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.

Well hello department of homeland security.

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

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

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...

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.

You mean like the IRA?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Hear that Firewall

Thats one Disbute that i personaly think will never get resolved. It's got a life of it's own.

Right on.

And that tired old quote about "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is absolute B.S., and is usually used by the snivelling apologists for terrorists. Terrorism is terrorism, period, and it is never, ever, in any way, shape, or form, justified. Got that? Good.

Terrorist campaign.

Who the hell would want to roleplay blowing up a schoolbus or raping a nun or shooting a guy in a wheelchair in the back of the head?

No, don't answer me. I don't want to know.

Not going to say anything about what people call terrorism and what they don't, but I do find it interesting that playing terrorists is a no-no for so many people who still manage to play characters who make a living out of ruining other people's lives and killing a whole lot of (honest, law-abiding) secguards (many of whom have families, etc). Not to mention all that wetwork.

Would you play a game where the characters got paid to bomb a chemical weapons lab with a few scientists inside? Assassinate those scientists? Kill those scientist's families (or threat to) to make them quit their jobs? What if they researched drugs instead? Etc etc.

My group killed 35 people with a car-bomb once. They never try any non-lethal methods against secguards. If they were paid by a politically motivated terrorist cell to assassinate politicians... Oh, wait, they were and they did. Or if they were paid by such a group to bomb a busy mall or a movie theater, they would. They even raped a 17-year-old girl they had kidnapped. I don't mind, they are a group of organized crime operators who do a lot of wetwork, I don't expect them to have an active set of moral standards.

I personally wouldn't want to play a terrorist, because I haven't got a clue what makes them tick. I do not understand how their minds work in the least, so I can't play one well.

I think playing terrorists could be cool if the setting were bleak and hopeless enough. I don't think SR's Seattle is oppressive enough to make me feel good about catching "enemy" women and children with my carbomb, but plunge me into the world of 1984 or one where the Nazis won and the sheer hopelessness would make me game for anything.

"Are you prepared to give your lives?"
Yes
"Are you prepared to commit murder?"
Yes
"To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?"
Yes
"To betray your country to foreign powers?"
Yes
"You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases--to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?"
Yes
"If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a childs face--are you prepared to do that?"
Yes
"You are prepared to lose your identity and live out the rest of your life as a waiter or dock worker?"
Yes
"You are prepared to commit suicide, if and when we order you to do so?"
Yes

It's a bit silly to ignore the major terrorism theme implicit in Shadowrun. Just a short list of groups which have had large portions of one or more sourcebooks dedicated to them and their cause includes: The Irish Republican Army, The Provisional Irish Republican Army, The Legion of the Red Branch, The Metahuman People's Army, Sierra Inc., TerraFirst!, The Huk, Greenwar, The September 25th Alliance.
These are just the ones I can come up with the (I think) correct names for without my sourcebooks in front of me, I can't recall the name of the Kurdish group which Aiden supports, or the Awakened revolutionaries in Cambodia, or the fifth columns in both Tirs and Aztlan. The point is that terrorists and terrorism are a very big part of Shadowrun. Whether you agree with them or not is as moot as whether or not they are freedom fighters or terrorists.... the books refer to most of them as both.

AE, great point up there. Post the right threads, and you'll hear about players who gleefully slaughter innocents when it's convenient. Say what you will, I find such actions even more offensive than pure terrorism. (The Twin Towers were absolutely horrendous, but if the same act were performed for profit... or worse yet, such loss of life as a simple distraction, it'd be even worse than insane religious fanatics doing it for a "cause".)

If I had to draw a line between freedom fighters and terrorists, it would have to be based on their feelings about collateral damage; "pure" freedom fighters will only target government/military/etc installations and avoid civilian casualties at all costs, while "pure" terrorists will gleefully target such "soft" targets. And by that definition, I'm sure we've all played in "terrorist games"; I find them boring and shocking because there's no challenge in torturing pedestrians, just an endless display of sick ego-stroking. I might be interested in a "jaded guerilla" style game where the occasional harm coming to innocents is treated as sad but inevitable, but both good taste as well as lack of real challenge would keep me from playing a target-the-innocents game.

