d&d and terrorism

[mmadsen]

From the point of view of the IRA or ETA, it IS total war.

"Total war" is not simply a subjective feeling about a conflict; total war is an international war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war.

The 13 American colonies were not engaged in a total war against Britain. Even a subjugated colony that rose up en masse to fight a despotic empire wouldn't be involved in a total war unless the other nation, the despotic empire, had to engage most of its resources to fight back. Guerrilla wars are, by definition, "little wars".

 

[mmadsen]

Imagine a terror campaign launched against a nation where suicidal fanatics launch themselves against the civilian population armed with Wands of Fireball or scrolls!

I wouldn't tie your fantasy terrorists so closely to modern terrorists. Take the concept of terrifying people with spectacular harm then disappearing into the populace -- then apply all your magical fiendishness to that.

D&D magic heavily favors the attacker. Buff up for combat, teleport in, kill everyone, write messages in blood, put the heads up on pikes, etc., then teleport out.

Who's going to stop you?

 

[billd91]

"Total war" is not simply a subjective feeling about a conflict; total war is an international war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war.

The 13 American colonies were not engaged in a total war against Britain. Even a subjugated colony that rose up en masse to fight a despotic empire wouldn't be involved in a total war unless the other nation, the despotic empire, had to engage most of its resources to fight back. Guerrilla wars are, by definition, "little wars".

A dubious distinction, at best, since both cases are politically motivated violence and the guerrilla war may be the smaller power's only chance of success. Total war may be described as affecting all levels of society by some, but in a lopsided conflict, from the point of view of the smaller society, that's a suicidal option. A sad truth about these sorts of definitions of violence, legit and illegitimate, is that they are almost always designed to favor the big, realpolitik powers with more legitimacy, regardless of the moral and ethical merits of the conflict.
In a D&D setting, expect the powerful states like Furyondy, the larger remnants of the Great Kingdom, Cormyr and so on to refer to conflicts in terms that favor themselves as the legitimate wielders of power. Any separatist group fighting to get out from under them will be painted in the most unfavorable light, partly in the terms used to describe the conflict, whether they have goodness and light on their side or not.

 

[shilsen]

This thread finally gave me a use for those potions of fireball

 

[rgard]

Terrorism ain't exactly a new thing...

<snip>

1605 November the 5th - Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the English Houses of Parliament with a lot of gunpowder... that's 'modern' terror with explosives for you! No modern communications gear needed. We still celebrate his attempt every year.

<snip>

Gee, and I had always thought you were celebrating the fact that he was discovered and stopped!

 

[jester47]

Heh, terrorism is nothing new to D&D. Take a look at the Zhents in FR. If they aint a terrorist organisation I don't know what is...

A quick definition of terrorism- Any politically or economically motivated action that makes a spectacle out of the death of a target.

 

[mmadsen]

A dubious distinction, at best, since both cases are politically motivated violence and the guerrilla war may be the smaller power's only chance of success. Total war may be described as affecting all levels of society by some, but in a lopsided conflict, from the point of view of the smaller society, that's a suicidal option. A sad truth about these sorts of definitions of violence, legit and illegitimate, is that they are almost always designed to favor the big, realpolitik powers with more legitimacy, regardless of the moral and ethical merits of the conflict.

I wasn't moralizing about "justified" total war versus "unjustified" terrorism or guerrilla warfare; I was pointing out that there's a clear distinction that isn't simply about point-of-view and labels.

An insurgent often relies on his enemy's overzealous reprisals to win supoort for the insurgency.

He also relies on the the enemy not going to the other extreme: exterminating the entire local populace -- something the Romans or Mongols or most fantasy evil empires might do without a twinge of guilt. That's closer to total war.

 

[Patlin]

I don't think something going "boom" is the key elements of terrorism. Here's what I'd call terrorism:

1. The target is not a military target. If you blow up the enemy armed forces, that's an act of war not an act of terror IMO. Still horrible, but not the same thing. If you are blowing up enemy commanders or the facilities (tank factories, etc.) that make war possible, those are military targets.

2. The attack is done to promote fear and terror over a large number of people. If you blow up a plane full of people and your goal is to collect on the insurance payment (it's your plane) then you are a psychotic, sociopathic criminal but not a terrorist. The motivation is important to the definition, IMO.

3. The attack is publicized. Without communication, terrorism is impossible. People simply cannot be afraid of things they've never heard about. One of the hallmarks of terrorism is "claiming responsibility" for depraved acts.

Since #3 is very important, I'd say that the campaign setting most well set up for a terrorist attack is Eberron. They have newspapers in Khorvaire. You don't need a fireball to be a terrorist. If you go into a schoolhouse and kill all the children with a sharp stick, then make a statement to the local news sheet that you did it to protest the treatment of refugees from the mournland, and that there will be more attacks until the politics change, then you are a terrorist. No "boom" required.

 

[RustyHalo]

(getting far afield, but...) the derivation of "Nazarene"

Nisarg (in post #16) is entirely correct regarding the origin of the words "iscariot" and "zealot" -- but the origin of the word "nazarene" is not nearly so conclusive.

>>> 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. [/I]

the following article (plucked from wikipedia.org) sums it up quite succintly:

"Derivations of the word "Nazarene"
the term "Nazarenes" had at least some currency as a description of the early followers of Jesus. What, therefore, is the origin of the word? The following derivations have been suggested:

the place-name --Nazareth--, via the Greek form --Iesou Nazarene--. This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene". Although no convincing identification of the prophecy concerned has been found, either in the canonical books of the Old Testament or in the midrash traditions, the phrasing again strongly suggests that the author of Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

the word --netzer-- meaning "branch" or "off-shoot" (as in Isaiah 11:1 נֵצֶר). This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David", or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.

the word --nosri-- which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes"

the word --nazir--, meaning separated. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament. A Nazirite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained from alcohol and grape-products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses for a specified period of time. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic (for example, the gospels describe Jesus as avoiding ascetic practices, which would make it odd to describe him as a Nazirite). The word translated into English as "Nazarene" was possibly a deliberate play on words that suggested more than one of these interpretations.

 

[MaxKaladin]

Most pre-modern cities were tinderboxes. A few well placed fireballs by a dimension-dooring/teleporting mage could really wreck a city.

"If our demands are not met, another city shall meet the same firey fate as Deepport! Free Zarzibania! Give us Independence NOW!"