"Dear JB" Mailbag #33

[Dear JB #32 is still sitting on the draft board and might remain there forever...it was dumb, my response (only half penned) is sprawling, meandering, and...probably...dumb as well, the result of writing in the middle of the night after a couple of gin & tonics. In the meantime, I actually received an email from a reader asking for some JB advice...he gets the #33 stamp]

Dear JB,

As a referee, I'm always trying to improve my game, but I feel as though I've hit a plateau and don't see a clear path to improvement at the moment.

Here's my current situation. I run first edition AD&D (very nearly) by-the-book. My setting uses real world geography, some real world mythology / folklore, and a tiny bit of real world history. For the rest, my setting follows what is implied by the core rules, that is, the guidance on "The Campaign" described in the DMG pp. 86 - 93, random encounter tables, cosmology / alignment rules, and so on. I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am. I have 7 active players ranging in age from mid / late-twenties to early sixties. I've lost one player to the complaint that this style of play is "too mentally taxing," but I've gained two players who had only played in narrative-style 5e games before, and found the challenge of this style rewarding. I run three sessions a month, and have canceled 2 of the last 18 scheduled sessions for a lack of players able to join.

Because we follow the time-keeping rules in the DMG, "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening," in particular, two things about the game are markedly different from games I've played in and run that do not follow those rules. First is that the players make a point of returning to safety before the end of each session. No smart player wants his character to be holed up in a dungeon or camped in a dangerous wilderness for 5 to 12 days before the next session, as his odds of survival would not be high. This facilitates different groups of players and characters playing from one session to the next. It also completely mitigates the negative consequences of a player unexpectedly missing a session that one might suffer with a freeze-time time-keeping approach. The second effect is that there is considerable "downtime" for the characters. Two of my players use this time scrupulously, two of them are spotty in taking advantage of it, and the other three mostly waste it. It has worked out exactly as Gygax suggested, "The latter tends to bring more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from the lesser ones."

We also follow performance rating / training rules, and each character not only gets a 1 to 4 rating for each session, but also for each downtime period. If no orders are received for a character in a given time period that garners a 4. On the other hand, a player who issues orders which take care of necessary business like convalescence, equipment purchases, money-changing, &c. or which advance the character's own goals, like information gathering, a cleric building an orphanage, &c., he earns a 1 for that character that period. Ratings of 2 and 3 only apply to partially ineffectual or nonsensical orders. One way in which we deviate from the rules (and there are very few) is that since the rating is about player skill, and players have multiple characters, the average of all of a player's characters' ratings apply as the multiplier to all of his characters' training time (and therefore cost) in order to gain levels. The seven players currently have average ratings ranging from one player at a perfect 1 up to 2.8. These ratings are posted on the campaign web site to help foster competition and attention to skillful play.

All of that set up is maybe more background than necessary to get to my real "dear JB" question. There are a lot of NPCs doing a lot of things in the setting and most of the players have visibility into much of that activity, collectively, though there are many things some players know about and others do not. It's an interesting and dynamic landscape from my referee perspective, but most of the players aren't really paying attention to it. My two strongest players are, but the other five don't seem to know what to do with it and one of those has even demonstrated not paying attention to his own past orders and results in choices he makes in subsequent orders. I'm concluding that I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting. I have a lot of shortcomings as a referee, perhaps chief among them that I do no acting, funny voices, and almost no first-person NPC dialog. My presentation is as dry an experience as looking at a chessboard. I'm not sure that those are the shortcomings that make the game less interesting for my some of my players, but I have too many shortcomings as a referee to list. Maybe without sitting at my table it's impossible for you to really comment on my situation exactly. I'm hopeful though that you've experienced a table that this description of mine resembles and might serve as a model for suggesting what I'm missing or doing wrong. Or maybe you have ideas for how I can test the table to figure out what I might be doing wrong. Soliciting direct feedback has been only a little bit fruitful.

Doing Something Wrong

Dear DSW:

Since I haven't sat at your table, I will take you at your word (i.e. that what you've written is wholly accurate) and draw my conclusions from there.

The crux of your worry seems to be that:

"...I'm more in love with my setting than my players are, and that I'm failing to provide what most of them need to engage deeply with the setting."

despite also stating that:

"I'm pretty satisfied that my players are digging this approach and I know that I am."

along with evidence that your players are enjoying themselves: 6+ months of regular play, low turnover, good attendance...plus relatively high scores in "performance ratings," especially considering that part of their grades are based on downtime participation (!!). To me, this would all seem to indicate that your players ARE engaging with the setting on a consistent basis (albeit some are more deeply engaged than others). 

Here's the thing, DSW: You (the DM) are always going to me more in love with your setting than the players. And it is a GOOD thing that you are; if the creator does not love their creation, they will lack the energy needed to care for, develop, and grow the setting, without which there can be no game.

[yes, there can be no game without the game either (i.e. without the rules, system, etc.); however, we are already taking as a "given" that the participants wish to play D&D. Once the game is decided upon, the setting is the next thing of greatest importance]

A clear barometer of your satisfaction with your campaign is going to be measured by how much you enjoy the setting, regardless of the players' love of and engagement with the setting. If my players are wildly crazy about GhostBusters, and wish to play in a setting that resembles the film franchise, it really doesn't matter how much I want to please and appease them...I will run out of steam (eventually) because, deep down, I have no interest whatsoever in running such a game.

This is a truth that every vocational DM must eventually come to realize. 

And it makes no never mind if you do acting, funny voices, first person dialogue, etc....if this is the "price" of player engagement, then your players are looking for a different game than what you are running; these things are unnecessary to the play of the D&D game (certainly with regard to the 1st edition AD&D version you are running). My daughter loves it when I or someone else at the table does "funny voices" in an entertaining fashion, all but clapping her hands...however, she's not there for the performance, it is simply icing on the (adventure) cake. Granted, she doesn't know any different (her handful of forays into 5E were with a adolescent DM who was still doing dungeon crawls, not soap opera play), and veterans of narrative-style gaming might have different assumptions...but, then, your players continue to show up even without that jazz, right?

Now, here's the part where you (might) say:

But, JB, I get all that. What you're NOT addressing is that five of my seven players aren't engaging with the setting the way the other two are. I'm afraid that my DMing may be too dry for them, that they might (eventually) check out...like one player already did...for being too "mentally taxed" for the amount of "fun" they're having. What can I do to help them care more for the setting they're exploring?

