Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 1749270" data-attributes="member: 3400">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.</blockquote>

Verification