Ever Game With the USA as Enemy?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

|dvh| wrote:
The thing about the cultists wasn't that they were rambling, crazy fools. They were dangerously intelligent and psychotic power-mongers who traded away their humanity to a corrupt god-to-be to pursue their ambitions; they chaired Senate committees, directed major corporations, and led religious movements. The cult was deadly not only because it was powerful, but because the people in it were ruthless and smart (and they had to be, to survive in the organization).

They had perfect teeth and no one would be caught dead in a hood.

Perfect modern day cultists.

Silver Crusade

Yep, exactly.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
|dvh| wrote:


Just because Y does it, doesn't make it OK for X to do it.
The point Mike is making is that nobody has ever *not* done it. You may feel free to hate them all of course :)

That's a very hasty and very BIG assumption - there've been a lot of "bodies" over the millennia, and who has and who hasn't "done it" depends on the shape of the cookie-cutter you use to cut the underlying dough. Even so, to say all groups are equally bad is simply wrong.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

They had perfect teeth and no one would be caught dead in a hood.

Wait, what? "Perfect teeth?" I thought |dvh| said America's Founding Fathers were in on this.


I more meant the modern day cultists. Think the most polished American elite today, backing the genocide spirit, with their fantastic dental plans.

Silver Crusade

They did have a really nice benefit plan, yes.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


|dvh| wrote:


Just because Y does it, doesn't make it OK for X to do it.

The point Mike is making is that nobody has ever *not* done it. You may feel free to hate them all of course :)

That's a very hasty and very BIG assumption - there've been a lot of "bodies" over the millennia, and who has and who hasn't "done it" depends on the shape of the cookie-cutter you use to cut the underlying dough. Even so, to say all groups are equally bad is simply wrong.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

I have multiple degrees in history and another in cultural anthropology. It's not an assumption and there is nothing hasty about it, nor did I say everybody is equally bad :) The question is a matter of degree. Altruism is present in many societies and informs many decisions. So is self interest. If you look for a society without self interest you won't find it. Period.

*edit* To expand on this a bit... many "altruistic" decisions in the modern world are made by nations that have no stake in the issue. Altruism is easy if you have nothing at stake. It's much harder when you do have interests at stake. Some decisions are made that are altruistic (for the most part). More seem to reflect self interest, often with a window dressing of altruism to make it look better. There is no modern nation that does not look out for it's own interests. No nation has ever existed that did not look out for it's own interests.

I agree with Einstein btw, but it doesn't take nationalism as force for nations to look out for their own interests. Nationalism just increases the self interest in decisions.

Scarab Sages

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I more meant the modern day cultists. Think the most polished American elite today, backing the genocide spirit, with their fantastic dental plans.

Have you seen this?

R_Chance wrote:

I have multiple degrees in history and another in cultural anthropology. It's not an assumption and there is nothing hasty about it, nor did I say everybody is equally bad :) The question is a matter of degree. Altruism is present in many societies and informs many decisions. So is self interest. If you look for a society without self interest you won't find it. Period.

*edit* To expand on this a bit... many "altruistic" decisions in the modern world are made by nations that have no stake in the issue. Altruism is easy if you have nothing at stake. It's much harder when you do have interests at stake. Some decisions are made that are altruistic (for the most part). More seem to reflect self interest, often with a window dressing of altruism to make it look better. There is no modern nation that does not look out for it's own interests. No nation has ever existed that did not look out for it's own interests.

I agree with Einstein btw, but it doesn't take nationalism as force for nations to look out for their own interests. Nationalism just increases the self interest in decisions.

Agreed for the most part - my main qualm is how one defines "self-interest." By some definitions, what you say is obviously correct, by others it is, at least on a practical communication level, a falsehood. I think it's more of a holdover term that might best serve the English language by ceasing to exist (bear in mind, I'm talking linguistics here). I'm not in the habit of using the term, myself. The point is that it seems to preserve the fallacy (which is presently quite virulent and malignant in the US) that there must be some inherent conflict between "one" and "others" (to say nothing of the possible corollary "if it's bad for You/Them, it's good for Me/Us") and I think the level of "nations/cultures/ethnicities/societies" is the worst of all possible worlds in this regards. It's why I always recoil when people talk in any context of "community" - it seems to me to constrict people's morality, intensifying it to a degree, but making it apply only to a small, homogenous group, rather than to everyone and everything, and here we see the essential roots of bigotry, oppression, war, and imperialism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I did a Call of Cthulhu game it turned out the US Government was aware of the various nasties in existence. As the game progressed this led to the revelation that they were using aliens, there biology and tech to advance the US.

Further down the line it seemed that infact the various eldritch evils were in control of the US, and various atrocities (mostly to the various Native American Nations and such) were in part ritual fodder for the elder gods disguised as something more simple that it had caused.

Finally, it turned out that the US was working with an Eldritch creature of inhuman might, and those atrocities were in fact them keeping there side of the deal. If things had ever progressed far enough (to later ties) Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq would all likely end up in the same category - enemies found and murdered to feed there side of the bargain in exchange for Supremacy over the world.

