[3.5] Would this concept be too politically incorrect for a thrallherd?

[newbDM]

Thinking about the fact that thrallherds do not lose points on their leadership score, I got the idea of making a thrallherd who took ranks in Craft: (Alchemy) and equipped his believers with 20-50 vials of Alchemist files each for...well I think you can guess.

Considering that you simply gain new ones each day I figure you can actually get some use out of believers/followers in combat.

Exactly how the boom mechanics would work I do not know, though. If I remember correctly the alchemist fires would blow up in the believer's square. I imagine they could attempt to grapples, but then they would not be able to ignite them?


Anyway, would this idea be a bit offensive and/or politically incorrect?


p.s. Oh, and would shaper be a good discipline for this character concept? It would cut crafting time by quite a bit.

[Draken]

Well. It sure isn't going to earn you any points with the exalted side of things.

But it is perfectly viable, for an evil thrallherd anyway, I suppose.

[Froogleyboy]

i... i don't get it :frown:

[Draken]

Suicide bombing thralls.

[Keld Denar]

Better yet...spend a little more cash and equip all of your expendable thralls with Elixers of Death Throes. Only recruit the weakest and simplest of thralls. Get em to swarm your enemies, and when one goes down, the ensuing fireball would consume all of them in a Zelda-esque chain reaction. Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom BOOM!

[Salt_Crow]

What he's basically saying is that he wants to make suicide bombers out of his followers. Which is mechanically sound yet unless you have some great (read: RP-related) cause your DM won't allow you refill the ranks you waste with the bombers.

It'd be much less efficient and more costly than simply hurling Energy ~ series powers around just so you know.

Also, I'd like to point out a few flaws in this build/tactic:

1. Thrallherd does not increase the number of followers in any way; only an extra cohort. So you're just the same as any other character with same Cha in terms of the number of suicide bombers.
2. Making your own alchemist's fire seems terribly time-consuming. Why don't you (or at least choose cohorts to) be an artificer if you want to create weapons/bombs of mass destruction?
3. A similar effect can be achieved by playing a necromancer-type character with Destructive Retribution feat (LM). When your undead minion dies, it bursts with a blast of negative energy! If you're Pale Master for any reason, they're free too :)


p.s. and no, suicide bombing is MORALLY incorrect in my book.

p.s.2 Undead Swarm (say, Hellwasp) + Destructive Retribution = easily 100's of dice of damage.

[The Glyphstone]

p.s.2 Undead Swarm (say, Hellwasp) + Destructive Retribution = easily 100's of dice of damage.

I really, really don't think it works like that - a Swarm of any sort has a set number of HD - you don't count each creature in the swarm as a separate individual for things like Destructive Retribution. If you did, then said swarm would be impossible to animate in the first place unless you have a ridiculous caster level via other shenanigans, you you'd have to be a Pale Master or have a similar way to dodge the tens of thousands of gold it will cost to animate, and it will be uncontrollable via Rebuking unless you're an absurdly high level cleric.

[Draken]

Thrallherds automatically replace lost followers (believers or whatelse) every 24 hours. The reason of the previous follower's death does not matter.

So yes, he can keep sending his suicide strike teams. Doesn't mean it is efficient in any way.

Might as well get all of your followers as Avariel (insert here flying, low hd race) and make them dive bomb the enemy for hefty fall damage. Far cheaper. Single, target, however.

[sonofzeal]

Explosive Runes + Dispel Magic packs a whole lot more punch than Alchemists Fire. I'd grab yourself an Eternal Wand or two of Explosive Runes, and get Dispel on scrolls. Big boom, big boom!

[...Despicable..]

So yes, he can keep sending his suicide strike teams. Doesn't mean it is efficient in any way.


Explosive Runes + Dispel Magic packs a whole lot more punch than Alchemists Fire. I'd grab yourself an Eternal Wand or two of Explosive Runes, and get Dispel on scrolls. Big boom, big boom!

Well, would that not depend on how many flask of alchemist fire he loads on a follower, or what the follower's carrying capacity is?

[Salt_Crow]

Thrallherds automatically replace lost followers (believers or whatelse) every 24 hours. The reason of the previous follower's death does not matter.

So yes, he can keep sending his suicide strike teams. Doesn't mean it is efficient in any way.