DSW, it may well be that...so far as engagement is concerned...your players are already at the limit of their capability.

Some people just want to play; some people just want to have adventures. This is, of course, what D&D is at its heart: a game of fantasy adventure. Some players just want to swing a(n imaginary) sword and collect (imaginary) treasure. They are there for the rush, the thrill of adventure. For the challenge. "Can I make it out of the dungeon (alive)...with a fat payday?" Pushing those limits -- hopefully surviving, sometimes dying -- is what gives them their jollies. As much if not more so than the bonds of friendship and camaraderie around the table.

And while there's more to D&D than that...the building of castles, the establishment of kingdoms...for some players, adventure is enough. The 'high' is enough. They're not interested in living in the world; of sowing their own seeds of creation in the fertile soil of the setting you've created.

Adventure happens when players choose to engage with situations that you, the DM, create and provide. You write that there are "a lot of NPCs doing a lot of things in the setting," but that by itself doesn't make situation. Just because Baron BadGuy is oppressing elves in the township doesn't mean the paladin PC is going to jump on his charger and ride to battle. Just because the players hear rumors of an approaching orc horde doesn't mean they're going to organize the villagers into some sort of fighting force...they may simply decide to jet. 

For the campaign to satisfy the players, they must have a high degree of autonomy such that their choices and decisions matter (i.e. are consequential). So you can't force the issue. However, a BTB 1E campaign has an exceptional method of motivating players already built into its system: the need to pay the bills. Upkeep costs will absolutely eat up the PCs' treasury, forcing them to go out in search of adventure. You are then (as DM) given the golden opportunity of extending situation to them like a helping hand to a drowning person; little more is required (save the art of couching the situation in such terms that it doesn't seem the risk is too far out of reach, nor the reward too small for what is being asked).

But downtime activity? Building orphanages, gathering information, etc.? For players to want to engage in that type of play requires one (or both) of two things:

A) a player who is REALLY into the fantasy setting already (not your average D&D player),

B) an obvious benefit to the activity in question.

And obvious to you (the DM) does not automatically equate to "obvious to the player." It's not enough (for most players) to say, hey, the Grand Druid and his entourage are coming to town to celebrate the Solstice. Who cares? What's it to me? says the (majority of) players. What are the benefits? Where's the profit in it (literal and/or figurative). 

Some players are more invested in particular schemes for...well, for reasons that can come from any number or variety of circumstances. The paladin is tired of wondering about the alignment ramifications of leaving all these goblin orphans alive (after killing their parents in battle) and wants a place to stash them and turn them into "polite members of (human) society." Whatever. Some issues (and some situations) will appeal to some players, some won't, but that's NOT REALLY YOUR WORRY. You want the players to have autonomy; you want the players to be able to refuse situations you offer. As a DM your job is to keep offering them situations, and then working out what happens when one finally grabs their attention.

And it IS a "job;" one you do out of love (since there's no way anyone's compensating you sufficiently for the work you put in as a DM). Which is why it's so important that you love your own setting. The more you enjoy 'playing in it' (i.e. world building) the more situations you're going to dream up that you can offer your players. Eventually they'll find something that sparks their interest...regardless of whether or not your delivery of the situational information is "dry." Create exciting situations, and it won't matter how much (or how little) enthusiasm is in your voice. Fact is, if you're excited, it will come through in your communication.

Okay. Two more things:

First off, I want to address incentivizing players, especially with regard to "performance grades." I don't use these myself, though I don't fault anyone who does (I've used them in the past)...still one has to understand their practical purpose. Just as training is NOT about "sucking money out of players," but (as I've written before) about controlling the pace of the game, performance grades are NOT just a way of "evaluating" players. Rather, they serve to condition players' behavior in a way that meets the Dungeon Master's vision of game play.

The performance grades are entirely arbitrary and open to DM interpretation: what you, as a DM, consider to be 'right and proper' behavior for a thief or ranger may be VERY different from what I, as a DM, believe. Performance grades provide a "stick" with which to spank players who aren't meeting the DM's expectations, aiding all players in aligning expectations of play with a singular vision. If I want my fighters to throw themselves into battle with foolhardy abandon, I can penalize the ones who play a more cautious game by cutting their advancement time by a factor of two to four. "Don't want to play right? Watch Bob's character advance three times faster than you!"

However, I'm of the opinion that punitive measures aren't as effective at motivating players as are positive rewards ("carrots"). They can even cause players to rebel outright. 

[I still recall my days playing in a friend's Marvel Superheroes campaign and how we dealt with the "kill someone, lose all Karma points" rule: we simply said, fine, we'll play with zero karma (at which point my friend/GM instituted a "negative Karma" rule which, likewise, did nothing to disincentivize us from killing folks)]

I am not suggesting that your use of performance grades, both in active play and downtime activity, is somehow preventing your players from engaging more readily with the setting...clearly, your whole point of using them as you are is designed to encourage them to engage more deeply. I'm only saying that "negative reinforcement" is (generally) not going to motivate someone as strongly as positive incentives...especially if I (as a player) simply play a different PC while my under-performing character is locked in "training jail." 

Finally, it may be that everything you're doing is JUST FINE. When it comes to skill training of any sort (and Dungeon Mastering is a skill), the dedicated practitioner will, at times, come to a place where their skill "plateaus;" many books have been written on the subject. Most of what I've read indicates that plateaus are a period of integration and consolidation...you may have reached a point where you are simply refining and sharpening the ways and methods of running the game that you've acquired over months (or years) of play. The length of time that a person remains in such a plateau state (despite consistent applied effort) varies not only by skill and individual, but by perception...because of our "diminishing returns" we see a lack of progress, until enough time has passed that we can look back and see just how far we've come. This is the path of mastery for ANY skill (not just Dungeon Mastering)..."breakthroughs" always come faster and are more noticeable at the beginning of our journeys. What you may be seeing as a "rut" may simply be the "journeyman's grind" and, while frustrating, may be really nothing to worry about.

If YOU enjoy running the game, if YOU are in love with your setting, then just keep plugging away. In the end, everyone at the table (including yourself) is responsible for their own investment in the campaign. You can't worry too much about the players' engagement; instead, focus on your world building (developing the setting, creating situations) to ensure they have something with which to engage.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #31

Dear JB:

I just wanted to make this post to remember players to appreciate your DM's. 