Alright here's my thoughts on the whole thing (which may be full of drek, so YMMV)

"Terrorists" and "Freedom Fighters" are not mutually exclusive. However, you could describe Terrorists as a sub-group of "Freedom Fighters". Specifically, Freedom Fighters can fall into the catagories of either Guerrillas and Terrorists.

Guerrillas generally (there can and are exceptions)operate in rural areas that are sparsely populated. Typical tactics are hit-and-fade raids on the forces of the government/group they are trying to overthrow. The idea behind these tactics usually are causing the enemy to spread their forces thin while they try to hunt out the Guerrillas, which make their groups easier to take out. Also, the guerrillas attempt to raise support for them in rural communities through propaganda, and by increasing dislike of the government by the people, as the military will, eventually, start searching people's houses to look for sympthizers.

As the Guerilla campaign continues, the support of the people in the cities towards the government's efforts will slacken as the death toll rises. This will happen even if the government does not have a free press, as the eventually the death toll will hit a point that no degree of spin can lessen the size. However, the Guerillas will attempt to avoid killing civilians who might support of them. If a rural village is willingly supporting the government, then they may attack the village. They might also kill upper class civilians to try and send a message that they are "fighting for the people". If the upper class civilians are humanitarians, their propeganda might be adjusted to send a message that "if you're not with us, you're against us".

Terrorists, on the other hand, operate in urban areas, and while they do hit-and-fade attacks, they aren't quite as conserned about civilians. Like Guerillas they employ propaganda. A discriminate terroist group might limit their attacks to places where foreigners are known to congregate, as well as police stations, government buildings, and similar locations. Likewise, government and police vehicles can become targets. If civilians who do not fall into either catagory or children are killed by their attacks, the terrorists will spin their propaganda to say that they were "victims of circumstance" or simply ignore the deaths. Their aims, in terms of government reactions, are to attempt to get the government to impose draconican security measures, and to get the government to launch retalitatory strikes that injure or kill people who weren't members of the group. These attacks can be spun in their propeganda to give the impression that the government is cold and heartless, raising sympathy in the community towards the terrorists.

Thoughts on how to handle this as a campaign.

PCs could work as Mercenaries or members of a organization fighting a Guerilla war against the Aztlan government. Also, several politiclubs are several degrees removed from terrorists, so you could take a politiclub and turn it into a terrorist organization, and have PCs be a member of that organization.

Being a terrorist doesn't have to mean killing masses of random people. It could mean sabotaging illegal toxic waste dumping operations, exposing a shadowrun to the media, or taking down a cluster of matrix bank servers to hurt corps in general financially.

As for terrorists and freedom fighters just being two terms for the same thing, that's only half true. Just because some people call terrorists freedom fighters and some people call freedom fighters terrorists doesn't mean they are the same thing. A lot of people think spiders are insects, but that doesn't mean that one man's spider is another man's insect. Regardless of what any number of people think, arachnids have 8 legs and insects have 6, and no amount of public opinion will change that.

The IRA are murderers, but I have to agree that the ETA are good about not going after innocents. The ETA only kills people who are important in and of themselves, rather than simply killing people for the sake of killing people.

The Sheriff of Nottingham was an appointed government official, and the Bishop of Hereford a leader in the church. Both would use the word "terrorist" to describe Robin Hood.

The words "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" have been misused so often for political gain that we can better discuss the merits of different types of Shadowrun campaigns if we avoid these words and instead use words like what AE used in his posts -- descriptions of actions.

I've played an Elf that would blow up a polluting factory, damaging hundreds of acres of surrounding land, in order to prevent the factory from spewing out any more pollution. He was an Eco-terrorist, but thought of himself as a one of the good guys. Our campaign rarely has a character that thinks of himself as evil, and there is enough save-the-world attitude and ethical behavior that sometimes the challenge in our games are the ethical dilemmas the characters find themselves in.