Might as well get all of your followers as Avariel (insert here flying, low hd race) and make them dive bomb the enemy for hefty fall damage. Far cheaper. Single, target, however.

Well then, I stand corrected :)

[Kris Strife]

This seems like one of those 'if you have to ask, its a bad idea' things to me.

[Colmarr]

Do Thrallherds have complete control over their followers? Because suicide bombing strikes me as a little outside the normal range of actions a follower would be willing to undertake...

[Salt_Crow]

Do Thrallherds have complete control over their followers? Because suicide bombing strikes me as a little outside the normal range of actions a follower would be willing to undertake...

I re-read the class ability and it seems to involve more of psychic control-type thing rather than simple admiration.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Point 1: "Politically correct" is not a value, it's a slam used on attempts to reduce (the effects of) discrimination and prejudice.

Point 2: Alchemist's fire does not explode; it's not even a low explosive (like gunpowder), but an incendiary. These "suicide bombers" would have a splash (not blast) radius of maybe 2.5 feet (affecting adjacent squares), and deal that 1d6 or whatever damage. And this would require them actually smashing the clay vessels strapped to them. I guess they might be slightly more effective if they were hurled or dropped on a big creature like a dragon.

Just stick with 1st-level sorcerers with magic missile.

[bosssmiley]

You'd probably want to replace alchemical stuff - which is garbage by RAW - with one-shot use-activated items of fireball (or other evocation of choice).

[Pronounceable]

It's a sad day when "politically correctness" and "roleplaying game" are in the same sentence...

And "suicide fighters with scythes or greatswords" are much better than "suicide bombers" in the absence of powerful blasts. Or "suicide ganging up sneak attackers" would be even better with a lot of minions to spend.

[Asheram]

A truly wonderful idea. This is why it's so Fun to play an evil thrallherd

*chuckles* Though I must admit that the first mental image I had of it were hundreds of followers storming a castle just to have them run up to a guard, pulling up their shirt to reveal the explosive runes and scream "Look at my belly!"

Remember! It's not evil if it isn't also fun!

[Riffington]

Point 1: "Politically correct" is not a value, it's a slam used on attempts to reduce (the effects of) discrimination and prejudice.


Well, that's one of the ways it's used. Basically, I think there's three main ways people use the phrase "politically correct":
1. as a diss ("oh, don't be so PC." or "Uh oh, the PC police are here")
2. as a disclaimer, which helps avoid giving offense ("I know this isn't very PC, but I think...")
3. as a useful descriptor that is related but nonidentical to "inoffensive". ("Help me make my speech more politically correct", or "That's politically incorrect, so don't say that at work".)

newbDM was using it in the third sense: he may have a clever idea but doesn't want to hurt feelings, so he's wondering if it's too politically incorrect (or offensive) to use in a game.

[kamikasei]

newbDM was using it in the third sense: he may have a clever idea but doesn't want to hurt feelings, so he's wondering if it's too politically incorrect (or offensive) to use in a game.

"Politically correct" is the wrong term to use, though. He's presumably not worried about the politics of it or about how it'll affect public perception of him, just about whether it'll be offensive or tasteless to the people he's playing with. Which, really, is something only he can know.

I would guess not, unless they're particularly sensitive about that topic (as they might be for various good reasons) or it's played for laughs or parody. Fanatical enemies willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve their ends are not out of place in a game.

[Tsotha-lanti]

newbDM was using it in the third sense: he may have a clever idea but doesn't want to hurt feelings, so he's wondering if it's too politically incorrect (or offensive) to use in a game.

That's not the issue. The issue is that "polically correct" is not a value held by anyone. It's a slam, a pejorative. Your example 2 is almost correct, but inaccurate; it's used as a slam even when it's used as a disclaimer. "Now, I know this isn't PC, but..."

It's pretty sad to see the term gain acceptance as a neutral, non-aggressive term when it's still mostly used as a pejorative. (And "politically incorrect" is used as a brag. "Well, I'm just that politically incorrect! Take that, haw haw.")


Anyway, I don't see how suicide bombing can be inherently offensive. I guess if you're playing with someone from Israel or someone who's lost family to a Nihilist plot (say, if you play with Nicholas II of Russia), etc., it may be personally offensive, but that's about it.

[Person_Man]

Just be ready for the army of Clerics and Paladins of Whatever, intent on hunting down and destroying you.

