PDA

View Full Version : Playing D&D...As Terrorists (It's Not What You Think!)



Leliel
2007-10-09, 02:53 PM
Now that I have your attention:

OK, your party has done it. They have overcome the prison guards, overthrown the puppet government, and infiltrated the country that invaded their homeland, ready to stop the Empire!

Only...Once they're there, they discover the Empire isn't really as bad as they've been led to believe. The citizens are prosperous, their emperor is elected democratically, free speech is so common it is taken for granted, and their way of life involves giving money to the poor on a regular basis. In fact, according to them, the you're are the bad guys! They're insurgents, who overthrew a legal government which was made up of the native people who cooperated with the Empire to overthrow an expansionist dictatorship that threatened the neighboring countries! "So what if those soldiers treated you badly? We're not to blame if they were so pressured by people like you that they cracked!"

So my question is: What would you do to basically inform a non-evil party that they, for lack of a better term, are more-or-less terrorists working against the interests of a nation that only wants to do the right thing?

Of course, the Empire has ulterior motives. Your homeland's resources were needed and it wouldn't share/ There is a site of special religious significance/ the Empire actually does want to rule the world. And yet, they also genuinely believe they were doing the right thing by forcing their way of life on you. They just underestimated how hard the task of ruling a country other than their own actually is.

So...Start talkin'

Leliel
2007-10-09, 03:01 PM
What, did I scare every one away with the title? Should I change it?

You know what, why don't I? 'Cuse me.

Mithhuan
2007-10-09, 03:08 PM
Why tell them at all? Let them figure it out all on their own. Since they've escaped from prison give them a chance to blend in with the locals and see how great things really are. In fact make it so good the pcs will want to defect to the new country.

Riffington
2007-10-09, 03:10 PM
I don't understand. Are they terrorists, or are they non-evil? If they are harming or killing innocent people to accomplish their ends, they're evil. Regardless of those ends.

I'll assume you mean that they are non-terrorist Revolutionaries. Well, a lot of revolutionaries eventually find out that the people they are overthrowing are doing at least as good a job as they themselves could. (usually succesful revolutionaries, after the fact, or imprisoned revolutionaries, reading the papers every day from their cells.)

So really I think you have three choices.
1. Bad choice. Tell them as DM, "ha ha".
2. Let them talk to people with different viewpoints. Present some sympathetic characters that disagree with them, and have those characters be right some of the time (and wrong other times).
3. Let them "win" and try to pass rules, and watch how their mistakes hurt more people than the oppressors' ever did. (But still have some positive effects).

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:11 PM
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to examine how good people can end up at odds with each other.

I say, introduce adventurers for the invading nation who, on first contact, act peaceful. Maybe even have them work together a couple times.

DraPrime
2007-10-09, 03:12 PM
Well first of all, if you want to really add to the shock, point out the fact that they killed innocent people. Children for example. That should make them guilty.

Half-blood
2007-10-09, 03:13 PM
heh...reminds me of my games. That sounds like something that would make your players feel stupid, and like they attach themselves to linear plots too easily. wow, sucks to be them. It seems that they are in a bit of a pickle

Fax Celestis
2007-10-09, 03:13 PM
Ah, moral ambiguity, facilitating good roleplay the world over.

goat
2007-10-09, 03:15 PM
So, they're fighting their way into a country to overthrow its assumed evil and malevolent dictator, and NOT ONCE has anyone had/tried to make a knowledge (local/history/nobility) check, make a gather information check or bardic knowledge check?

Starsinger
2007-10-09, 03:16 PM
I've been in said situation... There was this Emperor see, named Ahriman (apparently not a floating eyeball... despite my FF fanboyish cries) and his empire was apparently corrupt. So the Cornan Empire (a different one) hired the group of us PCs to destryo Ahriman's empire, one lieutennant at a time. Towards the end of it, it became evident to us that something was fishy, our letters to the Cornan Empire were always answered, but when we asked for help we never recieved any. As it went on, it turned out Ahriman was the one using us, to weed out corruption in his empire. But some of the people we killed, who were, at the time "the enemy" were truly innocent.. It was a damn good ride though. :smallsmile:

Leliel
2007-10-09, 04:13 PM
So, they're fighting their way into a country to overthrow its assumed evil and malevolent dictator, and NOT ONCE has anyone had/tried to make a knowledge (local/history/nobility) check, make a gather information check or bardic knowledge check?

Nope. They just guessed he was evil. True, a democratically elected leader can be evil, but he has to leave eventually.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-09, 05:38 PM
I'd say 90% of adventurers are terrorists if you look at it from a certain perspective.

However, I think you are confusing the terms rebel/freedom fighter with terrorist. There is a certain line that needs to be crossed to be considered a terrorist, but fighting against a government makes you a rebel or a freedom fighter depending on whether you win or lose.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-09, 09:27 PM
Nope. They just guessed he was evil. True, a democratically elected leader can be evil, but he has to leave eventually.

Not necessarily. Many countries don't place a limit on the number of terms one can serve. He could be a popular evil democratically elected guy.


Traditionally, one uses the word Terrorist to describe evil types. Otherwise it's "Freedom Fighter" or "Rebel". Even if their tactics do involve scaring the crap out of people.


Make sure that a lot of people who support the players end up getting caught in the cross fire and end up getting killed. And also in response to their actions those guys get executed by the state because the players won't turn themselves in to be executed. Some kind of poor minority seems the obvious choice. People that aren't likely to be missed by the rest of society.

Also helps if the elected guy is nice to "his" people, and claims to be nice to the minority but their is a fair amount of disparity in how they actually treated. And they are blamed for the situation. You can also make it a bit ambiguous and maybe they are kind of responsible for it.


I'd play a game like that :P Of course that's hitting awfully close to home.

Green Bean
2007-10-09, 09:36 PM
Definitions aside, a good way to show how good the other side is by showing them the negatives of their own side. If they've been overthrowing government, they're clearly not alone in their struggle. Perhaps they'll be infiltrating the Empire, and one of their more 'extreme' allies stages an attack on a non-military target. It doesn't have to be too fancy; a wand of Fireball in a marketplace, or something along those lines. Of course, the important part is the aftermath. Have the government give pensions to families that have lost wage earners. Maybe they'll send an engineering squad to rebuild what was lost. You know, good-guy stuff.

Renx
2007-10-09, 09:38 PM
What do you mean "It's not what you think", it was exactly what I thought.

hamstard4ever
2007-10-09, 09:43 PM
I can't help but notice the way this plotline in no way resembles anything which could remotely be construed as a thin allegory for current geo-political events. It's uncanny!

TSGames
2007-10-09, 09:48 PM
I know how I would break it to my players... it would involve a quote from the movie Team America: World Police. However, I already have an infraction, and saying this particular quote might not help that problem.

....
2007-10-09, 10:17 PM
However, I think you are confusing the terms rebel/freedom fighter with terrorist. There is a certain line that needs to be crossed to be considered a terrorist, but fighting against a government makes you a rebel or a freedom fighter depending on whether you win or lose.


hahahahahaha

Darth Mario
2007-10-09, 10:33 PM
hahahahahaha

What I think he's trying to say is: The line is your perspective. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, regardless of acts committed.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 11:27 PM
Actually, I've run this campaign before. Except, I did it without the overly heavy handed allegory to the country of Rhymes-With-Humac. Here's a brief description of how the basic situation was set up.

The Eternal Empire is ruled by the corrupt Roman Senate and their Democratically elected Emperor. They are a bloated, powerful, and expanionistic state that exists by devouring large numbers of smaller countries whenever they were particularly troubled by the populous becoming apathetic or they started to run out of resources.

There's a simple fact about the Eternal Empire that you need to understand, the Eternal Empire is civilized. They have running water IN PIPES! They have public libraries! They have a dole of bread that makes sure that no citizen starves. They also have circuses and mass entertainment!

And....outside of the Eternal Empire, you have s***.

No, seriously. You people live in Dark Holes in constant fear of Orcs and Trolls. You have to listen to weird priests tell you what to do because God So-And-So wants you to go fetch a holy artifact to kill a Demonic thing that our legions could handle just fine.

Yes, maybe your people are troubled by the fact that we wiped out your armies and have instituted legal codes. Guess what, in a few months time they're already enjoying the fact that we've started building roads. In a generation, you people will just be a memory.

Oh, guess what, we also hire bards to talk about how you eat children and the Old Religion was about human sacrifice along with sex with the Devil.

So tell me, is freedom worth it?

Ask what your character's VALUE.

Cause the Eternal Empire will provide this...

* Stability
* Infrastructure
* Literacy
* Food
* Warmth during the Winter
* Education
* Cleanilness

It will TAKE this...

* Your language
* Your rulership for the next 100 years or so until you're identical to THEM culturally
* Your religion (You will worship the Great Sun God)
* Your legal code

You will...bluntly....Become like They Are.

Riffington
2007-10-10, 05:34 AM
What I think he's trying to say is: The line is your perspective. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, regardless of acts committed.

No. This is untrue. Nobody sane calls Gandhi a terrorist. He led a revolution against the British, and he did so without murdering anyone. Nobody sane calls George Washington a terrorist. He fought soldiers, not civilians. You might hate Musharraf, but he isn't a terrorist. He led a coup against the government, but he did it without launching any terror attacks.

A terrorist is someone who attacks innocents for the purpose of creating terror, because they want to use that terror for political purposes. Whether you agree or disagree with their aims is irrelevant.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 06:02 AM
A terrorist is someone who attacks innocents for the purpose of creating terror, because they want to use that terror for political purposes. Whether you agree or disagree with their aims is irrelevant.

Let's correct this then a bit. Terrorism's definition according to Webster is...

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Most people use it in one of three definitions.

1. People who blow up innocents.
2. A pejorative term for a guerrilla force fighting against you or allies.
3. Any group that employs fear as a method of fighting an enemy.

PCs, definitely, can become terrorists without being "evil" if we use one of these two terms. William Wallace's fictionalized counterpart in Braveheart sent the chopped head of the cousin of Edward I to him as a message that he was able to strike at the Royal Family itself. Presumably, this was a means of trying to intimidate him into submission.

Now, if you're in the situation of the PCs of OccupiedLandTM (for fun's sake, let's call it Huac) and under the dominion of the Great Empire. Who exactly qualifies as a military target for your insurgency?

* Foreign Soldiers - I think most of us will agree this is a fine target.

* Great Empire allied Domestic Soldiers - Another point. They're Traitors.

* Informers - Another group most Revolutionaries in Huac won't mind killing.

* Civilian Administrators of the Great Empire - Now that's a very interesting moral dilemna isn't it? Do they qualify as innocent?

* Police/City Guard that hunt down Revolutionaries in the Name of the Great Empire - Getting kinda ambigious aren't we?

* Settlers of the Great Empire - Uh oh.

The French Resistance targeted collaborators in the new Regime as necessary components of the enemy's defeat. The work against them can become awfully damn gray at times when you want to preserve lives and also impede the enemy.

What do I call Robin of Sherwood when he puts a longbow bolt through the skull of a Tax Collector of the Sheriff of Nottingham? Thus depriving the Sheriff of wealth and also an agent that was collecting duties?

My player characters decided on this definition for people who could be killed with impunity by the Resistance.

Here's what they wrote out.

All enemy soldiers and individuals of foreign occupation, including those of domestic positions may be targeted with impunity. All domestic soldiers or bureaucrats who cooperate or enforce the laws of the Great Empire, excluding those held by both our land and theres, are subject to summary execution but a higher priority shall always be given to eliminating foreign nationals.

Property damage and acts of recoverable violence against all Great Empire citizenry in the country may be carried out, excluding violation or maiming, with their wealth confiscated to fund the army for the freedom of our land. Children, elderly, and women not involved in a combat role are to be excluded from violence.

