Terrorist Campaign?, Anyone wanna do it? Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[Beast of Revolut...]

Hey, has anyone here ever done a terrorist campaign, in which the PCs were a terrorist cell? I think it would be pretty neat to play a group of neo-anarchists who are politically motivated, and make their money either from looting or discrete contributions from private donors, rather than being hired. Would anyone like to GM such a game on the boards? Cause I would love to do that.

[BitBasher]

Well hello department of homeland security.

and No, I have never run a game of than nature and nor will I ever.

[tjn]

One man's Terrorist, is another man's Freedom Fighter.

[Digital Heroin]

I'd be for it because, as much as I'm not a terrorist, I am for playing new and varied types of characters. Hell, Shadowrunners are terrorists, just highly paid ones...

[BitBasher]

Thats wrong. A freedom fighter typically has a military objective, such as the overthrow of a government. A Terrorist typically has a purely psychological objective, that being to instill terror in a population. The freedom fighter doesnt want a population terrorized, because that makes it turns the population against them and makes it more difficult to install their own government.

Freedom fighters are typically political groups while terrorist organizations are typically religious groups.

Apples and Fords.

[Zazen]

You mean like the IRA? :P

[Kanada Ten]

And how does the Mafia fit in? Oh right, Terrorists for PROFIT.

[BitBasher]

I really dont know squat about the IRA...

The mafia are neither Freedom Fighters nor a terrorist group. They are organized crime. They dont have political or religious motivations, they are essentially busimessmen not constrained bu the morals of law.

[Panzergeist]

Terrorists are just what they sound like: people whose goal is to cause mass fear and panic. Thus, the mafia and shadowrunners are not terrorists, because their goal is to make money. Terrorist isn't just a word for a well-equipped criminal.

I would love to play a terrorist campaign. It would be great for a character I am working on, who is an adversary shaman heavy on destructive magic, with chemistry, demolition, and flamethrower skills.

[Zazen]

[tjn]

Freedom Fighters are typically the "good guys" and Terrorists are typically the "bad guys"

The only difference, is one of perception, and whether the perceptor is for the current system or against it.

[BitBasher]

Actually no, thats a wholly ignorant view, they serve totally different purposes, read above.

[Panzergeist]

Just because you are against the government doesn't mean you are fighting for freedom.

[tjn]

BitBasher, you want to read the link in your sig, as well as Zazen's post before commenting on what is, or isn't ignorant?

Let me break it down for you.

You can not define the difference between the two terms based upon motivation. Zazen provided just one example.

Both groups use force as a way to address problems they have with the status quo. (Note Panzergeist, while governments are the most likely targets, it isn't the only target.)

There are three resolutions to any conflict.

• Compromising on all sides to reach an agreeable point for all sides.
• Walking away. However in the modern world there is little area left in which people may go in order to remove oneself from contact with the other. On the internet, this concept is known as "Agreeing to Disagree."
• The last option is the use of force. Enforcing one's beliefs on the other. This is generally considered the '"Last Option" in today's world. However, it is also the option that has been used the most throughout the ages.

Both "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists" feel that there is no compromise to be reached, and that agreeing to disagree is unacceptable. Thus, the only answer left to them is the use of force.

Whether you, I, or anyone else agree with their decision is not relevant, the fact is they have chosen the use of force as a means to accomplish their goals.

The terms of "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" is propaganda, to make the term "Freedom Fighter" easier to swallow, and to vilify the term "Terrorist"

If it makes you sleep easier at night, to call your enemies "Terrorists" and your allies "Freedom Fighters," by all means, go ahead. But don't try and push that delusion upon anyone else.

Both use force as a means to their end.

[blakkie]

Not that i don't find BitBasher's generalisations way off base; Actually Zazen the IRA, or more importantly the public that is supporting it, does has a sizable measure of religion component to it. Namely RCC. That is why Sinead O'Conner got up in front of the cameras on Saturday Night Live and ripped up a picture of the Pope. Because the Pope held enough sway over members of the IRA and their supporters that loud, firm, public denouncement of their actions would have likely made a sizable impact. But the Pope wasn't doing that, and thereby was giving implicit support of the IRA actions.

But the rest of it, ya BitBasher I think you've been listening to too many "They are people that hate, we are people that love" speeches.

[BitBasher]

No no no....

Those terms do have opposites, and it is entirely a matter of perception, but freedom fighter is not the same as a terrorist with a dofferent worldview.

If anything terrorist's opposing viewpoint is typically holy warrior, while Freedom Fighter's opposing viewpoint is Insurgent or Rebel.

I feel im explaining myself very poorly.

Saying that they are the same thing because it comes down to using force is generalizing FAR more than what I am talking about. Within the group that decides force is the appropriate way to deal with a situation, you can further subdivide it down into the groups that we are talkign about.

Breaking it down too far is like saying that dogs are the same as people because we're all mammals. That's oversimplifying somehting beyond what is being discussed, which I feel is just what tjn is doing. Yes, after getting general enough any two things can be the same, but thats not the level im talking about.

[John Campbell]

Sorry, BitBasher, but you're totally wrong. However much you might want to think otherwise, the basic difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" (and a lot of more neutral terms like "guerrilla" and "insurgent") has nothing to do with anyone's worldviews, motivations, methods, or anything else. It's all about the spin. The proof of this is that the same people using the same methods to achieve the same ultimate goals get swapped from one term to the other depending on "our" policy towards them.

