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

[Leliel]

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]

What, did I scare every one away with the title? Should I change it?

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

[Mithhuan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ah, moral ambiguity, facilitating good roleplay the world over.

[goat]

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]

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.

[Leliel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What do you mean "It's not what you think", it was exactly what I thought.

[hamstard4ever]

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]

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.

[....]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.