I remember being on a panel, years (decades) ago now, where a majority were describing some particular neo-Nazi marchers as having been "oppressed" by the counter-marchers who shouted them down and disrupted their march. I and one other panel member were saying, "Hang on, they're Nazis."A lot of people have blood on their hands, which is rather their point. You've caught me in a bit of a hypocrisy, and one I'm not sure I can fully square. Partially because I'm human, and mostly because "Nazis". Does history have comparable or even worse villains? Maybe? And who knows, maybe in 800 years we'll be talking about the Nazis in the exact same breath as Pol Pot and Stalin and other horrific and targeted atrocities. That may just be a cultural norm, to equate "Nazi" as "Faceless Villain", that I need to break away from. I tell you though, the recent resurgence in Neo-Nazism sure isn't making that any easier.
So yeah, I can see how "It's okay to mow down Nazis with reckless abandon but not the Turks" can seem like a head-scratcher. What can I say? I'm a work in progress. We all have our biases, and maybe I'm not ready to shed that bias of "Nazis" yet. Maybe I need to be.
I'm hesitant to talk about Turks as a type, given that that seems to be one way of doing what this thread is about avoiding - but carrying on in any event, I'll say this: there's no reason I know of to think that being a National Socialist is a genuinely viable form of human life; whereas being Turkish is. We might say that inhuman things are, in a sense, inherent to Nazism; whereas (to pick one example) the Armenian Genocide is not inherent to being Turkish - hence a Turkish patriot could, I think, affirm this patriotism while repudiating the genocide; whereas if you repudiate the hateful ideas and deeds of Nazism, what is there left to affirm (that is distinctively National Socialist)?
I think the bigger challenge in this neighbourhood is actually for member of "settler" colony states, and particularly those who identify (culturally, by history, etc) with the principal colonists - because it's a bit harder in this context to affirm one's national identify while repudiating the conquest/genocide on which it rests. (The Australian historian John Hirst - not a Nazi, but perhaps not particularly left wing either - wrote a provocative but I think important essay on this topic called "How Sorry Can We Be?" Another Australian historian, Inga Clendinnen, included an insightful response in her essay "The History Question".)
The RPG version of this might be a recurrent tendency to present non-European worldviews and cultural practices through the lens of European observers rather than on their own terms. I don't agree that this is "damned if you do/damned if you don't" - as the OP puts it - but I don't think it's simple, either. But there's no reason why it should be simple. Why would we expect RPG authorship to be any less fraught or challenging than other modes of cultural production?