In fairness, this was mostly because the Investigator's were going to kill the UK version that was doing the same for the British Empire, given all the bad stuff we got up to, and during WWII the same would happen to the Nazi's creature. But for much of the game the US was a willing, and active, participant in hideous crimes for power and wealth.

The key was that these things weren't making people do these horrible things, but simply making the deal and reaping the rewards. As our current superpower the US was the obvious target.


Brilliant, exactly the kind of ideas I was wanting to hear about. Again, working the American genocide of the Native Americans into the narrative. Most interesting.


Jon it reminds me of early industrialisation poetry personifying industry as great consuming spirits of evil. Gnawing on bones and the wails of those sacrificed for modernity. The costs of the modernising bargain were the intense suffering (and the poor). William Blake, Moloch and the like.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:


Agreed for the most part - my main qualm is how one defines "self-interest." By some definitions, what you say is obviously correct, by others it is, at least on a practical communication level, a falsehood. I think it's more of a holdover term that might best serve the English language by ceasing to exist (bear in mind, I'm talking linguistics here). I'm not in the habit of using the term, myself. The point is that it seems to preserve the fallacy (which is presently quite virulent and malignant in the US) that there must be some inherent conflict between "one" and "others" (to say nothing of the possible corollary "if it's bad for You/Them, it's good for Me/Us") and I think the level of "nations/cultures/ethnicities/societies" is the worst of all possible worlds in this regards. It's why I always recoil when people talk in any context of "community" - it seems to me to constrict people's morality, intensifying it to a degree, but making it apply only to a small, homogenous group, rather than to everyone and everything, and here we see the essential roots of bigotry, oppression, war, and imperialism.

I do not think language defines our behavior so much as it describes our behavior.

Self interest simply states that you have an interest in something. It doesn't preclude others from sharing your interest or imply a conflict of interest. Obviously following the path of self interest is reasonably likely to involve competing interests and some degree of conflict. Nature of the beast. A community exists when individuals or nations interact. That doesn't mean it's all fun and games, or that it's cut throat. It just means they are involved with each other. The existence of alliances and rivalries points to the range of possible relationships in the "community of nations" as does the fact of war and peace as possibilities.

As for small homogenous groups, people identify with others to degrees. We are on one level all human, on the other end their are only a handful of people in your immediate family. Part of defining our groups, at any level, is defining who does not belong. On the one end everyone, currently, is human. Wait until we bump into real aliens. Human prejudice will disappear and it'll be "alien jokes"... At the nation-state level it involves territory, language, culture, history, government etc.. On the family level it's a combination of nature (genetics) and nurture. In each case you know who is part of the group and who is not. In each case we have more in common with that group than we do with outsiders.


Aliens will not end human vs. human prejudice. Alien prejudice will just be in vogue.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who says it has to be that way? It could just as soon wind up like The Sneetches: Shovel enough chaos onto group identity, and eventually the whole thing is revealed for the absurdity it is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was digging through some boxes and was reminded of Deadlands. The CSA could be considered the big bad considering what Jefferson Davis really is.

Not quite the USA, but close.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Who says it has to be that way? It could just as soon wind up like The Sneetches: Shovel enough chaos onto group identity, and eventually the whole thing is revealed for the absurdity it is.

You are against all notions and ideas of group identity? Ethnic, regional and religious?

Curiously postmodernist.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran an Iron Heroes game at one point where the PCs were part of the largely-scattered Powhatan confederation around the start of the American Revolution.

The colonists weren't all bad guys but the players didn't mind killing them if they had something the tribe needed. Everyone felt basically the same way about the British military, although those interactions were handled with a bit more caution.

There were some low-key fantastic elements, but the general landscape was as close as I could get it to Virginia in that era. That said, the old "blood magic user sacrificing slaves to fuel his magic" trope takes on a very different tone when your setting is colonial Virginia. Similarly, stolen places of power being repurposed by evil cults becomes much more intense in context.

Overall it was a good experiment and I would do it again with any reasonably mature group.

Cheers!
Landon


I'm getting a vibe similar to that one from the new Salem series.

It is easy to make early America very dark.


Currently rocking through Sniper Elite v2, which was free on steam today. Up to a mission where you are murdering your Russian allies so as to prevent them getting V2 missile tech.

The war isn't over and already the America character has turned against them. Unclear how much this is from higher up, the char seems to going a bit crazy and "improvising". What started out as kill the German scientists before the Russians get them has got much worst. Now it is kill a lot of Russians.

It is pretty horrifying. They have almost got the Germans beat, and a mysterious sniper starts picking them off.

Any such game from the Russian perspective has potential. Almost wrapped up a war fighting alongside and ally, and the sniper/ninjas start really ripping you a new one. The trust is broken I say!


In Civilization Revolution I play against those pesky Americans and all of their great people and Industry all the time. A tough opponent indeed.


In hearts of iron I was playing as Argentina, and as I sought to unify south America, the northerners kept trying to overthrow my government with coups. I hope they felt embarrassed when it failed.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Ever Game With the USA as Enemy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion