-Imperial stellar empire's internal politics, with factions representing monarchist liberals and conservatives, as well as republican nationalists and separatists. The bad guys were ultimately the liberals, though the party suspected the nationalists almost up until the end, so I think I do a pretty good job avoiding my biases leaking out into the game itself.

My DM got pissed when trump got elected and threw a Turask at us... does that count?

>anarcho-nationalism
The what now?

Anarchism in which the communes are based around national fraternity, especially of the ethnic variety.

>I'm okay, fuck helping people who aren't
People like you are societal cancer.

Oki doki then.
I'd actually be all for that. I'd prefer that my people stay independent and exist as our soverign people, even if to do so we have to be some fucking oort cloud ice miner nomads in the far future or some shit.

Fuck all sort of "we are all human bs".
I got no common cause with Non-Finns and I'd exterminate every single one of you if it ensured the survival of my people.

Charity exists. If you want to help others, go right ahead. You can even choose who gets your help, and you don't have to see a thief wasting your money on some modern art project.

The game is set in a post post apocalyptic setting where we play as soldiers of an almost fully democratic republic in southern Canada in a neo ww1 war against other more totalitarian states.

put down the booze mikko

Don't you dare to tell me what to do.
No foreigner shall EVER tell Finns what to do, EVER FUCKING AGAIN! MY PEOPLE WILL NEVER AGAIN BE SUBJUGATED AND RULED BY FOREIGN PEOPLE!

Don't need arguments against memespewers from Reddit.

Also, you're fucking retarded.

>muh nature fallacy

Evolution is a blind retarded process. Those instincts ARE NOT beneficial. They merely do not hinder survival.

If our instincts were beneficial, we would have no reason to have developed technology and culture.

> Those instincts ARE NOT beneficial.
Top fucking shit.
IF THEY WERE NOT BENEFICIAL WE WOULD NOT FUCKING HAVE THEM BECAUSE EVOLUTION WOULD WEED THEM OUT!
YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL.

I'm a forever GM (which I actually don't mind, I like creating settings and characters much more than playing) and I constantly create moral dilemmas tailored to lead to clashes between the players' different political views.
One of my players is tumblr, one is pure /pol/, one is cuckservative, one is tumblr except she hates muslims. It leads to a lot of good arguments.

see, this is why nobody invites you faggots to parties, all you do is drink in the corner and get butthurt

There's more to it, but if you are interested and want to read more there is still one more room open and you can find it in Roll20 if you search for GURPS games.

>Don't need arguments
this thread is shit but you are like twice as shit

>/pol/acks are not nazis.

Great job, you faggot. You responded to a point he never actually made.

How do you explain that some people genuinely feel the opposite way?
I sometimes see /pol/ having conspiracy tier beliefs about how EVERYONE is secretly racist and it's only evul marxisst post-modurn society forcing us to not admit it but it's not very credible and it's kinda a fallacy to assume that everyone disagreeing with you are basically lying.

>be in a leading political role
>hundreds of thousands of orcs decide to want to start living in our land
>when our group goes against this because orcs are worthless and violent, our group gets branded as bigots and pushed out
What did GM mean by this?

Some parts of racism are certainly rooted in biology but that don't really means we can't be against it for other reasons and it's probably a bit more complex than any form of multiculturalism cannot work.

>If you are against a large, self-serving system making your decisions for you, you are automatically against helping people

Not even against taxes, but the overly emotional argument that taxes are automatically beneficial for society at large by sheer definition is fucking retarded. Seriously, "helping people" is such a fucking vague statement that it could be used to justify damn near anything. And it has. Up to and including genocide.

property is theft

No, it isn't.

He's clearly basing his campaign on the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

>you will never feel the joy of disrobing a modest hijabi girl and seeing the slutty underwear she wore for your date before fucking her senseless until she's walking funny after and smiling about your shared secrets

Feelsbadman.jpg

What user was saying has nothing to do with race though.
It's a thing that has everything to do with not being able to know everyone well everyone you are dealing with in life so you feel litle emphaty towards them and almost nothing with ethnic minorities.
People of your race are not all the equivalent of a tribal in-group, and technically an in-group can be multicultural. (there were a lot of multiethnic groups with similar dynamics, like pirates, military groups or semi-nomad groups who were often very ethnically varied but viewed themselves as a group againt all the sedentary people)
Racial Minorities tend to be seen as especially foregin by people not accustomed to them but it's a completely different issue.