[Kesnit]

Is this for a PC or a BBEG? When I read the OP, I assumed it was a BBEG who is sending his mind-controlled thralls to suicide-bomb the party.

It would depend on the players, but if they do not object to suicide bombers, I think it would be a useful tactic for a BBEG to use. Keep sending followers - a few at a time - against the party, making it difficult for them to progress at a reasonable speed.

[hamishspence]

Munhkin made Kamikaze Kobolds fairly funny- especially with their slogans "Flaming Death to the Kobold Foes" "The Kobold is Mother, The Kobold is Father" "The Glory Of Death Awaits"

[Riffington]

That's not the issue. The issue is that "polically correct" is not a value held by anyone. It's a slam, a pejorative. Your example 2 is almost correct, but inaccurate; it's used as a slam even when it's used as a disclaimer. "Now, I know this isn't PC, but..."


Becoming and remaining "politically correct" is certainly a value held by many people (such as many administrators). Additionally, "offensive" is more pejorative than "politically correct". And without "PC", how would you better connote the notion: "some people might be offended, but it's probably not genuinely offensive, though some people who aren't offended may nevertheless become worried"?

Also, if applied to a person, what would be a better word than "politically correct" for a person who too easily takes offense? Would it be better to say "thin-skinned", "touchy", "huffy", or "comedically-challenged"? If anything, politically-correct is less pejorative than most of those words, because it carries the implication that those people are to some extent right (if annoying).



Anyway, I don't see how suicide bombing can be inherently offensive
I won't say it's offensive per se, but jokes about suicide bombing can certainly be politically incorrect:
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/vw-suicide-bomber-p1.php

[Faulty]

I wouldn't say un-PC. More like... absolutely, totally, immensely immoral.

[shadowdemon_lord]

That would make a fairly terrifying BBEG. Able to strike at will using any common man at any time to suddenly make an explosive suicide attack (probably would work best to homebrew something or other to work as the actual explosive/spell/alchemical substance used). Remember, mind controlled followers don't have to give any indications they're mind controlled until the telepathic command comes to strike :).

[Tengu_temp]

This idea reminds me of Zolf J. Kimblee from Full Metal Alchemist - not completely, since he does not mind control people, but the rough idea is the same.

And indeed, alchemist's fire does not work that way - first, it ignites, not explodes, and second, I don't think if it stacks - you can't expect a guy with 50 vials of it to deal 50d6 damage when human-bombing.

[lsfreak]

I'm going to second that alchemists fire won't work, it's not an explosive. It would be like trying to get someone to explode by covering them in torches - just won't work. I'd suggest giving them a couple pages filled with explosive runes and oils of dispel magic.

As for political correctness, this is a game where people regularly commit genocide for no reason other than a statistics block saying "usually evil" or because their god said so. Hell, there's an official source where you gain power by committing necrophilia or ripping souls from the afterlife and then destroying them.

[The Rose Dragon]

Hell, there's an official source where you gain power by committing necrophilia or ripping souls from the afterlife and then destroying them.

Wait, what?

[lsfreak]

Book of Vile Darkness. It's got all kinds of morally questionable stuff in it. I was specifically referring to the Lichloved feat and souls in larval form as material components.

[Talic]

Thrallherds automatically replace lost followers (believers or whatelse) every 24 hours. The reason of the previous follower's death does not matter.

So yes, he can keep sending his suicide strike teams. Doesn't mean it is efficient in any way.

Might as well get all of your followers as Avariel (insert here flying, low hd race) and make them dive bomb the enemy for hefty fall damage. Far cheaper. Single, target, however.

What if they all had Sheets with Explosive Runes and just ran up and read them?

You'd be limited only by the number of explosive runes slots you had.

[charl]

I'd like to point out that alchemist's fire can be used as an explosion if put under pressure. How one would accomplish that with medieval technology is a bit tricky, but not completely impossible. A metal or high-strength ceramic container could work. All you really need is a way to ignite it. A silly cantrip perhaps, or heating the container until the heat is sufficient to ignite the alchemist's fire (and it shouldn't need much heat, it's a very volatile substance after all).

It is very impractical compared to magic, but possible.

[RS14]

I'd like to point out that alchemist's fire can be used as an explosion if put under pressure. How one would accomplish that with medieval technology is a bit tricky, but not completely impossible. A metal or high-strength ceramic container could work. All you really need is a way to ignite it. A silly cantrip perhaps, or heating the container until the heat is sufficient to ignite the alchemist's fire (and it shouldn't need much heat, it's a very volatile substance after all).