All state property of the Great Empire is to be considered a target and destroyed forthwith unless it is a vital good for the peoples of the land's survival. Attacks against the Great Empire's men across the border are also justified but under these same rules.

I mean, seriously, that's actually pretty damn merciful but can you imagine what life is like for these guys?

Riffington
2007-10-10, 08:02 AM
PCs, definitely, can become terrorists without being "evil" if we use one of these two terms. William Wallace's fictionalized counterpart in Braveheart sent the chopped head of the cousin of Edward I to him as a message that he was able to strike at the Royal Family itself. Presumably, this was a means of trying to intimidate him into submission.


"Systematic" is a funny word, but Webster is right that terror has to be a main plan, not a momentary tactic. If one time you murder a couple royals who are not entirely innocent themselves, you don't immediately become a terrorist. Keep it up and you soon will. And you're right, there's grey lines somewhere there - but the line to evil is crossed before the line to terrorism.

I would claim that tax collectors can sometimes be legitimate military targets. Guerrilla attacks against them are not inherently evil or terrorist, though they are clearly acts of treason/war. Robin Hood may have been a Traitor, an Outlaw, a Bandit, a Revolutionary, etc.

Your other examples get to the proper level of greyness. City guard... starts getting pretty sketchy. People who just want to settle down and live... as you say, you've definitely crossed the line by that point.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-10, 08:35 AM
No. This is untrue. Nobody sane calls Gandhi a terrorist. He led a revolution against the British, and he did so without murdering anyone. Nobody sane calls George Washington a terrorist. He fought soldiers, not civilians. You might hate Musharraf, but he isn't a terrorist. He led a coup against the government, but he did it without launching any terror attacks.

I'm glad you have such an enlightened view of the word but I don't think it's use implies such a bright line. Remember that Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela, both of whom won the Nobel Peace Prize after their struggles suceeded, were labled terrorists by various media sources and governments at the time. Politics plays a large role in who a 'terrorist' is and isn't.


A terrorist is someone who attacks innocents for the purpose of creating terror, because they want to use that terror for political purposes. Whether you agree or disagree with their aims is irrelevant.

Interestingly, those who most others would classify as terrorists in the original use of the term would not consider those they targeted innocents.



"Systematic" is a funny word, but Webster is right that terror has to be a main plan, not a momentary tactic. If one time you murder a couple royals who are not entirely innocent themselves, you don't immediately become a terrorist. Keep it up and you soon will. And you're right, there's grey lines somewhere there - but the line to evil is crossed before the line to terrorism.

See above about Mandella. Also, why would systematically killing guilty royals be evil at all? If the king had them executed it would not be 'evil'. Lawful it might not be, but evil seems a bit of a stretch if the targets themselves are not innocent and would happily flay you alive if given the chance.


I would claim that tax collectors can sometimes be legitimate military targets. Guerrilla attacks against them are not inherently evil or terrorist, though they are clearly acts of treason/war. Robin Hood may have been a Traitor, an Outlaw, a Bandit, a Revolutionary, etc.

The question is about that sometimes in there. Is there a way to determine, other than 'they work for the government I don't like', if they are legitimate military targets or not? Certianly most tax collectors were not official parts of the military itself.

Fixer
2007-10-10, 08:45 AM
It is not the job of the DM to tell the players anything their characters would not immediately be aware of.

So, don't tell them. Either let them figure it out, die believing a lie, or just not care and keep doing what they were doing.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 08:56 AM
Your other examples get to the proper level of greyness. City guard... starts getting pretty sketchy. People who just want to settle down and live... as you say, you've definitely crossed the line by that point.

Yes, there's a lot of things to remember in running a Revolutionary campaign. I always like to sprinkle in the problems of it even when doing something as Black/White as Star Wars. Red Dawn has a scene where they kill one of their own who betrayed them under torture and an unarmed prisoner.

While terrorists is meant to be a loaded word, I do think that there's nothing wrong with having The Great Empire or whatever power the PCs are fighting, bandy it about with perhaps even some small amount of justification.

If the PCs blow up the Death Star 2 equivalent of the Great Empire, great job. However, they probably just wiped out a bunch of civilian contractors as well. The same applies for other infrastructure sources that are legitimate military targets even today.

Evenif it's legitimate, the outrage will be real from the public and no one will bat an eyelash at being called that. Nor should PCs be utterly without some remorse if they manage to get a wand of fireballs and fire it into the armies supply fort where locals are tending to it.

But yeah, the ambiguity can be ratched up even in a situation that seems clear cut. Let's take the Settlers of the Great Empire. They're a bunch of people that are working to set up a permanent presence of the Enemy in your territory and will fight against any attempt to dislodge them. They're furthermore part of the Great Empire and consider it THEIR government.

It's easy to call those farmers innocents except for the fact that they have bows and swords themselves and are a b-line right into your territory. Once the Great Empire gets a presence in Huac, it's never going to leave if you let it stay.

And you can kiss freedom goodbye.

If you want that sort of campaign: How far are you willing to go? is a great question.

Riffington
2007-10-10, 10:13 AM
Phipps and AKA_Bait: ok, I will certainly accept your point that many people (including governments) misuse words like "terrorist" for propaganda purposes. Feel free to have governments in your game do things like this. However, as good people I urge you to keep in mind that it's a misuse of the word. Just like it's a misuse of the word "rape" to refer to two drunk people having sex. You can have characters who misuse it that way, but I still want to oppose its misuse in the real world.


As to the innocents part: the moral distinction is what they are doing. If you find a tax collector drinking at a bar, you have no right to kill him. If you find him knocking on your door, accompanied by men with swords, demanding you pay him money... if he doesn't have the right to your money then he is a thief and you may plausibly kill him in self-defense. You can also defend others, if you see him marching off to rob another citizen.

There are occupations, like tax collector and soldier, where your duty is violent - but it is pretty clear to others whether you are on-duty or off-duty. An on-duty soldier is fair game; when he gets a vacation and goes to visit his folks, he isn't. If you can't tell whether enemy soldiers are on-duty or off, this no longer applies.

