d&d and terrorism

[diaglo]

and the first use of biological warfare was done by the British on the French and Indians in the New World during the French and Indian Wars.

blankets and clothing from smallpox victims were given to the Indians...


use this in D&D. spread disease in areas without clerics or paladins of high enough level

 

[mmadsen]

It may pay to define "terrorism" and its goals.

Steven den Beste's Theory and Practice of Terrorism explains how terrorism works:

"Terrorism" is actually misnamed, because the goal of it is not to sow terror (though that is a common tactic). The goal of terrorism is to sow discord and disruption and to provoke reprisals from your much stronger opponent. One of the paradoxes of terrorism is that when your opponent commits a major act of violence against your people, you (the terrorist) win and you become stronger.

A war is always fought for a reason, and there are only three ways a war can end, all of which come down to eliminating the reason. First, everyone on one side can be exterminated. Or the losing side can abandon the struggle either because they no longer think they can accomplish their goal with acceptable losses, or because they have actually accomplished their goal. You can only win a war by appeasing your opponent, discouraging him, or exterminating him.

The theory of terrorism was worked out in the middle of the 20th century. Terrorists can win in several ways: by making their opponent weary of the struggle and, even with superior strength, give up, or by increasing the power of the terrorist side through recruitment so that the campaign can be converted to more normal guerrilla action or outright military campaign, or by inducing outsiders to impose a peace more favorable to the terrorist's side.​

 

[Terwox]

terrorism from a commoner:
cattle mutilation, crop poisoning, general slit-their-throat-at-night, etc.
hard to track in a low-magic world that doesn't have speak with dead and all those spells.
I forget, you could always take their mouths, too!
Terrorism does not have to equal mass murder at all, not at all.
For instance... didn't that wave of anthrax a year or four ago have a very low kill count, but hit the news and made people scared? etc. I dunno.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

and the first use of biological warfare was done by the British on the French and Indians in the New World during the French and Indian Wars.

blankets and clothing from smallpox victims were given to the Indians...


use this in D&D. spread disease in areas without clerics or paladins of high enough level

Actually I thought it was done before then when dead bodies of animals or peolpe were thrown over the walls of castles under siege. Admittedly it is not as direct as smallpox infected blankets, but it was the same general idea.

 

[Rel]

One characteristic of more modern times is that of a more city based population. This lends itself to terrorism both because you have more available civilian targets in a smaller geographical area (this also helps the "terror" to spread after you've committed your act) and provides relative anonimity to people who wish to infiltrate that community.

But if I was a medieval terrorist (or one in a typical fantasy setting), I'd probably not strike directly at the cities at all. If I had a group of fanatics that I could train to any reasonable degree as combatants and outfit with armor and weapons, I'd think (though I might be wrong) that I could bring a small kingdom to its knees.

Let's say that I can outfit a dozen men with armor and weapons (not fancy ones, let's say Scale Mail, Spear and Shield), horses and train them to some minimal degree of martial proficency (Warrior 1's). I then move to the outskirts of a small farming community. At nightfall, I break my group into three groups of 4 and each heads for a farmstead where they kill the family and farmhands there, loot the place and steal any other horses. Any other livestock are killed and their bodies thrown down the well. Then they move on to the next farmstead.

By morning we've probably killed most if not all of the local farmers and at that point we set fire to the fields. Then we ride away (possibly long and fast enough to kill the horses we stole last night, but hey, they were free) and rest up for a couple of days. Then we hit another farming community in a distant part of the kingdom. Rinse, repeat.

I'm guessing that after the 3rd or 4th iteration of this exercise, the rural farmers of the kingdom will be terrified and will start to move their families into local forts or fortified towns. The King will no doubt have his "top men" out there trying to find and kill me, but it may be too late already. If I've chosen my timing right, nearly an entire year's worth of crops may be burned or rotting in the field with nobody to harvest them. Even if they kill me and my men, it will take considerable time and effort for the farmers to clear out their wells and rebuild barns and houses.

The kingdom may well be economically crippled by virtue of the ensuing famine or the large scale import of food to avoid one. Regardless, my political point will have been made and even if I'm killed, others that serve my cause can repeat this process the following year with less than 1,000 GP of startup cash.

By golly, I think I've just come up with the seed for my next campaign!

 

[Nisarg]

The biblical names "Iscariot" (as in Judas), "Zealot" (as in Simon), and "Nazarene" (as in Jesus), were actually all names of different terrorist groups in Judea: the Secarii ("long knives"), Zelatores ("fanatics"), and Nazareans ("snakes"). These groups were dedicated to terrorist activities like assasination, kidnappings, attacking supply lines, etc.

Even back then, the middle east was chock full of terrorists dedicated to holy war against the infidel evil empire. The only thing that's changed is that back then the Jews were the terrorists and the evil empire was Rome. And Roman viewpoints of Jews was not much different than contemporary western views of Muslims, either.