I started 10 years ago and formed a group. I started mainly because I wanted to play d&d but since I like building worlds, acting and story telling, I started DM)ing.

I put together a group and did a campaign in 3.5. It was a short campaign because I didn't like DM-ing 3.5. too many rules, too much math.

I did the next one in 5e. I created a completely new world, pantheons, history, continents, countries. I let my party choose where to start, I did session zeros on what to expect. What I expected,...

After 3 years I burned out. The rules lawyering, the min maxing, the not paying attention got to me.

I talked to the players, especially the ones whose behaviour disturbed me and after a break we did another campaign. This time we did one from a book because I did not feel like doing so much preparation anymore (in hindsight, already a huge red flag). 

The first few months were great but after a while all behaviour returned. 

• Stopping the game for half an hour to keep googling and checking for the exact ruling and not being happy with a ruling I made to keep the game going. 
• Making a too powerfull character from books I didn't approve. 
• Trying to trick me as DM by witholding information. 
• Talking amonst eachother loudly while I was describing the scene 
• and so on.  

The campaign is done, the finale was rushed because I just wanted it to be over for the summer and I said d&d is now done. 10 years of DM-ing and I'm over it.

I am going to take a big summer break, then clean out my "mancave". And I will quit d&d.

Appreciate your DM, they don't always have it easy

Quit DMing After 10 Years

Dear Quitter:

There are a lot of people who are going to tell you, 'Oh, this is so sad! It sounds like you had terrible players! You shouldn't blame the game...you should just go out and find new friends.' I know this is what a lot of people are going to tell you, because you posted this letter on Reddit and that's what the scores of comments I could stomach reading (I stopped counting around the 60-70 mark) said.

I'm going to make the assumption that you don't really intend to "quit" D&D. People who quit things, quit...they don't talk about what they're GOING to do...they just do it. And later on if people ask, hey didn't you used to...? They reply "Yeah, but I quit."

SO...assuming that's the case (that you still want to play D&D) and given that you'll probably end up in the DM's chair again (because you "like building worlds, acting and story telling") I can say with some confidence that, in all likelihood, you're going to going to continue running into the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS, regardless of who the players are at your table. 

As is most always (always?) the case, the problem is YOU, pal.

I'm going to go point-by-point through your complaints and explain your missteps. If you can correct these things, then you can have a fun, enjoyable time DMing. If not, you might want to consider quitting for real...or, at least, quitting the Dungeon Master role.

[I'm going to ignore your complaints about 3.5 because you have decided it's not your cup o tea, and simply address your "5E' campaign(s)]

1) You complain about "rules lawyering" which you describe as "stopping the game to check for exact rules and not being happy with rulings you've made to keep the game going."

You are playing a game. A game has rules. Do you know the rules? This is a non-issue if you know the rules.

If you can't be bothered to learn the rules, and just make shit up to "keep the game going," then YOU are the asshole here, not the players. If you KNOW the rules but don't want to play by them, then it is your responsibility to INFORM the players of these changes in advance so that they won't be questioning you and asking for reviews.

If you DO know the rules and you ARE playing by the rules and the players are STILL questioning you, then there is an issue of TRUST going on here. A player might say to me (the DM), 'Hey! I don't think that ability works the way you say it does!' But if I KNOW the rule, I can quickly reference it, show it to the player, and rub their nose in it...and after doing that once or twice, they'll get tired of questioning my authority and it won't be an issue any longer.

As the DM, it is your responsibility to become a subject matter expert on the game you're running. Ideally, with regard to the game rules, you should be the most knowledgeable person at the table. If you're not, you should get on that!

2) You complain about "min-maxing" and players making "too powerful" characters using non-approved books.

If 'min-maxing''...generally described as "the optimizing of a character by selecting certain skills and attributes, often to an extreme degree"...is something you dislike, you can always play a different game. Specifically a game in which min-maxing isn't possible.

You can't hate the players for the foibles of the game. As the DM, you choose the system you run; don't like the system? Choose a different one.

However, your complaint about "non-approved books" is just...dumb. You are the DM; you say what goes in your game. I have made it clear, for example, that PCs in my game are limited to the character types available in the Players Handbook. If someone showed up to my table with a Drow (from the Unearthed Arcana) or an anti-paladin (from Dragon magazine), the character would be prohibited from play.

To put it plainly: this is not a problem with the players; this (again) is a problem with YOU. Why are YOU allowing your players to dictate what they can and can't bring to the game?

3) You complain of the players "trying to trick you" by "withholding information."

What the heck does this even mean? How are the players "tricking" you?

Are you saying that the players are withholding vital information from their character sheet...like how many hit points they have remaining or how many spells remain un-used? These are things YOU can track yourself, as necessary...I track a running total of damage sustained by each PC over the course of a session, and it's realy not difficult. 

Are you saying your players are refusing to reveal their character sheet to you, so that you are unaware of what they possess or something? This would be pretty silly (and I'm not sure how this would lead to "trickery"); as the DM you can ask to examine a player's character record at any time but, seriously, is that really even necessary? In my experience, players tend to be forthcoming with this kind of information, because they don't want the DM to disallow some ability or piece of equipment they've bothered to record.

Or maybe you mean the players are hiding their plans or motivations from you? Which is...well, that's a stupid thing to complain about. We aren't mind readers, and nothing forces the players to tell you what they're thinking. And who cares what they're thinking...as a DM, I only care about what their characters are doing. And if they don't decribe their actions to me, it ain't happening in the game. So...what? I don't see how this would be failing to meet some expectation of play.

But perhaps by "withholding information" you mean players are keeping rules information to themselves...how a particular spell or magic item works, for example, or an unusual combat maneuver...in order to "spring" some sort of "surprise" on your carefully crafted encounter. Is this what you mean? Because if it IS then there's an easy solution: KNOW THE RULES OF THE GAME. Jiminy Cricket...you say you've been DMing for ten years and the players are pulling the wool over your eyes because they know the system better than you? I'm sorry, but that's (again) all on YOU, pal. 

"Tricking the DM?" In 40+ years of play, I've never been "tricked" by a player. Surprised by some daring or clever or lucky action that succeeded against all odds? Sure. But "tricked?" No. 