If your view is that a soldier, even off-duty, is no longer an innocent and that you may therefore kill him, and you act on this view, then you are evil. Many terrorists incorrectly believe that they are justified ("since my enemies live in a Democracy, all voters are responsible for the actions of the military and are thus legitimate targets")- no matter how logical the rationalization gets, it's still wrong and they're still evil.

There are other occupations, like king, where the situation is different. Murder of a king may be assassination, treason, insurrection, etc - but is not terrorism. It is only sometimes an evil act, depending on the king in question.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 10:43 AM
If your view is that a soldier, even off-duty, is no longer an innocent and that you may therefore kill him, and you act on this view, then you are evil.

I think that's wrong though. Especially in a guerrilla style system. Avoiding real-life fellows, let's say you found out that the Julius Caesar/General Patton of The Great Empire was taking a vacation just a few feet across the border. You break into his summer house and kill him, then the whole damn army is going to be shaken and you have the potential to change the course of war. You'd be a fool to not do it in a time of war because he's going to come back on duty.

The whole POINT of guerilla warfare is that it throws away standard methods of fighting war so that victory can be achieved against those not able to be fought conventionally.

AKA_Bait
2007-10-10, 10:48 AM
There are occupations, like tax collector and soldier, where your duty is violent - but it is pretty clear to others whether you are on-duty or off-duty. An on-duty soldier is fair game; when he gets a vacation and goes to visit his folks, he isn't. If you can't tell whether enemy soldiers are on-duty or off, this no longer applies.


So... by this standard, if I bomb an army base, including the barracks where there are off-duty soldiers sleeping, playing cards, etc. (soldiers who will certianly pick up their guns, off duty or not, and shoot at me during the attack) then I am evil? That seems a bit of a stringent standard. The diffrence bettween an off duty soldier and an on duty soldier in such a circumstance is merely a commanding officer shouting an order...

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 10:51 AM
A different analogy that might be more apt would be Huac Terrorists/Freedom Fighters sneaking into the Great Empire and murdering Reserve Soldiers or people in no way deployed into their home nation.

Which is slightly less justifiable, though frankly its just taking the war to their homeland.

13_CBS
2007-10-10, 10:58 AM
Let's try to veer the topic away from politics, shall we? That is, if that's possible at all under the original OP...

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 11:03 AM
Let's try to veer the topic away from politics, shall we? That is, if that's possible at all under the original OP...

Hence why I made up fictional nations as examples for everyone to use?

Afraidofsharpie
2007-10-10, 11:31 AM
I am sad to say it but when it comes to war, whether conventional or not, you use any and all tactics to win. As much as I am loath to admit it, if you're not willing to go all the way then why bother? If you let things like morals or codes get in the way you are limiting your ability to fight, war is a thing of killing, you kill people to win and the other side kills your people. It doesn't matter why the fight started or who started it once hostilities have commenced you need to go all out. If you're running a gurellia style army you need to understand their first and primairy concern is driving the enemy either through efficient sabotage or just plain attrition out of your lands.

I'm not sure how you handle alignments but the fact is, war is not a 'good' act even if you are the group that was attacked first. You are killing people who more or less believe that not only are they in the right but that you are a threat to their nation/people.

Riffington
2007-10-10, 11:43 AM
So... by this standard, if I bomb an army base, including the barracks where there are off-duty soldiers sleeping, playing cards, etc. (soldiers who will certianly pick up their guns, off duty or not, and shoot at me during the attack) then I am evil? That seems a bit of a stringent standard. The diffrence bettween an off duty soldier and an on duty soldier in such a circumstance is merely a commanding officer shouting an order...

I should probably have written "active" rather than on-duty or off-duty.
I meant that a soldier in a barracks (even sleeping) is fair game, but that a soldier on leave is not. This depends on an army where soldiers on leave can be readily distinguished from soldiers on missions, of course.

Riffington
2007-10-10, 11:56 AM
A different analogy that might be more apt would be Huac Terrorists/Freedom Fighters sneaking into the Great Empire and murdering Reserve Soldiers or people in no way deployed into their home nation.

Which is slightly less justifiable, though frankly its just taking the war to their homeland.

Your Huac guerrillas are now evil but non-terrorist. To specifically target reserve soldiers (or soldiers on active duty far from Hua) is a military tactic, designed for the purpose of depleting the enemy's ability to wage war. As such it is not terrorism, but neither is it a moral way to wage war.
Guerrilla warfare throws away conventional rules, and chaotic people will probably take to it more quickly than lawful ones. As to good/evil... depends on the specific guerrilla tactics. Assassinating a brilliant enemy general can be justifiable. Killing a random reservist... not so much.

hamstard4ever
2007-10-10, 01:11 PM
I am sad to say it but when it comes to war, whether conventional or not, you use any and all tactics to win. As much as I am loath to admit it, if you're not willing to go all the way then why bother? If you let things like morals or codes get in the way you are limiting your ability to fight, war is a thing of killing, you kill people to win and the other side kills your people.

War involves killing, but war is not about killing. Even in war killing is just a means to an end; just because you're killing enemies doesn't mean you're actually accomplishing anything worthwhile. You win wars by removing your opponent's means of fighting you. Generally you do usually have to kill people to accomplish this, but that doesn't mean that you do better the more people you kill. It's usually much more efficient to target the facilities and materiel the enemy needs than just trying to wipe out as many enemy soldiers as possible, plus it tends to be better propaganda. Even global superpowers need allies, and it's a lot easier to keep other countries on your side if you conduct your wars with as little bloodshed as possible. Sorry to say it, but sometimes it's just better to do things the "moral" way. You might take a few extra casualties in the short term, but in the long run you'll end up saving many of your soldiers' lives by avoiding further conflict.

jjpickar
2007-10-10, 01:44 PM
I am sad to say it but when it comes to war, whether conventional or not, you use any and all tactics to win. As much as I am loath to admit it, if you're not willing to go all the way then why bother? If you let things like morals or codes get in the way you are limiting your ability to fight, war is a thing of killing, you kill people to win and the other side kills your people. It doesn't matter why the fight started or who started it once hostilities have commenced you need to go all out. If you're running a gurellia style army you need to understand their first and primairy concern is driving the enemy either through efficient sabotage or just plain attrition out of your lands.