BTW, yes, the above means that whenever you see someone call him "Jesus of Nazareth" they meant "Jesus the Snake".
Nazareth was not a town back then, it didn't exist yet, and the Nazoreans were a regional terrorist group. Being a Snake, or a Long Knife, or a Fanatic, would have been a mark of pride.

Nisarg

 

[vulcan_idic]

Actually I thought it was done before then when dead bodies of animals or peolpe were thrown over the walls of castles under siege. Admittedly it is not as direct as smallpox infected blankets, but it was the same general idea.

Yeah, I think people have pretty much been being mean and cruel to each other since there were people - heck, if we go by the bible look at Cain and Abel - not quite terrorism, or on a massive scale (well, unless you consider that Cain when killed Abel he wiped out one third of the male population...)

And in terms of whether or not to have it in a game, I like the idea of having it. In the real world when something happens all about 90% of us can really do is feel helpless, and that is a really bad feeling. Having something like this in game helps me deal with my helpless feelings in the real world, because in the game I *can* do something, which in turn assuages my sense of helplessness in the face of people being awful to each other in the real world. Plus, it makes me feel empowered, so the next time I see something I can do to help, I'm more likely to help someone than hide my face and walk on by... I think it helps me have the courage to do everything I can to help people in the real world, even the little things, like giving blood, visiting the elderly and generally trying to help people wherever they are. It's a strange sort of psychological jumble, but I really think that being able to deal head on with something in game, that is elusive and indirect in real life is a psychological balm. But then, that's just my two bits... well, maybe a bit more than two bits... but it's what you're getting... Sorry for the ramble!

 

[mmadsen]

Yeah, I think people have pretty much been being mean and cruel to each other since there were people - heck, if we go by the bible look at Cain and Abel - not quite terrorism, or on a massive scale (well, unless you consider that Cain when killed Abel he wiped out one third of the male population...)

Again, I think we need to clarify what "terrorism" means, because a lot of terribly cruel things aren't terrorism: total war (firebombing Dresden, A-bombing Hiroshima) isn't terrorism; chemical warfare (poison gas) and biological warfare (catapulting diseased animals over the wall) aren't necessarily terrorism; wanton cruelty (torturing prisoners) isn't terrorism; mass extermination (killing everyone in a city that fights rather than surrender) isn't terrorism; even guerrilla warfare (attacking soldiers with "irregular units") isn't terrorism.

 

[Psilocybes]

You could always use a modified delay blast fireball and a commoner to carry it around.

Or cloud kill in a bag of holding.
Enlarge bug (or whatever its called) on a spider.
Summon monster/animal/swarm.

Cheep and easy as long as the leader is a wizard and the GM does a bit of fudging.

Anyway I think it would be a good hook or a way to make a city more real.
'The church of Ra exploded today. Witness report seeing a kobold run into the church carrying a glowing box right before the explosion..."

 

[billd91]

Terrorism isn't really something easily definable because it really isn't that different from other forms of conflict in the world. It's mainly a perjorative word associated with what is generally considered unacceptible violence. It very much depends on point of view. The British bombed German cities, targeting civilians quite willingly, but this isn't considered terrorism because it was in the course of a mutually-declared total war. On the other hand, when the IRA or ETA detonates a bomb that kills civilians, it's terrorism even if it kills fewer people or does less property damage because it's not a situation of total war... from the point of view of the targeted society. From the point of view of the IRA or ETA, it IS total war. The IRA would even pull out the declarations from the original Dail to prove it (they've traditionally been very big on original Dail continuity).
So perspective makes a BIG difference about what people consider terrorism.

Modern 'terrorism' is mainly associated with secretive groups of desperados but that's mostly an artifact of the power of the modern state to collect information and bring coercive power to bear in overwhelming amounts. In a setting where the state's power isn't so strong, secrecy isn't as necessary, nor are cheap shots at soft targets. Had the Continental Congress formed to shove off British dominion with the technology of the 20th century, it probably would have had to form an army with a secretive, cellular structure and used hit and run tactics. As it was, despite Britain being the premiere superpower of the day, it's ability to project its power across the Atlantic, round up suspects, and keep tabs on the revolutionary leaders was not up to the task of even preventing the colonies from forming standing armies, much less defeat them for good.
In a D&D setting, you could argue that the power of magical divination injects the need for secrecy more like the modern age than the medieval age. Also, the ability of a kingdom to marshall magical forces could mean that the lopsided balance of power between groups in conflict might be more like we see today than in a more medieval age where all that matters is quantity and morale of the men. That would encourage the cheap shots at soft targets. But I'd say that these sorts of implications aren't really part of most D&D settings as traditionally conceived. You have to kind of push that envelope a bit to get a handle on it. But if you did, then I think you'd have a justification for violent 'terrorist' groups in your D&D campaign that fit in more with today's headlines.