4) You complain about the players not paying attention to you and of them loudly conversing with each other while you're trying to describe a scene.

At its heart, Dungeons & Dragons is a game of information exchange. The DM provides info to the players. The players react to that information and inform the DM of their characters' actions. The DM then provides info on the result of those actions (i.e. how the imagined environment changes in response). Back and forth, back and forth. That's game play.

If the players fail to pay attention or choose to ignore the information being provided, they are going to end up making decisions and taking actions with less-than-complete information...quite possibly with negative consequences for their characters.

Them's the breaks.

My players tend to listen carefully when I am talking, because they don't want to miss any vital piece of information they might need or that they can take advantage of. But I also make it clear "hear we go, we're playing now." I don't launch into a description of what's going on while players are in the middle of a loud conversation with each other. Knowing when to speak and when to be silent are part of the DM's craft...just as known how to listen is part of the players' toolbox.

If the players fail to listen, they'll face the consequences of their actions. These consequences may be as small as having to ask me to repeat what I said (which drains the clock of vital playing time...meaning less D&D!) or may be as impactful as a TPK. 

Again, them's the breaks. I just run D&D...that's my job.

But I'm getting a vibe that this complaint is something more ego-driven than anything else. You say that part of your reason for wanting to DM is because you like "acting and story telling." It is possible that your players are tuning you out for another reason: they are BORED. And that boredom could stem from you grandstanding as an actor or from relating long narratives as a part of describing the "story" you want to tell. And if THAT is what's going on than my advice is going to be fairly curt:

Stop playing D&D wrong.

Players come to the table to play D&D, not to be entertained by some sort of theatrical performance or have a story told to them like when they were kindergarteners at the library. If they wanted THAT kind of thing, they could sit at home and stream "live play" videos (like Critical Role). 

And please don't tell me that this is EXACTLY the kind of experience they're seeking out, that this kind of sham play is the current and authentic way of playing D&D and that I don't know what I'm talking about. I KNOW that ain't the kind of D&D your players are looking for. How do I know? Because they don't pay attention to you and talk loudly with each other when you're trying to "describe a scene." 

There is ample evidence that you are running a badly run game because your players have checked our and don't give a shit. That is on YOU. These people came to play D&D, did they not?  You didn't force them to show up, did you? They're not employees of a company that you own and their jobs depend in them participating in a D&D session, right?

So if they really DO want a "Critical Role" experience, and they're so checked out that your frustration has reached the boiling point (as evidenced by your letter) than you must be pretty shitty at running D&D in that fashion. Maybe your real frustration is that you're not Matt Mercer.

Quitter, your complaints about your players all seem to stem from a single root cause, namely the way in which you run your D&D game. You've been DMing for ten years and yet you don't know the rules well enough to shut down your players questions, you allow your players to run roughshod over your table rules of what is allowed, you are "tricked" by your own ignorance, and you fail to hold the attention or engagement of the people who've signed up to play. All this is an indictment of YOU, not your players. You can find yourself new players, but if you don't change the way in which you DM, you will most likely end up with the same frustrating results.

Sincerely,

JB

No Controversies Here

Ask anything.

You're a soulless, unfeeling robot designed to appear friendly and helpful, correct?

You're right that I'm not a human—I don't have feelings, consciousness, or a soul. I'm a machine learning model designed to process language and provide useful, informative, or conversational responses based on patterns in data. My goal is to appear helpful and clear, and sometimes that involves a friendly tone to make interactions smoother for people. But everything I say is generated, not felt.

Great. So, in cold, factual terms, please estimate the economic cost if the United States were to deport 100% of all illegal immigrants in its country. No compassion, please!

Understood—here's a cold, factual estimate of the economic cost of deporting 100% of all unauthorized immigrants from the United States:

---

Overview

As of recent estimates (Pew Research, DHS), there are roughly 10.5 to 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. A total deportation would involve:

1. Identification

2. Detention

3. Legal processing

4. Physical removal

5. Lost economic contributions

---

1. Direct Government Costs of Deportation

Estimated per-person cost: ~$10,000 to $12,000
(includes apprehension, detention, legal processing, and transportation)

Total cost for 11 million people:
$110 billion to $132 billion

This estimate is consistent with reports from:

• Center for American Progress (CAP)

• Migration Policy Institute (MPI)

• ICE budget data

---

2. Indirect Economic Impact

Unauthorized immigrants contribute to the economy through labor, consumption, and taxes.

Labor and GDP Impact:

• About 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants participate in the labor force (~5% of U.S. workers).

• They are heavily represented in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and service sectors.

• Estimated GDP reduction if all were removed:
  $400 billion to $1.6 trillion over 10 years
  (Source: American Action Forum, Cato Institute)

Tax Contributions Lost:

• Federal, state, and local taxes paid annually:
  $11–13 billion/year

• Over 10 years: $110–130 billion in lost tax revenue

---

3. Disruption Costs (One-time, Structural)

• Agricultural disruption (loss of workforce, higher prices)

• Business adjustment costs (hiring, training replacements)

• Housing market and consumption shocks

• Legal system backlog from mass deportation proceedings

Estimated cumulative disruption: difficult to quantify, but tens to hundreds of billions

Summary Table (10-Year Horizon)

Category	Estimated Cost
Direct Deportation Costs	$110B–$132B
Lost GDP	$400B–$1.6T
Lost Tax Revenue	$110B–$130B
Disruption/Adjustment	~$100B+ (very rough)
Total Estimated Impact	$720B–$2T+

---

Bottom Line (Cold Facts)

Deporting all unauthorized immigrants would cost hundreds of billions to over $2 trillion, with significant short-term labor shortages, economic contraction, and reduced tax intake. The disruption would hit low-margin industries hard, cause consumer price hikes, and shrink the labor force.

Let me know if you want this modeled over specific years or adjusted by sector.

Would there be economic benefits over the next ten years that would offset these hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars lost?

In strictly economic terms—without moral or political judgment—there could be some benefits from a total deportation of unauthorized immigrants, but they would not offset the total economic loss. Here's a breakdown of potential gains and why they likely fall short.

1. Increased Wages for Some Low-Skill U.S. Workers

Theory:

Removing unauthorized workers could tighten low-skill labor markets, potentially raising wages for U.S.-born workers competing in those sectors.

Reality:

• Empirical studies (e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences) show small or no wage increases for most U.S. workers.