It is very impractical compared to magic, but possible.

I don't think so, no. Most liquids are basically incompressible. You'd need to use something else to spread it---either explosives or pressurized gas. Furthermore, it burns on contact with air, iirc, so you can't even make a fuel-air mixture in the container. I would not expect it to burn without air, so heat alone won't be enough to ignite it.

However, there are plenty of real world explosives that are easy enough to make --- nitrocellulose and blackpowder both come to mind. The later was discovered in the 9th century. Some research and alchemy checks should probably be sufficient.

[charl]

I don't think so, no. Most liquids are basically incompressible. You'd need to use something else to spread it---either explosives or pressurized gas. Furthermore, it burns on contact with air, iirc, so you can't even make a fuel-air mixture in the container. I would not expect it to burn without air, so heat alone won't be enough to ignite it.

However, there are plenty of real world explosives that are easy enough to make --- nitrocellulose and blackpowder both come to mind. The later was discovered in the 9th century. Some research and alchemy checks should probably be sufficient.

I agree on the blackpowder thing. That should be fairly easy to figure out.

But alchemist's fire, which I assume is basically the same as real world Greek fire, could certainly be used to produce explosions. In fact, these are Eastern Roman grenades for the 10th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Liquid_fire_granades_Chania.jpg). They used Greek fire as an explosive. Apparently later versions were made of glass instead of ceramics.

[lsfreak]

Firstly, grenades does not imply explosives.

Secondly, one of the links to that talks about grenades exploding in terms or the liquid splattering after being launched from a catapult, which alchemist's fire already does (splash damage after throwing). Alchemist's fire on its own isn't explosive.

[Michaelos]

What if they all had Sheets with Explosive Runes and just ran up and read them?

You'd be limited only by the number of explosive runes slots you had.

I had a particularly Vile Enchantress do this with Children.

She ended up getting caught in one of the blasts and knocked out to bleeding, but she eventually stabilized. (Wasn't even intentional on my part to make it look so karmic, it was totally random.)

Yeah, she got coup de graced instantly. Even the Exalted cohort didn't complain, as she had recently captured him and had been trying to corrupt him into breaking his vow of poverty - ironically through allowing him the chance to pick up a wand of dispel magic and use it on the children. At the time, I had no idea that failing a dispel magic roll meant the runes would explode reactively on a failed check. In retrospect, it makes her look even more evil, which I thought was practically impossible.

[Riffington]

Ok, so first you take some catgirls as your thralls.
You cover them with paper, leaves, or cloth which is (or becomes) soaked with naphtha or alchemist fire. When this ignites, the heat will cause your other... actually, just read http://www.jstor.org/stable/983897?seq=1
The resulting calculations will set off your other catgirls, who in turn are also carrying naphtha/air mixtures near enemy schools... you now have politically incorrect synchronized suicide bombers.

[Xuincherguixe]

People who try to be politically correct don't understand what it is.

As I see it, at some point, someone was got upset that they couldn't discriminate against someone else, and threw out the word that his actions weren't "politically correct". It went around as an insult for awhile, and some thin ideas formed about what it is as an actual value.

This is part of why political correctness has more to do with giving the appearance of respect, than actually being respectful.


As to suicide bombing followers... meh. A good strategy is a good strategy. A bad one is a bad one. I'm not entirely sure which it is at this moment, but I figure the morality of such an action is for the most part irrelevant. Some stuff goes way over the line (I would not for instance play a rapist PC), but someone who makes others blow themselves up to inflict damage? I don't see that as unreasonable.

How is this any different than ordering soldiers to just start murdering?

I could go on, on this topic, but things could get nasty and the thread gets locked. Suffice to say. It's evil, but I don't consider it disgustingly so. Pretty standard arsenal of evil overlords. Pack up your mooks with bombs, since they aren't useful in standard combat. Or even load up your enemies and mind control them, so you can eliminate both that enemy and others.

... Not something that one should put on their loyal, trustworthy types. Or anyone more useful alive then dead.

In a metagame sense, if there's always more mooks to replace the kamikaze ones, valid strategy. Even if they don't, most of those followers aren't going to be useful in battle, so the same situation applies.

So, unless they have good out of battle utility, go for it. I suppose if you're in a wide space from where they can rain down arrows, the shear mass is helpful, but in a dungeon? Keep a few around to run into the monster and blow up if things aren't looking too good.


Hey, you're evil! The world exists for your purposes. Yours is the only life that matters.

[Another_Poet]

I think you're really asking two questions.

Whether it's "politically" correct depends on...
...whether or not it is insulting to some real-world group. There are several real-world groups that actually use suicide warriors (or have in the recent past), including Muslim fundamentalists and Japanese pilots in WWII. There are also a handful of resistance groups around the world that occasionally use suicide bombers, but none that are as famous as those two.

So, to be politically correct, don't base your thrallherds on either of those two groups (or any other real-world groups). And if your players crack jokes about your Muslim thrallherds or your crazy samurai thrallherds, shake your head and say, "No, let's keep racism out of this. Most cultures have used suicide bombers at some point in their history."

If they disagree, you might let them know about the suicide pilots that Italy (and several other nations, including the U.S. briefly) sent out on explosive-laden boats in WWII.

So if you really, seriously keep real-world politics out of it, then you are not being politicially incorrect.

However I think your question is also meant to ask something else, which is, will this be an evil act?

And I think the answer is...
..."probably yes, but maybe not."

As an example, I have to fondly recall my Orpheans from the first long-term campaign I ran. The Orpheans were the offspring of dwarves and orcs who had been trapped in a large cave system together with a common enemy. Over the course of 1100 years the orcs abandoned their own caves and moved into the dwarf city and the two intermarried. By the time the PCs got there, they were a single hybrid race with some qualities of both races (+4 to strength, huzzah!). There were no pure-blooded dwarves or orcs left, although some individuals still knew how to speak (bastardised) Orcish or Dwarven, and they were very proud to show the dwarf PC their Language Preservation Program. One Orphean scholar had even taught himself Elven from some old books, and the elf PC couldn't bring herself to break his heart by telling him he was pronouncing everything wrong. She just smiled and said how impressed she was.

Anyway, the point is that I gave all these Orpheans a feat I made up.

Bonus feat: Altruistic Death.
At his own discretion, an Orphean carrying alchemist's fire may, as an immediate action, rupture one or two bottles while dying. Anytime an attack reduces an Orphean's total hit points to 0 or below, the Orphean may choose to take this action. The action occurs as soon as the Orphean is hit, before falling unconscious or dying. The first vial of fire explodes in the Orphean’s own square, affecting that square and surrounding squares as normal. If the Orphean has two or more vials, the second one explodes at the same time in an adjacent square of the Orphean's choosing, affecting that square and surrounding squares as if the Orphean succeeded on a splash attack. An Orphean who has two or more vials of alchemist's fire must use two. An Orphean can never choose to use more than two vials at the same time for this purpose (however, if raised and killed again, he can use up to two more at his next death).

This was a point of pride for the Orpheans. Every time one went down, you could see the bright flare and the plume of smoke before the cave went dark again. When the PCs joined the Orpheans in pitched battle it was like a firework display around them.

To the Orpheans, bravery was the highest virtue. There were three classes in Orpheans society: the Holy Caste, the Brave Caste and the Coward Caste. Members of the Brave caste who were too old to fight either signed up as suicide fighters or were given the title "Half-Cowards". Members of the Coward Caste who signed up to fight were still known as "Quarter Cowards."

Their tradition of self-immolation on the battlefield was actually rooted in superstition. The Orpheans were locked in centuries of war with a necromancer and they believed (falsely) that if your body was burned it couldn't be raised as an undead.

Death was a casual thing to the Orpheans, who had very little to live for besides honour. The PCs witnessed a parade in which half a dozen 12th level clerics commited suicide so their blood could be used to make Cauldrons of Resurrection (patent pending).

In my opinion, and eventually in the opinion of my players and their PCs, the Orpheans' suicidal charges were not stupid or evil. They were doing it willingly, and out of a sincere need to protect their homes. It was a way of doing extra damage on the field of battle even after you were mortally wounded. And perhaps most importantly, they all sincerely believed it would prevent the creation of more undead. This wasn't propaganda; the leaders believed it too.

In fact the only Orpheans who didn't use this tactic were the evil ones. Some Orpheans had sold out and signed on with the necromancer. They worked as double-agents. When the PCs finally caught some and fought them, one went down next to the fighter. The fighter waited for me to roll the d6 of fire damage.

"Nope."

"What?"

"He didn't trigger the alchemists fire."

"What? Why not?" <- worried it's a trap.

"He's evil. He changed sides because he was too scared to go into a fair fight. You really think he's brave enough to kill himself?

Long pause.

"Nice touch," says the player. Game on.

Anyway, that's just my experience with using suicide bombers in D&D. It was something my players really liked about the campaign. So I think good-aligned characters can do it. It all depends on circumstance.

Of course, if they are brainwashed thralls then it probably isn't "good aligned" anymore.... :smallwink:

[Riffington]

Most cultures have used suicide bombers at some point in their history."

There is a difference between attacks that are likely to result in the attacker's death (but are performed anyway if the utility is sufficiently high), and those in which the death of the attacker is a positive goal (given the choice of escaping or of dying in the blast, the bomber is willing to accept a slightly lower damage output if he can guarantee his own death). The phrase "suicide bomber" is typically used to refer to the latter group, and very few cultures produce them.

[hamishspence]

what about the Taking You With Me trope? Does this not really count due to being last ditch option?

Starship self destruct, wizard self destruct (common in fantasy) and of course D&D's Retributive Strike function of several magic staffs. Shining South D&D sourcebook also has a spell designed to sacrifice all your spell slots to devastate a large area (killing self in the process)

[Waspinator]

It's a thrallherd. You're pretty evil just for being one; what you do with the slaves can't really change that.

That said, a more expensive but more effective method of blowing yourself up would be to throw a bead from a Necklace of Fireballs at your feet and voluntarily fail the saving throw for the item to not detonate.

[Riffington]

what about the Taking You With Me trope? Does this not really count due to being last ditch option?


It's culturally and psychologically different. The "it might be more effective to throw a grenade, but let's ignore that option because I wouldn't get to die" mentality of suicide bombers is foreign to most cultures and most people. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they brought in suicide bombers from other countries... the Afghanis were fierce warriors, but not suicide bombers. The "if I'm going to die, I'm going to take a bunch of enemy with me" mentality is different, and is common in many cultures.

[Another_Poet]

There is a difference between attacks that are likely to result in the attacker's death (but are performed anyway if the utility is sufficiently high), and those in which the death of the attacker is a positive goal (given the choice of escaping or of dying in the blast, the bomber is willing to accept a slightly lower damage output if he can guarantee his own death). The phrase "suicide bomber" is typically used to refer to the latter group, and very few cultures produce them.

Agreed, and the example of the explosive ramming boats in WWII is definitely the latter. There was absolutely zero expectation they would come back alive. They were used instead of torpedos to get a higher accuracy.

Also, I would argue that most cultures with heroic ethics (so all ancient cultures, and most fictional D&D cultures) strongly pressure warriors to make suicidal charges whether for glory or strategic victory. They didn't have bombs back then, mostly, but the idea is the same.

[Riffington]

Agreed, and the example of the explosive ramming boats in WWII is definitely the latter. There was absolutely zero expectation they would come back alive. They were used instead of torpedos to get a higher accuracy.

Explosive boats used by the US had timer detonators. The crew did not always survive, but it was a goal. The Japanese did not, but note that the Japanese tactic was widely remarked upon at the time (and since) because it is so unusual. Suicide bombers go a step beyond this because it's not simply that they discount their own death; their own death is considered a goal in and of itself.



Also, I would argue that most cultures with heroic ethics (so all ancient cultures, and most fictional D&D cultures) strongly pressure warriors to make suicidal charges whether for glory or strategic victory. They didn't have bombs back then, mostly, but the idea is the same.
Not suicidal in the sense of "now that I've killed some enemy, it's time to kill myself". Just "suicidal" in the sense of "While I'd prefer to live, my current assault puts me at great risk". Additionally, ancient warfare did not have a tremendous death rate; "decimate" meant to kill 10%.

[Xuincherguixe]

Well, I was kind of hoping it wouldn't come to this, but... since others brought it up....

The Kamikaze ideal. I can kind of appreciate it a bit more. In a way, much of it is about having a beautiful death. Think about it for a bit here. Going out literally with a flash.

There's a certain aesthetic there. Not to mention that it's a pretty gutsy thing to do. Depending on the source, it can get a pretty bad rap.