I'm not sure how you handle alignments but the fact is, war is not a 'good' act even if you are the group that was attacked first. You are killing people who more or less believe that not only are they in the right but that you are a threat to their nation/people.

I agree with this. If you will not or can not "go all the way" in your attempts to achieve a revolution then you may not be able to achieve it. The same goes with the occupying army. If they refuse to violently put down any and all opposition using any means necessary (torturing killing the families of anyone even suspected of possibly even helping the rebels in some way for example) then they have given up effective methods of achieving their goal. Not that I advocate this in any way whatsoever but the fact remains that morality does get in the way of success in things like revolutions and conquering nations.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 01:45 PM
Your Huac guerrillas are now evil but non-terrorist. To specifically target reserve soldiers (or soldiers on active duty far from Hua) is a military tactic, designed for the purpose of depleting the enemy's ability to wage war. As such it is not terrorism, but neither is it a moral way to wage war.
Guerrilla warfare throws away conventional rules, and chaotic people will probably take to it more quickly than lawful ones. As to good/evil... depends on the specific guerrilla tactics. Assassinating a brilliant enemy general can be justifiable. Killing a random reservist... not so much.

Maybe, I tend to require evil acts to actively go above and beyond what's needed to win a conflict (or in a conflict that's less than justifiable). There needs to be an element of wrath and hatred there. It's definitely neutral though unless the Great Empire's armies are just evil (which they're not in this example).


I agree with this. If you will not or can not "go all the way" in your attempts to achieve a revolution then you may not be able to achieve it. The same goes with the occupying army. If they refuse to violently put down any and all opposition using any means necessary (torturing killing the families of anyone even suspected of possibly even helping the rebels in some way for example) then they have given up effective methods of achieving their goal. Not that I advocate this in any way whatsoever but the fact remains that morality does get in the way of success in things like revolutions and conquering nations.

Actually, the biggest problem is that resorting to "any and all methods" tends to rarely work as opponents tend to become much more determined. Breaking resolve requires an opponent to believe that surrendering is better than continuing.

It can just as easily backfire.

jjpickar
2007-10-10, 02:24 PM
Actually, the biggest problem is that resorting to "any and all methods" tends to rarely work as opponents tend to become much more determined. Breaking resolve requires an opponent to believe that surrendering is better than continuing.

It can just as easily backfire.

It worked pretty well for the Romans. As far as I know they didn't have too many qualms about torturing and killing rebels and they subsequently had few (if any, my history knowledge is fuzzy on this point) successful rebellions against them.

Alternatively, in Vietnam, the U.S. had many restrictions on what they could or could not due and the NVA had very little (I'm regarding the NVA as revolutionaries in this case).

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-10, 04:38 PM
What is meant by "any and all methods"? Is that outright killing all suspected rebels? imprisonment, impressment (of culture, religion, beliefs, military service), slavery? What happens if the freedom fighters storm a base of enemy soldiers and find that their friends who were captured are on the front line? What do freedom fighters do with their captured? Are they hypocritical (either knowingly or unknowingly)?

Charles Phipps
2007-10-19, 07:15 PM
I'm currently setting up a terrorist vs. occupation game in my game with much of the similar situation described above and was curious if I could get some help. It's very much like Fox's Roar.

A civilized, vastly powerful, and expansionist Empire has come to the divided and troublesome Medieval Ireland-esque society of the PCs. They've allied with some clans of the land and are oppressing others.

The PCs have been charged by the island's Druids to drive them from the land and leave no trace of the Great Empire.

I think there's ample room for adventure there

Renrik
2007-10-19, 07:58 PM
Say what you will about morality. I know that if my country were invaded, I would start a guerilla campain using all tactics of guerilla warfare and terror I could use to harass, demoralize, kill, stretch out, and drain the resources of the enemy. In fact, I have planned out the initial stages of any such guerilla campain in detail. And I live in a country that has pretty much no enemies on the same continent as it. Does this make me immoral? Perhaps. But if the enemy moves in, and starts commandeering my food and enforcing their laws on my home, then I gather up the hunting rifle and the various useful things, and I take to the hills to terrorize their supply convoys on the highway.

Is it evil to launch attacks on civilians in an opponent's homeland? Probably. But let's consider this. We claim that it's evil to set off bombs and fireballs in enemy cities and kill civilians. Was it evil, then, to shell Tokyo during WW2? What about Dresden? Or Berlin? Were the Nazis evil to shell apartment buildings and factories while trying to take Stalingrad? Were the Russians evil to burn their way through Germany later in that war? Were the Dutch evil for shooting at german soldiers and dutch collaborators? Were the germans evil for killing dutch civilians to get the resistance to stop?
Was Sherman evil to march through the South and destroy their economic strength? Was Sherridan evil to do the same to the Shannondoa Valley?
Was the original IRA evil to kill a few policemen during their 1916 rising? Were the factions of the Irish civil war evil when civilians got caught in the crossfire? Were Black and Tans evil for gunning down civilians to retaliate against the IRA? Was the later IRA evil for bombing English economic targets? Was the PLO evil for doing the same to Israel? Was Israel evil for responding?

Civilians die in warfare, especially in the modern age. But is the morality of that killing truly determined by the nature in which it is done? Is it evil to kill civilians working at an arms factory with a terror attack, yet OK to kill them with artillery fire?

Either way, this all reminds me of the time we played D20 modern. As the IRA.

That was a horrible, bloody, contrevercial, and dramatic campain.

Machete
2007-10-19, 09:16 PM
Tell your Chaotic Neutrals, "Yo, its time to get your terrorism on!"
Tell your Chaotic Goods, "Its time to get your revolution on."
Tell Your Chaotic Evils, "Standard procedure old chap, mayhem and destruction on the usual. Feel free to pillage."