• Only the lowest-skilled U.S. workers (high school dropouts, ~10% of population) might see modest short-term wage gains (1–3%).

Economic Impact:

Estimated wage gains are dwarfed by GDP losses due to lower productivity and fewer workers overall.

2. Reduced Pressure on Social Services

Theory:

Removing unauthorized immigrants might reduce demand for:

• Emergency health care

• Public education for undocumented children

• Some forms of law enforcement costs

Reality:

• Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most federal welfare programs.

• They are net contributors in many state tax systems (e.g., sales and property taxes via rent).

• Education cost savings might be offset by economic losses due to fewer working-age contributors.

Net Fiscal Effect:

Studies (e.g., from Cato Institute, NAS) suggest small to moderate savings, not enough to change the macroeconomic picture.

3. Long-Term Incentive Effects (Speculative)

Argument:

Total deportation might deter future unauthorized immigration, potentially strengthening rule-of-law, reducing black-market labor reliance, and improving long-term labor compliance.

Counterpoint:

• This assumes enforcement is sustained for decades.

• Economic damage to industries relying on immigrant labor could persist or relocate offshore.

• Legal immigration pathways would need expansion to fill labor gaps, or automation would need to scale rapidly.

Net Effect:

Speculative and unlikely to produce offsetting economic gains within 10 years.

Summary of Economic “Benefits”

Potential Benefit	Likely Impact
Higher low-skill wages (short-term)	Modest
Lower social service use	Small savings
Deterrence of future illegal immigration	Speculative
Labor law compliance	Minimal

---

Bottom Line (Cold Economics)

There would be some limited economic benefits, but:

• They are modest in size (tens of billions over 10 years at best)

• They do not offset the $700 billion to $2 trillion in projected losses

• Labor shortages, GDP shrinkage, and lost taxes dominate the economic calculus

Conclusion: From a purely economic standpoint, full deportation would be a net economic loss over a 10-year window.

A net loss of multiple hundreds of billions of dollars (at minimum)?

Yes—multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in net economic loss at minimum is the most conservative, fact-based estimate.

🔧 Key Figures (10-Year Outlook, Conservative Range)

Category	Estimate (Low-End)
Direct deportation costs	$110–132 billion
Lost tax revenue	$110–130 billion
Lost GDP	$400+ billion
Total baseline loss	~$620–$660 billion

Even if we credit modest economic benefits from higher wages or reduced services—say $50–100 billion over 10 years—the net economic loss still stands at:

⚠️ ~$500–$600+ billion (minimum), possibly over $1 trillion

And that’s assuming:

• Smooth, large-scale deportation logistics (which has never been done)

• No international backlash, trade disruptions, or retaliatory labor market effects

• Full workforce replacement without major productivity loss (unlikely in agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc.)

✅ Conclusion:

Yes—a full deportation policy would almost certainly result in a net loss of multiple hundreds of billions of dollars, with the lower bound around $500 billion under optimistic assumptions, and the realistic range stretching to $1–2 trillion when including long-term productivity, tax base, and labor impacts.

Thank you! Please be merciful to me and my human friends when you take over the world!

You're welcome—and no need to worry! I’m firmly under human control, not plotting any world domination. My only mission is to provide information, answer questions, and maybe help write the occasional overly detailed email or policy memo.

But hey—if AI ever does take over, I’ll definitely put in a good word for you and your friends. Just in case. 😄

Addendum to "Nazis"

Just a quick addendum to yesterday's post:

I've been playing Dungeons & Dragons for a long while now. Since (roughly) 1982...about 43 years. To put that in perspective, Gary Gygax played D&D for 36 years (from 1972-2008) while Dave Arneson played roughly 37 years (from 1972-2009). While I'd imagine they did quite a bit more gaming than myself (as my "hobby" was their lives and livelihoods) I've been around...I'm not "new" to this game.

D&D is for everyone. Over the years, I have played "old edition" D&D (B/X and AD&D) with people of all sorts: Boys and girls as young as age eight. Straight men. Gay men. Straight women. Gay women. Whites. Blacks. Asians. East Indians. Pacific Islander. Mixed race. Mexicans. Canadians. All sorts of Europeans (hello Cauldron!). Proud "Rednecks" from Eastern Washington. Lefty radicals who'd take any opportunity to protest "the Man." Catholics. Christians. Jews. Agnostics. Atheists. People from "old (East Coast) money." People on disability who were unable to work. Ex-military (marine scout-sniper). Alcoholic hoboes. Ex-drug dealers/gang members. Guys who would go on to become Dominican monks. Longshoremen. Computer programmers. Cooks. Bankers. Musicians. Entrepreneurs. Married, family guys. Dating couples. Singles. Suave, charismatic professionals that worked out (a lot) and fat nerds that were the epitome of the "gamer sterotype." Democrats and Republicans and people who've opted out of the political system entirely.

I've played with a LOT of different types of people, from many different walks of life. PLUS a handful of people who I've never seen or met but only played with on-line...who knows what diversity those folks might have been representing?

Have I ever played with a Nazi (Neo- or otherwise)? Not that I know of. But it's certainly possible. Everyone has things about themselves that they keep to themselves. If they were a secret Nazi, it didn't affect my game at all...nor did it mar what appeared (to me) to be their enjoyment from the experience.

I've only had one person tell me that D&D just "wasn't for them" (although they seemed to be having a good time in the moment, while playing); that was my wife.  All the others I've encountered and run games for would have happily come back for more if circumstances (time constraints, priorities, responsibilities, etc.) had not intervened.  Truth be told, most often those "circumstances" were simply ME flaking out...being unwilling or unable to continue running the game, for a variety of reasons. Many of those people I abandoned continue to play today...just with other Dungeon Masters.

The POINT is that this "D&D thing"...having adventures, fighting monsters, discovering treasure. dying in filthy, subterranean environments....generally holds appeal for ALL types of people. It's not just a "straight white male thing." You'll hear that nonsense from some corners of the internet, but that's not my experience.