Just for the record, I agree that half of what a shadow-runner does borders on terrorism. I would play a terrorist if there was some good reason for their terrorism but I sure as hell would not expect him to call himself a terrorist.

Give me a cause and a sponsor and I will light up Seattle with the glow of a thousand fires...

Speaking on-topic, the only discernible difference - that I can see - between Shadowrunners and terrorists is that Shadowrunners are not necessarily loyal to a given cause. They cause mayhem, or undertake violent crimes in exchange for payment.
That is a rather sweeping generalisation, I might add.
I don't see how playing a group of "terrorist" SR characters is in fact any different to playing a group of Shadowrun characters who have a particular cause to follow: given the complexity of the setting, they're bound to hack off someone with a lot of legal and financial mojo, and then they'll find the label "terrorist" sticking quite firmly - rather like the Shadowrunners and Mercs involved in the Yucatan.
The UCAS call them "insurgents", the CAS "Freedom Fighters", and the Azzies "Foul Indiscriminate Terrorists".

Speaking off-topic...

I think the definition of "terrorist" needs a little expansion:
The purpose of the terrorist is to spread terror and disorder, to make it clear to a given population that their government is incapable of protecting them. The goal of this is to pressurise the government into conceding to the terrorist group's agenda, or suffer the consequences of ruling a country which is ungovernable.

The stereotypical "freedom fighter" also seeks to render a government incapable of governing, generally by demonstrating that it is incapable of dealing with a popular insurgency.

The IRA were terrorists. At least, that's what everyone said. Except the Nationalist Community living on the Falls Road in Belfast, who felt oppressed etc etc etc.

I'm Irish.

The IRA was, and is, a terrorist organisation. Religion, insofar as it has any relation to the IRA, is a factor only in determining the probable politics of the people of Northern Ireland, and so is quite secondary to the IRA's function as a terrorist organisation.

In the Republic, while I was growing up, there was a strong tendency to view the IRA as freedom fighters, using whatever means necessary to get the "Brits Out" of NI. If you want to go into a discussion of the historical basis for "The Struggle" and the SNAFU that came out of it, there may, at some point in time, have been a justification for that portrayal. It went out of the window at about the time that the words "legitimate target" entered the IRA vocabulary.

The closest the IRA got to achieving that goal was when they declared a cease-fire and offered to make a deal with the British Govt.

Living where I do, and being stuck in the middle of the whole mess - my second cousin was a Major in the British Army based in Armagh, and most of the rest of my extended family were ultra-nationalist - it's a bit of a sore point.
[/OT Rant]

Back on-topic: as I said, remove Mr Johnson, add "The Cause", and Shadowrunners ARE terrorists, at least as far as someone is concerned. It's as simple as that.

Sorry about the ultra-long post.
Oops

I think some people have the term "freedom fighter" mis-aligned.

I may be in the minority, but in most cases the "freedom fighter" is struggling against some sort of repressive government. Like the IRA against the British. Terrorist are boot licking, butt smelling, ***holes who TARGET the weak like CHILDREN, women, and old folks!!! I mean come on... Where is the drama in that?

How much respect do you have for the Bulling in the Schoolyard who kicks around kids who are weaker and smaller than him???? The freedom fighter is the little kid who get sick of the Drek and punches him in the mouth...


Now, a game of Freedom Fighter fighting against some mean govt like Atlzan would be awesome.... But Terrorist who go after Civilian targets.... Might as well go down to the local daycare or dogpound and start kicking little creatures!

Sorry for the rant...very close to the topics...

Well, nowadays, if you go around bullying kids in the schoolyard you can expect that one of those "little, weaklings" is gonna show up to class w/ a Uzi.

And shoot you. Repeatedly.

Moral: Don't be a bully.

You gotta wonder why it's perfectly fine in some people's opinion for "freedom fighters" to blow up civilian targets, but really bad if "terrorists" do it.