Yes, it is.

as an anarkiddie ive never heard a single comrade talk shit about soldiers (as people). Most people in the army are either fed propaganda since their birth and/or join because it's the only way, for example, for them to get higher education.

ACAB though

Argue how.

Neutral traits are a thing though,evolution is certainly not optimized and random quirky shit can get to stay if they are not negative even if they are not good either.

Fuck no. I am completely separate from any character I play. Their politics, religion, sexual orientation and other aspects are based entirely on what makes sense at the time.

For example I'm currently playing a LN cleric of Kelemvor who believes as a matter of dogmatic faith that individuals must not be allowed to live past certain racial maximums, and that violating this precept damages the moral and metaphysical fabric of the universe.

Injecting your political realm into your character or setting is almost always boring as fuck. Often times you will be so attached to your idea that you fail to notice when you rest of the party stops giving a shit and finds it annoying.

Evolution doesn't make things better.

Evolution just does whatever doesn't kill you.

>How do you explain that some people genuinely feel the opposite way?

Feel opposite way how?
What do you mean by that question? Do you refer to people who act against their in group?

I am for anything that serves the interests of my tribe, and don't give jack shit about what happens to other tribes, because my morals stems from the root of "Survival and well being of my people, is the greatest good".
If racism serves my people, I am a-ok with being utterly racist bastard against people outside of my tribe.

While you are correct partially on the fact that not all ingroups are racial, and technically, a "race" has never been a group, as any group larger than roughly 150 members is basically an artificial creation imposed onto multiple smaller, "genuine groups" whose size roughly caps at the 150 number, due to our biology. Such larger groups have often been formed around religion or imposed by force. Nationalism unites a large group of similar groups under the same banner by emphasizing their shared characteristics. Nationalism is far more genuine ideology than just racialism, because like we see in Europe, people who are of the same race, may still differ tremendously. Racialism can and should however, be part of nationalistic thought, but never rule it. I do not consider Germans to be my kin, because they aren't Finns, even though we share the same skin color. However, a Somali can never, ever be a Finn, for he is utterly foreign. A German can eventually assimilate fully to our culture and way of life, and thus become one of us, while a Somali will always remain an alien, because his very biology and appearance differs far too much from us. He will never be our kin, because he is so obviously foreign.

You take something that belonged to everyone or noone (and at some point, everything was like this) and say that now it only belongs to you, instead of everyone.

Who decided that a thing belonged to everyone? Who gave that someone the right to make such a call?

If it didn't belong to anyone, then it isn't theft.

Yeah, well, I have. On Reddit. A guy was legit banned from the /r/socialism subreddit for going against that narrative. And a girl was banned for drawing catgirls, because that's "depicting women as animals, which is misogyny". These people are crazier than Stalin.

And as a right wing cunt in Europe I find the whole ACAB meme to be edgy, given that the establishment in Europe is massively in favour of the people who perpetuate said meme and the police are used to enforce left wing ideology.

>and at some point, everything was like this

Primitive socialism is not real. All archeological evidence supports the idea that the concept of personal belongings is natural to the human mind.

>If it didn't belong to anyone, then it isn't theft.

If it didn't belong to anyone, it, by definition, belonged to everyone.

What gives you the right to say that it belongs to only you?

I just meant that humanity did not get off the trees with mining deeds in their pockets. All natural resources were belonging to noone at some point in time.

I also don't know shit about this, I'm just trying to explain how the "property is theft" thing works.

Well, personal belongings aren't property as it's understood in the Marxist sense. When Marxists talk about abolishing private property, they usually mean seizing the means of production (factories, most literally) from the capitalist class. People still get their personal tube of toothpaste and hairbrush or whatever.

Now, all that said, let's have a universal right to violence and see if either the lolbercucks or statist Marxists can defend their respective private/collectivized property from the people. Fat lot of good your deed is going to do you when me and some of the good ol' boys come to burn your house down because you're trying to extort some kind of usurious levy on our righteous commune.

Natural resources, yes. But the labour involved certainly not. Making something your own always involves a measure of effort, and because effort in survival situations is a powerful currency, we evolved a concept of personal property.

Well, to paraphrase The Tribe That Hides From Man says: In the jungle, only the killer has the right to not be killed. You can't understand the Indian until you understand the killing.