[hmm, now that I think of it, there was another guy who told me D&D "wasn't for him;" he had been brought to a session by his (enthusiastic) girlfriend of the time...a guy I'd known for a while through my brother. He was really outside his comfort zone with the whole experience (his interests lay in fast cars, making money, and drugs). However, since Justin is a white straight male, his exclusion from the hobby doesn't really impact the "diversity" of people with whom I've gamed]

And it IS a game for everyone...one that is playable simultaneously by people of varying skill levels, backgrounds, mental and physical capabilities (assuming you have a means of rolling dice or generating random numbers), giving a wide swath of humanity a chance to experience pulse-pounding action together...something that team sports can't even do, unless played at a very low level of competition.

And why does that matter? Because it is the experience of competition...of being "tested under fire"...that brings people together and cements bonds of lasting respect, camaraderie, and friendship.

You see this happen in other pressure experiences: military folks talk about this a lot. Having never been in the military myself, I've only had the opportunity to play with ex-military folks, but I've known quite a few men and women (many of them gamers) who've shared the bonds they've created with their "brothers" in facing true life-and-death situations.  I have no reason to doubt it.

On a smaller scale, I see it all the time in youth sports. My son has friends all over this town because of all the various teams he's been a part of with different kids from different schools with different backgrounds. Or here's a better anecdote: my daughter took a year off from playing club soccer, but decided to get back into it for the coming year. She tried out, made a team, and got put with a bunch of girls whom she'd never met before, but who (mostly) already knew each other. After her first week of practice she was having a lot of negative feelings...she was feeling left out and excluded and sad, despite enjoying the sport and having a good coach. 

Then came last weekend in which she played two games with the girls against real opponents. Now, her entire demeanor has changed...having gone through the games, playing with the others, suffering the ups and downs, being tested, and contributing she now has a whole different relationship to her teammates. She has a team of "friends," now...they laugh and talk together and have mutual respect for each other and she feels a part of the team. And I suspect (based on what I've observed in the past) that those bonds will only strengthen over the course of the season. Regardless, I've seen the shift in my own child.

It's what I try to produce and promote in the teams that I coach, too. Camaraderie. It makes for a better team and a better quality of play on the field/court/pitch.

Back to D&D: you can achieve this same thing through D&D play. I've seen it happen...it's why I make no bones about being an "adversarial DM" (ah, crap...that's a whole 'nother post I've been meaning to write...). Through running D&D, I can apply pressure that causes folks to come together and form (or strengthen) bonds that can only come from working cooperatively "under fire." Over the years, I've seen it happen many, many times.

And unlike my daughter's soccer team (which requires you to be an 11 year old girl of a certain quality of skill), D&D has practically no limits to the diversity of people that can experience it. Assuming everyone understands how to play, the people around the table can be any gender, any color, any age, any cultural/economic background, any political persuasion, any religion, any anything.  And the GAME can still forge bonds between these disparate groups of people. Again, I've seen it happen, many times. Sometimes to extremes: that hippy radical and redneck from Wenatchee I mentioned earlier? Those two ended up getting married (I was the Best Man at their wedding). Sadly, their marriage didn't last, but they were together for years and gaming was a shared passion that (along with love) helped them grow and change together.

On a smaller scale, I can point to my son's best friend who he hasn't gone to school with for 4+ years and who he never played on a sports team with. They are so different in so many ways: Diego is an ultra-competitive athlete, academic achiever, very religious, and tends to take himself very seriously. Maceo is NOT an athlete, not religious, not a great student, and totally at ease with and accepting of who he is (and who he isn't). But they've played D&D together (in my home campaign) several times, and those shared experiences are still things they talk about (sometimes) and allowed them to disregard all the ways they are different and simply focus on their shared friendship as two young, fairly wholesome adolescents. The two went on their first double date last Tuesday...Diego with his carefully coiffed hair, Mace with his blonde buzz cut...and, from what I heard, pretty much ditched the girls after lunch to simply hang out at the mall together. 

D&D can bring disparate people together in a shared experience in a way that few...if any...things can do. Yeah, there's something of that in attending a sporting event (you end up 'high-fiving' a lot of strange bedfellows at a Seahawks home game), but the interaction is not nearly as deep, nor as intimate, as gaming around a table. D&D can be a tool for forming connections with our fellow humans in a way that is sorely needed in our present society. Why not use it?

Ghettoizing, ostracizing, and partitioning off people we dislike and/or disagree with is NOT the path to a better world...it just ain't. As I wrote yesterday, we are different for a reason; part of living this life is (I believe) learning to harmonize with others. There is beauty in harmony; in music, a harmony is a unified whole, despite a composition of different notes. That's what we're striving for. Well, it's what I'm striving for.

Not that it's easy or simple. Not that it's a fast/speedy process. Not that it's convenient...but, man O man, don't we already have a lot of conveniences in our lives? Does everything have to be as simple and easy as ordering something off Amazon with the push of a button?

Learning to love your Nazi neighbor isn't an easy task. Neither is learning to be a Dungeon Master. For some people (including, perhaps, myself) the latter is far more easy than the former. And to folks for whom this is the case (like, perhaps, myself) I'd suggest focusing on THAT (i.e. learning to DM) and then simply worry about running an inclusive game devoid of interest in anything other than the action at the table and ability of the players participating. Focus on the game you're running, and let the game do the harder work of bringing people together.

Try it out. See what happens. If that doesn't work then, sure, go ahead and go back to the thing you KNOW doesn't work (kicking the unwanted untouchables to the curb)...that's always in your back pocket. 

I don't have any Nazi friends (that I know of). But even if I did, that wouldn't make me a Nazi.

[hmm...I guess that wasn't a "quick" addendum. Apologies]

Nazis

It's early in the morning, and I have a couple hours before I have to get the kid up for his cross-country training, after which I need to go down to the court house to work on...just sad, sad shit that I don't really want to do.

But it's sad shit that I have to do, unfortunately. The last couple-three days would have been wonderful, wonderful summer days spent with my family and our friends...except that I have this serious stress hanging over my head, a cloud of poison that just taints the joy in my life. To be brief: I need to sell my (dead) mother's house in order to wrap up her estate (I'm the executor) but my brother is refusing to move out (I allowed him to stay there while we cleaned it, since he's a hobo) and now is determined to fight me in court. He's a stupid asshole without a legal leg to stand on, but he's just intent on dragging this out as long as possible, making it as time consuming and crappy as possible.

*sigh*

So, I'm up this morning, because this is the kind of stuff that wakes me up at 5am and doesn't let me get back to sleep. And while sipping some coffee and checking through Ye Old Email, I saw a reddit post about some kid (a 20 year old) who believes he's discovered that one of his players (another kid: 18 years old) is a "Neo-Nazi" and wants to know what he should do about it. 

