There is, however, more nuance than that. Tribal conflicts, and, in fact many forms of conflicts are not colonial in nature. The German invasion of France, for example, wasn't colonialist act, for example. Nor were the Crusades a colonialist expansion. Colonialism requires a few more things than just conflict. You need to have one side who isn't just fighting another side but actively trying to exterminate the other side, whether through straight up genocide or assimilation and then that is justifiable because the other side is being "helped" by the colonial power - which is seen as the civilizing force.Thanks, but I'm going to keep colonialism into my rpg, just as I'm going to keep my wars, violence, diseases, treacherous political bulls**t, income inequality, racism, sexism, and anything that I feel would suit the theme of whatever questline I'm currently making.
I say the most ancient origin of the narrative act is exactly to focalize and talk about problems and issues, sometimes in an abstract manner.
However, this is me. I'm not gonna police how others want to enjoy their own game, so if you want to imagine some kind of anti-colonialist world, go for it! ......And then tell me about it, because it's going to be something very hard to create without making it absolutely unbelievable: tribal conflict and pushing away other groups to get the resources all for ourselves is a core element of the entire ecosystem of our planet, including viruses, bacteria and plants.... so it's probably hard to think of a setting which doesn't involve anything that resembles some form of colonialism.
Which is pretty much 100% what Keep on the Borderlands IS. It's a colonialist adventure through and through. There's really no other interpretation here. Not when the humanoids are set up the way that they are with family groupings and whatnot. This isn't about protecting the homeland. This is about exterminating the natives.