As to what most people think of when the word suicide bombing is used... look at it this way. Most of these groups are up against massive, overbearing political structures. Not only is it unreasonable for them to expect to pick up a rifle and target "acceptable" groups, but it's actually arrogant to suggest they do so.

Or maybe the idea is that they are expected to just "sit down, shut up, and keep their head down. We're here, we're right, get used to it."

Not that I necessarily agree with these particular groups(which is to say I don't), but I do acknowledge that conventional warfare will not serve them well. Something they most likely know as well. Still, an argument could be made that they are being brave, and noble. An aspect that is being diminished. That's as far as I'm going to get into this.


That there are a few "designated target*" groups that engage in particular activities does not strictly mean you can't do similar activities.


*people that it is acceptable, and convenient politically to hate

[Kobold_Love]

Explosive boats used by the US had timer detonators. The crew did not always survive, but it was a goal. The Japanese did not, but note that the Japanese tactic was widely remarked upon at the time (and since) because it is so unusual. Suicide bombers go a step beyond this because it's not simply that they discount their own death; their own death is considered a goal in and of itself.


Not suicidal in the sense of "now that I've killed some enemy, it's time to kill myself". Just "suicidal" in the sense of "While I'd prefer to live, my current assault puts me at great risk". Additionally, ancient warfare did not have a tremendous death rate; "decimate" meant to kill 10%.


It seems to me that you are picking straws to make your own heritage/ancestors/culture/grandparents seem better and less "evil".

Knowing you will die, and knowing you have a 95%-98% chance of dying are not that much different. The later only leaves more room for error/failure, since the suiciders still believe they might walk out of it.

No, your grandparents were not any better than theirs'.

[MickJay]

Additionally, ancient warfare did not have a tremendous death rate; "decimate" meant to kill 10%.

It mostly depended on circumstances, in some cases, armies were literally wiped out, with perhaps a handful of survivors left, in other cases, as few as 500 of an army of 10-15 thousand would die. The losing side would suffer most of its casualties while fleeing. In any case, most people died outside of combat anyway, due to sickness, malnutrition or injuries.

While "decimate" meant to kill 10%, it had little to do with the actual warfare, as it was a punishment for cowardice. Killing one man in ten was considered to be sufficient to "motivate" others to fight with greater braver, while not wasting the whole offending unit.

[Riffington]

No, your grandparents were not any better than theirs'.

Never said they were. I said their cultural background was different from that of kamikaze fighters.
Additionally, I tied neither to suicide bombers, which are different from both hazardous missions and kamikaze runs. The change from "I will/may die, but it's worth it anyway" to "dying is part of the goal" is a new thing to any culture (except for people with severe psychiatric disorders, of course).

As to Xuincherguixe's suggestion that it's "arrogant" to suggest that soldiers are more acceptable targets than school children... umm no.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The change from "I will/may die, but it's worth it anyway" to "dying is part of the goal" is a new thing to any culture (except for people with severe psychiatric disorders, of course).

Not really, although it depends on what you mean by new. The Nicholas II reference was probably too obscure, but Czar Alexander of Russia was killed by a "Nihilist" suicide bomber in the late 19th century.

[Riffington]

Not really, although it depends on what you mean by new. The Nicholas II reference was probably too obscure, but Czar Alexander of Russia was killed by a "Nihilist" suicide bomber in the late 19th century.

He was killed by a thrown bomb; the bomb-thrower was not certain whether he'd be killed by the bomb or by the police (the bomb ended up doing it, hours later). Nevertheless, it is true that murder-suicides are not new. What is new is for them to become an ongoing tactic, rather than an isolated tragedy.

[Zhalath]

If you're not evil, you're going to lose some serious karma points.
If you are evil, you are still going to lose some karma points.
This kind of action does kind of tread the Moral Event Horizon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon), if not go over it. If you're fine playing a totally evil, apathetic-towards-life character, and it doesn't disgust the DM completely, you could do it.

In my time in D&D, I've seen evil parties do worse.

[Xuincherguixe]

As to Xuincherguixe's suggestion that it's "arrogant" to suggest that soldiers are more acceptable targets than school children... umm no.

You misunderstood.

I'm saying it's arrogant to expect a group to fight with conventional tactics when their enemies are so much powerful.

Sure, I think it's wrong. But I also think all war is wrong.