Remember the '80s? The mujahadin were "freedom fighters" back then because they were lobbing U.S.-made Stingers at the Soviets. Fast forward 20 years and watch the same people, with the same motivations, fly an airliner into an American office building and suddenly become "terrorists", and we're invading them and getting those self-same Stingers shot at us. They didn't change... they're the same fanatic lunatics they've always been. It's just that the Soviets are gone, and their number two target - us - is out of Stinger range.

That's an extreme example, but it's hardly the only one.

[Zazen]

[tjn]

Bitbasher, you seem to have a fixation that terrorism is somehow religious in nature.

It isn't. The term was first applied to political dissidents who applied the use of terror as a tool to attack those in power, as to have those in power would have to clean up the mess left behind so that the dissidents can do other things while the infrastructure is otherwise occupied.

The word has mutated into a tool of propaganda by those in power, due to the connotations of the public formed by the image of the actions by previous terrorists.

However, frequently in America, the connotation of "Freedom Fighter" is that of George Washington, and the American Colonies fighting from British rule. (Whether they were actually fighting for freedom in the beginning is another debate).

Because of the general glorification of George Washington et al. "Freedom Fighter" has gone to attain a connotation of someone fighting for something 'good' and thus the term is easier to swollow.

Shadowrunners are frequently termed "terrorists" by the megacorps and other institutions of power within the Sixth World. It's all propaganda and instruments of control.

And to bring it back on topic (hopefully):

I think any game, focused upon Terrorism alone, would provide a bleak game.

However, a game in which the PC's are fighting for a cause (the Phillipenes anyone? The Yucatan?) a theme of just where the line in which their fight for freedom becomes worse then what they are fighting against would provide for some deep, introspective roleplay.

The villiages and people die, the land dies... at just what point is the drive for freedom is more detrimental to the population then living under the yoke of an oppressive ruler?

Ways to empasize this? Friendly fire? Misidentified enemies turning out to be a villiage of innocents? Seeing the merc company hired to help fight the war rape and pillage the people you are trying to protect?

[Limping Jacob]

"The Revolution will not be televised..."

Or will it? This could be a very interesting campaign idea, especially if you slipped a couple media types into the group. Then, you'd be helping to wage the war on the ground as well as doing battle on the trid. In an information-dominated place such as the Sixth World (or, the present day, even) selling the revolution to the rest of the world would be almost as important as fighting in it.

[Zazen]

That was the first thought I had, but I don't think trid pirates are terrorists, not by a longshot.

[toturi]

You know, long before our modern age, the terrorists were the government (Robinspierre?). A freedom fighter was the man on the street (viva la revolution!).

Joseph(Moses's assistant) probably raised so much hell with all that ruckus with the priests and trumpets the people of Jericho simply couldn't take it anymore and surrendered. So is our godly Joe a terrorist?

EDIT:
Freedom fighter = Good
Terrorist = Bad

Killing innocent people on purpose = Bad
Killing people who put their lives on the line = War (Neutral)
Killing people you didn't mean to kill = Accident (Neutral)

Believing killing people will get you to heaven = crazy

[Nikoli]

Actually, John Cambell, the mujuadin were a different faction altogether than the group related to those who attacked the US. There were at least two major factions fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. There were the actual natives that did not want them in, which is who the US backed, supplied and trained, then there was the Muslim faction that Bin Laden was a quarter master for, they actually would have had no chance to take same deal because of their vehement belief that the US citizens were in desperate need of being shot on sight.

To me the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is a subtle one, imagine upon a lonesome highway there is a bus full of nuns and school children, no weapons, no politically motivated signage and no obvious hostiles inside.
A terrorist sees this as a legitimate target and blows it up
A freedom fighter stops it, searches it to be sure then lets it pass unharmed if nothing is found.
A fine line I know, and by this definition some factions within the IRA are potentially terrorists (I wasn't there, for all I kjnow the nuns in Ireland regularly wave rifles and shout things that incite the members of the IRA)

The point is, a freedom fighter may eventually lay down his weapon and reach a comprimise, a terrorist cannot do that unless they abandon their faith or their enemy ceases to exist.

[Nath]

The expression 'Freedom Fighter' appeared during World War 2 to speak about the people fighting from inside against the Nazi/German. Some of their action were terrorist in nature, like shooting a low-ranked German officer at random in the street. Some other were not, like gathering intelligence for the Allied or sabotaging strategical railways. Some freedom fighter were at some point terrorist. Of course, terrorist action made the bulk in the early days, before a contact could be established with London. I don't know how much did they decrease, though one could argue they still had a purpose as the German might have 'wasted' some time to go after the terrorists, leaving those conducing useful covert ops more quiet.

Robespierre only defined Terror, in a way a bit different from what we'd call terrorism: "nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice." The notion of justice probably differs a lot from one person to another, so we might better apply it as "nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible reaction". It certainly fits to both side the Israel/Palestine conflict. But for instance, September 2001 attacks weren't prompt, and as such the Americans have trouble correlating it as the answer to something (I mean, they had troops in Saudia Arabia for a decade and supported Israel for three times more). The 1790ies Terror was a twisted form of justice: "stop doing that or we'll cut your head off" and more especially "stop fighting us or we'll cut your head off". After September 2001, the American did not asked themselves what should they do or cease to do to convince Al-Qaeda to stop. Terrorism is an attempt to create Terror as defined by Robespierre, and to do that have to be prompt, severe and inflexible, but doesn't not always succede. The perception of 'severe' especially, is very relative (and for most, it involves the death of people... but anti-corporate terrorism can only target revenues). When terrorists manage to create True Terror, those affected will no longer dare to fight them.

[Firewall]

Just my opinion, as a Brit who remembers the IRA's crap. The IRA attacked targets in Britain, not political structures in Ireland. That is not 'freedom fighting', that is politically motivated terrorism.