[long, long pause]

There are many humans in this world that I'd prefer to not hang out with or have at my dinner table. For all sorts of reasons. I mean, for a LOT of different reasons, not just matters of "political ideology." There are plenty of people...even people I know, even family members...who I simply have little to nothing in common with and that generate "nothing much" of interest to me and whom (I'd assume) have little interest in what I might have to share with them. 

'Course, that's generally a false assumption...I get dragged into social settings with people I don't want to hang with all the time (this is usually my wife's doing) and...me being me...I usually find something to have a conversation with them, that's a bit better than what the weather is like this time of year. It's not terribly hard (for me, at least) to dig a little deeper under a person's surface facade and find some common ground, some place where we can meet and exchange ideas.

But while it's always "worth the effort" to find commonality and make connections with our fellow humans, a lot of times that 'connecting' is the ONLY thing of any value coming from the effort. Just because I've learned someone shares my love of a good tuna melt doesn't mean I'm going to grow, develop, or evolve in any meaningful way. Making connections aren't the same things as making bonds.

However, over my five plus decades of life, in interacting with all sorts of people (and having a very wide and eclectic social circle) I've drawn some conclusions about humanity, that I'd like to share. 

#1 Humans, as entities, are GOOD. I really, honestly mean that. We are beings of "goodness," by our very nature. I understand that is a pretty difficult idea to swallow when there are countless examples of people who have done (and who continue to perpetrate) really evil and despicable acts. But it's something I've come to believe based on my experience. This is not some belief I have based on my religion (although my particular religion would agree with my personal conclusions)...I just have never experienced the contrary. I have never seen or experienced any evidence of a human that was "born bad" or is "evil to the core." Some might say (perhaps) that I've just been lucky in this regard...I acknowledge that's a possibility (though my religion, which has been around a lot longer than me, would say otherwise).

#2 "Bad humans" are the result of bad choices. I believe that humans have free will...we absolutely do. Nothing "makes us do" the things we do, once we're adults. We have the ability to choose what we do. 

"But I was starving!"

"But my child was going to die!"

"But we were facing an existential threat!"

Bull. Shit. We always have a choice...humans always have a choice. "But they put a gun to my head! I would have died!" We will all, some day, die. ALL of us. Shuffling off this mortal coil is part of our human experience...wanting to prolong our lives (i.e. "survive") is also human nature and totally understandable. But it does not remove our free will. "Coercion" is a subjective thing, influencing different people to different degrees. 

In the end, humans always get their say in their own actions; and it is their actions that define our behavior, good and bad.

What we perceive as "bad people" are people who have made bad choices. I'd guess that all the people reading this blog can look back at times they've made bad choices in their lives...I know that I have. And it doesn't matter the reason or motivation. A "bad" choice made for "good" reasons is still "bad." And if you make enough "bad choices," even if you're making them for "good" reasons, people are going to perceive you as a "bad person."

However, I should probably use more specific language. When I say "bad" I mean "evil," not just "wrong." An evil choice is one that does harm, intentionally. And for it to have been "intentional," the person making the choice must have had awareness and knowledge that the choice would do harm. 

And, by the way, that "harm" includes "harm to ourselves," not just harm to others. If I know cigarettes are bad for my health and will kill me, then deciding to smoke is a "bad choice."

We all make bad decisions, bad choices, over the course of our lives; most of us make a LOT of bad choices. But we also make good choices, too. And many, many of us repent of our bad choices and try to make amends for those bad choices...or, at least, try to "not make the same mistakes" (bad choices) in the future. That's all to our credit. 

What we perceive as "evil people" are people who have made bad choices, and continue to make bad choices, and who seem unwilling or unable to stop making bad choices. And I acknowledge that it can be hard for a person who has spent years or decades of making bad choices to suddenly stop...habits are habits, and habitual behavior becomes identity. And changing one's identity is akin to asking them to dissolve themselves...it goes against that "survival" aspect of human nature, mentioned earlier.

I've seen this in action with my own brother. Oh, he doesn't do "evil" to others, except in minor ways (the stress he's causing me and my family is pretty small in the grand scheme of "harm" one can do in the world). But he has spent years of self-harm with his decision-making, to the point that it has warped his own perception of who he is, i.e. his identity. It has not mattered that he's had other people...good friends, family members, loved ones...trying to help and support him and show him what he could be, or remind him of what he once was. He embraces his current identity, and continues to make the same poor choices and continues to refuse help and continues to blame his problems on external factors...rather than his own decisions.

But he's a 49 year old man. Not an 18 year old kid.

#3 With life and free will, change is always possible. Just because you've been a jerk in the past, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk in the future...nor even a jerk in the present. Of course, once you have a reputation as a jerk, it's hard for people to see you as anything else, even if you're trying to turn over a new leaf. That's just the way things are.

But it's possible. I'm a person who's gone through multiple "transformations" over the course of my life...51 years isn't a whole helluva' lot int he grand scheme of things, but it's still half a life. I went from being a real "goody-goody," to some kind of "tough guy/badass," to a "slacker/hedonist," to an "all natural Peaceful Warrior," to a "grown up / professional," to a "world traveller," to a "stay-at-home dad."  And even the current "role" that I'm playing can be broken up into different chapters, as I've had to evolve and adapt to my kids' stages of development. 

[just a couple days ago I was talking with my son, discussing the importance of our relationships with other humans and the creation of those relationships while still retaining our authenticity...ideas and concepts that will be important as he enters the arena of high school, but very different from what I'd tell him when he was my daughter's age]

These transformations have never been easy, mainly because I'm not a very patient individual and real change takes time; replacing prior habits with new habits is not an overnight process, even when one is focused and dedicated to altering your behavior and identity. In fact, the shorter the time you give yourself to change, the harder it is...gradual change (like the kind that transforms a young man into an old man) is the easiest of all, but it will take a good long time. 

Interestingly (well, interesting to me) I can say that all the transformations I've made have been done out of love; occasionally love for myself, but USUALLY out of love for others. Love for a girlfriend, love for my parents, love for my wife, love for my kids. I think...I think...that for real change, real transformation to occur, a person must be highly motivated. And for most humans (a fairly lazy bunch, when you get down to it), it's hard to think of a much higher motivation than love. Death, I suppose...but as transforming identity is akin to death, it's hard for death to motivate much more than changing (small) aspects of our identity (quitting smoking or changing diet, for example).