Tell your True Neutrals, "You are unsure of what is right anymore."
Tell your Neutral Good, "These people lack enlightenment but are not evil."
Tell your Neutral Evils, "These chumps are ripe for the scamming."

Tell your Lawful Neutrals, "These people are very much like you. Perhaps they are right."
Tell your Lawful Goods, "These folks are quite normal, though they apparently lack tact when dealing with international matters and diplomacy. You sympathize."
Tell you Lawful Evils, "Look who needs a better evil emperor! These chumps!"

Riffington
2007-10-20, 10:55 AM
Renrik: let's stay away from real world examples in this thread, or it will lead to bad flames and worse history.

I'll respond to your home-country example, since it is not under attack.
It is certainly not evil to plan out attacks that you have no current intention of performing. It's actually a lot of fun; I highly recommend choosing your home country or Belgium as the hypothetical target.

If you are being invaded, you can do almost anything to the invading forces and their supplies. Exception: if you have the easy ability to capture rather than kill, you should do so (and may not mistreat them).

When they're commandeering your food you can certainly take to the hills and bring your rifle along.

If instead you choose to enter their country, you are a bit more limited. The military value must be weighed against the civilian casualties. While the precise weight you assign to civilian casualties is debatable, they certainly need to be a negative sign.

If the invasion is partially successful, "military targets" becomes a bit broader. Law enforcement and government are legitimate targets within your home; firefighters/dentists/farmers are not. Dentists may be expelled or temporarily imprisoned, but not harmed.

Once the invasion has succeeded to the point that military means cannot unseat the conquerors, you must give up violent struggle.

Leliel
2007-10-20, 12:05 PM
What, this thread is still alive? Wow.

bosssmiley
2007-10-20, 12:28 PM
Been done before: Terry Pratchett's "Carpet People" (spoiler: it turns out the 'heroic' warrior culture only survive because the pseudo-Romans who surround them are simply too busy ruling the world to quash them like bugs).
It's also been done in K.J.Parker's Fencer trilogy (spoiler: the fearsome 'evil' empire are right all along).

You might also want to read Herodotus' "Histories". It's a story about an obscure bunch of squabbling tribes in the back of beyond who backed terrorism and rebellion against a civilised empire that has brought peace to the known world. Yes, contrary to what the anvilicious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.Anvilicious) "300" might tell you, the Spartans and Athenians *were* the bad guys all along. Marathon, Thermoplyae, Salamis and Plataea only gave them the 'liberty' to butcher and kill each other for another 150 years until Philip of Macedon finally banged their heads together.

Oh, and Machete's 'by alignment' breakdown is win. :smallcool:

Renrik
2007-10-20, 03:19 PM
I accept, Riffington, that it may have been in poor taste for me to use realworld examples, especially ones from the recent past, but you did not answer my question.

Is it any more evil to kill civilians by an act of terrorism than to kill them through intenitonal collateral damage in conventional warfare?

Charles Phipps
2007-10-20, 03:32 PM
Is it any more evil to kill civilians by an act of terrorism than to kill them through intenitonal collateral damage in conventional warfare?

Not really, though I doubt many people particularly approve of the later in today's society. That may be a sign that people are becoming a little moralistic about their positions due to the accuracy of modern weaponry or it might be that we're becoming more reserved about large scale civilian casualties.

Riffington
2007-10-20, 04:00 PM
I accept, Riffington, that it may have been in poor taste for me to use realworld examples, especially ones from the recent past, but you did not answer my question.

Is it any more evil to kill civilians by an act of terrorism than to kill them through intenitonal collateral damage in conventional warfare?

It depends on one factor: when you plan/carry out the attacks, do you treat the civilian casualties as an unfortunate side effect or as a bonus.

If you are considering destroying a manufacturing plant, and you're considering night/day, obviously there will be considerations like visibility, enemy guard plans, etc. that are relevant regardless of morality. I can't say how much weight "the janitors go home at 6PM" should have. But if you are good, that will be an argument for waiting until 7PM to attack. If instead that fact is an argument for attacking at 5PM, then you are behaving as evilly as a terrorist.

Renrik
2007-10-20, 05:55 PM
But, then, your argument rides on whether or not you enjoy killing civilians. I don;t think the thought matters as much as the action. Killing is still killing.

But, even if you do wait until they aren;t at work, you did just deprive the janitors of their jobs and livelihoods. Is that evil? Is it evil when they can;t pay their mortgage or taxes and their houses are reposessed and they go homeless?

Also, in an earlier post you said:

Once the invasion has succeeded to the point that military means cannot unseat the conquerors, you must give up violent struggle.

Forgive me for bringing up a real-world example again, but what if the Irish had taken that approach at the turn of the century? The 1916 uprising would never have happened. Instead, they went ahead with a futile and hopeless struggle they had no chance of winning, and ended up, through losing, creating a situation in which they were able to win by garnering huge public support.

Riffington
2007-10-21, 12:05 AM
Renrik, I never said it had to do with whether you enjoy killing. I said it had to do with whether you plan missions in ways that treat killing as a side benefit or a drawback. Given that wars are no longer fought by massed armies, we cannot have zero civilian casualties. But we can minimize them.

I know that war sucks. People die, people lose their property, their jobs, and a lot of other things. This is precisely why good people only fight when they can win. Nobody can know what would happen if the 1916 uprising hadn't occurred. Perhaps an Irish Gandhi might have won Irish independence without a single bomb or bullet. After all, if Britain could be swayed by a lost rebellion, how much more powerfully could it be swayed by peaceful revolt.
Or perhaps Europe would be ruled by the Russians today. After all, one never can tell. At any rate, anyone who fought the British in 1916 while believing it would fail, was committing an evil act. If you have ancestors in that rebellion, I certainly hope they thought they might win.

Jayabalard
2007-10-21, 12:14 AM
I'd say 90% of adventurers are terrorists if you look at it from a certain perspective.

However, I think you are confusing the terms rebel/freedom fighter with terrorist. There is a certain line that needs to be crossed to be considered a terrorist, but fighting against a government makes you a rebel or a freedom fighter depending on whether you win or lose.

If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? ~George Carlin

Seriously, the difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter" is a simply matter of perspective/opinion.

Machete
2007-10-21, 12:46 AM
Freedom is like a plant, one that grows best in soil soaked with the blood of patriots, revolutionaries, and martyrs. Soil eventually will dry out though.

This theoretical place sounds like its full of Lawful Neutrals lead by Lawful Evil politicians bought off by Lawful Neutral businessmen who rule by influence and subtlety.

Dervag
2007-10-21, 01:59 AM
You might also want to read Herodotus' "Histories". It's a story about an obscure bunch of squabbling tribes in the back of beyond who backed terrorism and rebellion against a civilised empire that has brought peace to the known world. Yes, contrary to what the anvilicious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.Anvilicious) "300" might tell you, the Spartans and Athenians *were* the bad guys all along. Marathon, Thermoplyae, Salamis and Plataea only gave them the 'liberty' to butcher and kill each other for another 150 years until Philip of Macedon finally banged their heads together.

Oh, and Machete's 'by alignment' breakdown is win. :smallcool:I'll buy the bit about backing rebellion, but terrorism? Could you give examples, please?

As for the rest- is an empire that will kill you for fighting your neighbor objectively right? Given that they'll also kill you for refusing to pay taxes, or for acknowledging the Emperor as your master and as nigh unto a god?

Why is the empire's willingness to kill you morally superior to your willingness to kill your neighbor?

For this reason, I regard all unelected governments as being roughly morally equivalent regardless of size; the degree to which they are good or evil is determined entirely by the personal good or evil of their rulers. And the Persian emperors were exceptionally personally good.


Or perhaps Europe would be ruled by the Russians today. After all, one never can tell. At any rate, anyone who fought the British in 1916 while believing it would fail, was committing an evil act. If you have ancestors in that rebellion, I certainly hope they thought they might win.The Easter Rising was supposed to work as the trigger for a general rebellion against British rule. The British Army being heavily distracted at the time, there were reasons to expect it to work.

But the general rebellion never materialized, and this was obvious within a few days. Fighting continued in Dublin for some time further, though.

I would argue that it is not evil to continue armed resistance against an occupying army, though it may be extremely foolish to do so if you can't win. However, it is evil to fight an occupying army with tactics that focus on the civilian population willing to tolerate the occupier.

For instance, I do not believe that the Easter Rising of 1916 was a morally evil act, regardless of its chances of success. However, some of the tactics pursued by the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland shortly thereafter would qualify as evil in my book.

Riffington
2007-10-21, 07:04 AM
Dervag:
everyone has been conquered at some point. If an Englishman traces his family tree back, he'll find a Jute somewhere; does he therefore have the right to invent a Jutes flag and start shooting soldiers?
I don't claim you need to be correct about your cause's chances of success. But if you are going to kill, you need as a very minimum a vision of a brighter future. If all you see is fruitless bloodshed, stay your hand.

To be clear: if you think you will trigger other uprisings, or get foreign aid, that's fine. I do not claim you need to win on your own. Once you see no aid is forthcoming, it's time to stop killing.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-21, 09:30 AM
The primary deciding factor on 'terrorism' is tactics. If you play by the 'Rules of War' and only attack military targets, then you are a soldier (even if rebel or freedom fighter). Those involved in the war have agreed to this conflict and are responsible for their actions, thus fair game.

Attacking support systems starts getting questionable. A farmer who supplies food to the military exclusively is a valid target. A barkeep that feeds information to one side or the other is a spy and thus treated WORSE than a soldier. However, a farmer whose crops have been seized by the military is a less valid target, likewise one where only part of the crops go to the military.

Where terrorism comes into play, is when you attack non-combatants for the sole purpose of causing chaos, which in turn applies pressure to the political structure, which then pressures the military. Both sides can use terrorism to achieve their goals. Ultimately, it is self defeating though

Renrik
2007-10-21, 10:26 AM
For instance, I do not believe that the Easter Rising of 1916 was a morally evil act, regardless of its chances of success. However, some of the tactics pursued by the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland shortly thereafter would qualify as evil in my book.

And the Irish Protestants, and the British Army, and the Irish Catholics in the South... that war generally sucked. But if you're referring to the IRA's actual, intentional, terrorism, that didn;t really get going until the second part of the 20th century. Anyway, enough about the IRA. Getting off-topic, I shouldn;t have brought it up.. They fought (mostly) in their own country. The only thing that concerns us with them is whether or not it was OK to set off bombs in England during the Troubles, and I for one condemn that particular action, even the bombings that exclusively targeted government officials (killing policemen in the occupier's country does not directly aid your cause.)

Anyway, back to the original question.

I think there's a general agreement that attacking on-duty military personel of the occupying country in your own country is OK. But what about active military personel in the occupier's homeland? What about nonvilent government officials in the occupier's homeland? What about economic targets that directly or indirectly support the enemy's military? What about weapons manufacturers?

If you narrow your targets by too much, then you lose the effectiveness of the terrorism. The point of terrorism is to bring the fear home to the enemy's populace and cause panic, which puts pressure on the opponent's government to end the wa If you'r only attacking military personel, does that put the required pressure on the government?

Riffington
2007-10-21, 11:11 AM
I think there's a general agreement that attacking on-duty military personel of the occupying country in your own country is OK. But what about active military personel in the occupier's homeland? What about nonvilent government officials in the occupier's homeland? What about economic targets that directly or indirectly support the enemy's military? What about weapons manufacturers?

If you narrow your targets by too much, then you lose the effectiveness of the terrorism. The point of terrorism is to bring the fear home to the enemy's populace and cause panic, which puts pressure on the opponent's government to end the wa If you'r only attacking military personel, does that put the required pressure on the government?