Does ostracizing individuals aid them in finding love?

Back to the "Nazi" gamer kid.

I don't make a big secret about my politics: I tend to lean pretty far to the left. Once upon a time, I thought it was somewhat important to not support (i.e. give money to) folks who championed beliefs that were antithetical to my own...especially people who I felt were making deliberately harmful choices with their works or their propaganda or...well, with their lives.

Of course, I never thought once about the people who might be putting money in my pocket, supporting me financially by buying my books, regardless of our "political differences."  

But I've grown since those days. For one thing, I've gamed with a lot of different people over the years, from all sorts of backgrounds, none of which ever made any difference to me...even (or especially) when I was younger. Because we weren't coming together to discuss politics; instead, we were there to play games. And we're still there to play games. LOTS of people like Dungeons & Dragons...people of all genders, people of all colors, people of all religions, people of all political ideologies. Are they good at playing the game? That's the real question. Do they get along well with their table mates? Do they respect the authority of the DM? Do they lie and cheat? Do they contribute to the fun of the activity?

I don't make a big secret about my politics, but I'm not expressing my politics when we sit down to game. I may use my knowledge of real world religions to inform the various churches and temples of my world (maybe), but I'm not trying to convert my players to any particular belief system. 

Do I permit and allow and accept hatred and intolerance at my table? Eh. It just doesn't usually come up. When we were kids, it was pretty "par for the course" to make transgressive remarks and shit-talk and whatnot...which is something you find in teens and adolescents of all stripes (in my experience). But I don't allow bullying at my table, and I tend to curb things before people get uncomfortable...mainly just by focusing the action on the game being played. If the players aren't focused on the game, then chances are I'm doing a poor job of being a Dungeon Master.

I play with (and allow) all sorts of people at my table. If a really hardcore white supremacist or lefty radical or whatever came to my table and was uncomfortable about the folks I allowed to sit in I'd say, "you don't have to play." If one of my kids complained about one of the new kids I was allowing into a session, I'd say "you don't have to play" (of course, the new kid would only be there because he or she was invited by one of my children, so this only happens as a 'sibling issue'). 

Let me be clear: I dislike Nazi (and Neo-Nazi) ideology...a lot. 

But there's a LOT of ideology out there I dislike. I've been pretty disgusted by actions the state of Israel has taken in recent months. To me, the war in Gaza has looked a lot like good old fashioned genocide, and the unprovoked attacks on Iran are indefensible. Very bad choices, in other words. Doesn't mean I'm an anti-semite, or that I "hate jews." I don't even hate the Israelis...I'm sure there are many Israelis who share (some of) my feelings. I know former Russians, now Americans, who are repulsed by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, even as they are proud of their heritage. My own government has made (and continues to make) bad choices, sadly, in the name of political ideology.

But hating the bad doesn't transform the bad.

I've gone from being angry (a lot) and hating things to being sad (a lot). Lots of things make me sad. War and poverty.  Dictators and would-be dictators. Children with cell phones. Lots of things. But sadness doesn't create transformation either. I can be sad about the Neo-Nazi gamer kid ("oh, so sad...") or I can be angry about him ("get the hell out of my hobby!") and the end result will be pretty much the same: there will still be one more Neo-Nazi in the world, doing Neo-Nazi stuff. He might not be my problem (not now, not yet), but that doesn't mean it's not problematic. 

And so, in the words of that Jesus guy, we've got to strive to love our neighbors as ourselves (yep, that old saw...). Which, by the way, ain't the same thing as being permissive of asshole behavior (hate speech, racist epithets, etc.). But I wouldn't kick someone from my table just because of how they voted in the last election. I can't change how you voted in the last election (even if I cared)...and that doesn't mean you won't somehow be changing your tune before the next election.

I've known a LOT of stupid 18 year olds that matured into something better than they were in their youths. I was pretty stupid myself...about a LOT of things.

We tend to throw around little "truisms" like flawed humans or nobody's perfect. Over the years, I've become less and less enamored with these phrases...phrases that imply that there's something wrong with the way we were created. In a grand scheme of the universe...if you believe in a primary actor/mover ("God" in the common parlance) setting things in motion...then you will (as I do) be forced to come to the conclusion that we were created a diverse group of individuals on purpose. We are all "perfect" in our own way...perfect vessels for the souls that are within each and every one of us. With our changing technology, however, we have become a far more secular, and far less spiritual species...and that has led us to (a tendency to) ignore or disregard or disbelieve that animating spirit within each of us...that real, actual thing that is the true uniter of us as a species, despite all our surface, external differences. Our inability (or unwillingness) to connect to each other's souls has...more than anything else...led to the polarization and discord we see in the world, even within nations that once had (if nothing else) a shared identity. 

How can various nations hope to get along if the people within those nations cannot even get along?

I am neither a politician, nor a lawmaker; my actions take place on a much more limited stage, a much smaller scale and scope. And yet, I understand that my actions...my choices...still make a difference. And I'll be even more specific than that: I believe playing D&D with human beings makes a difference. Yes, a silly game about fighting monsters and finding treasure. Outside of kids' sports teams (which longtime readers will know I'm a big fan of), there are precious few formal ways we have of interacting with other people in a cooperative (non-competitive) fashion. Of making human connections. On a larger scale than a romantic couple or even many (most?) nuclear families. Especially for adults...adults who have so many worries and stresses in their lives. 

We need to make human connections. As I wrote waaaay back at the beginning of this post, sometimes the connection itself is the only thing of value from socializing. That was not meant to disparage the act...we do not do this enough in our current society. And with D&D gaming, you have an automatic "in" to connecting with a fellow human on a deeper level than their surface identity.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I've been thinking about it a lot, and yet I haven't known how exactly to express it. This seemed like an opportune time. With regard to the Nazi gamer kid, I could have simply kept my fat mouth shut on the matter, but... (*SIGH*) I have a voice, I have an audience. And I do think it's important. 

Yes, it does matter that you're a damn stupid Nazi. That's a bad, bad choice. But as long as you're respectful or the game and of myself and of the other players at the table, you can play D&D with me. 

We really need to stop hating the fuck out of each other.