Terrorism is always evil, and is rarely as effective as nonviolent resistance. It only works on democracies, and they can be reasoned with without resorting to violence.
Your listed targets, on the other hand, are not clearly terrorist targets. Not all are legitimate targets, but all are things that aid the enemy's military preparedness. If your goal in an attack is to destroy the enemy's capacity to make war, rather than to sow mayhem and murder, you are not committing a terrorist act.

Dervag
2007-10-21, 11:51 PM
Dervag:
everyone has been conquered at some point. If an Englishman traces his family tree back, he'll find a Jute somewhere; does he therefore have the right to invent a Jutes flag and start shooting soldiers?Since his claim to be a Jute and to suffer under foreign occupation by being a Jute is a farce, no. You cannot be under occupation by an army under the command of a legitimate government established by the citizenry of your own country. But the relevant point is not that his claim is categorically wrong, it is that his point is specifically a farce.


I don't claim you need to be correct about your cause's chances of success. But if you are going to kill, you need as a very minimum a vision of a brighter future. If all you see is fruitless bloodshed, stay your hand.True, but I would argue that this is a practical choice, not a moral one. If you have a valid claim that it is legitimate to fight for, then it is perforce legitimate to fight more or less regardless of your chances of success. It may, however, be so catastrophically foolish that no sane person would be in favor of doing so.

It is not necessarily a moral wrong to be a fool, even a great fool who gets people killed by being a fool.


And the Irish Protestants, and the British Army, and the Irish Catholics in the South... that war generally sucked.You're right; I was just trying to pick examples of legitimate vs. illegitimate violence perpetrated by the same side in a prolonged conflict.


I think there's a general agreement that attacking on-duty military personel of the occupying country in your own country is OK. But what about active military personel in the occupier's homeland?I would say yes, just as it would be OK to do so if the enemy had not yet occupied your country. In essence, resistance after occupation is based on the statement that the resisters do not acknowledge the surrender of 'their' government, often on the grounds that 'their' government is a foreign puppet.

Since the resisters frequently have a point, it is not unreasonable for them to deem themselves a government as valid as the occupier's puppet and continue to levy war against the occupier as such. If so, they should endeavour as far as possible to follow the usages of war, but any legitimate target of war in the enemy's country is a legitimate target for a guerilla movement.

The catch comes when the resisters are not as legitimate a government as the one established by the occupiers, as is the case when the new established government is a democracy with wide popular support among the people of the occupied nation, or when the resistance movement's goals are aimed at aggrandizing some section of the occupied nation's people at the expense of the general public.


What about nonvilent government officials in the occupier's homeland? What about economic targets that directly or indirectly support the enemy's military? What about weapons manufacturers?Maybenoyes.


If you narrow your targets by too much, then you lose the effectiveness of the terrorism. The point of terrorism is to bring the fear home to the enemy's populace and cause panic, which puts pressure on the opponent's government to end the wa If you'r only attacking military personel, does that put the required pressure on the government?If terrorism is defined entirely as the application of force with the political objective of destroying the enemy's will to fight, then the legitimate target list for terrorists is extremely short- the same list as the one for guerillas or nation-scale combatants, minus any that will not produce useful political effect.

Riffington
2007-10-22, 07:54 AM
Dervag: let's give a more realistic example. Say you are Cherokee, and have learned about all the wrongs that were done to your people. You have legitimate grievances, and believe it would benefit your tribe to reclaim its ancestral lands.

Nevertheless, if you start shooting US marines, you won't get independence, you'll get yourself and anyone who follows you killed/imprisoned. Not to mention the deaths of the marines.

If you know that this will be the consequence- death and destruction and no independence- then it would be evil to fire that gun.
Being an unintentional fool is not evil. Reckless disregard for human life is. It is morally wrong to drive drunk, it is still more vile if you are flying a passenger plane, and more vile yet to start a war without a plausible plan to win.

Dode
2007-10-22, 08:07 AM
Say what you will about morality. I know that if my country were invaded, I would start a guerilla campain using all tactics of guerilla warfare and terror I could use to harass, demoralize, kill, stretch out, and drain the resources of the enemy. In fact, I have planned out the initial stages of any such guerilla campain in detail. "WOOOOLVVVERRIIINNESS"

Renrik
2007-10-22, 02:39 PM
^ Red Dawn FTW


Say you are Cherokee, and have learned about all the wrongs that were done to your people. You have legitimate grievances, and believe it would benefit your tribe to reclaim its ancestral lands.

Nevertheless, if you start shooting US marines, you won't get independence, you'll get yourself and anyone who follows you killed/imprisoned. Not to mention the deaths of the marines.



But, by this argument, wouldn't the AIM rebels/occupiers of Wounded Knee be evil, for doing basically that? I mean, granted, they didn;t go shooting marines, but they did declare their independance from the US government, arm themselves, and fight a series of firefights in a months-long seige that they had no hope of winning, during which several people were killed or injured. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you can't draw attention to your cause and get some concessions made. By fighting and losing the battle, you can bring yourself a little bit closer to winning the war.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-22, 03:04 PM
Killing cannot be the sole definition of evil. Everything dies, many people eat meat. If you call them evil, then they may as well go on a rampage, killing and raping everything in sight. In for a penny in for a pound.

What the H*ll? How did I get sucked into yet another alignment tirade? Bah! what was this like three pages before it devolved into an alignment dispute?

Leliel
2007-10-22, 04:38 PM
Can we stop the alignment debate? It's not getting the purpose of the thread done. Just accept the no matter how strongly you feel on the issue, you aren't going to convince the opposition, and any attempts to do so will merely result in getting flamed. Capice?

Roland St. Jude
2007-10-26, 12:30 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Discussions of real world politics and religion (including historical politics and religion) are Inappropriate Topics on these boards. That's true even when they are discussed in the gaming context.

I think it's possible, if unlikely in practice, to discuss a purely fictional political situation, though not when the original presentation is a thinly-veiled allegory of current political situations. Regardless, far too many posters in this thread didn't see fit to maintain that distinction, so I pretty much have to lock this now.