In game ethical questions

[42]

There really isn't any winning in pen-and-paper rpgs, other than having fun.

Mostly, I'm trying to figure out where to take my character.

So here's an scifi ethical question.
Mind-control: is it acceptable to attack/kill someone under the influence of mind-control? What if the controlled person is completely innocent?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

depends on what the mind-controlled guy is doing. I'm assuming, of course, that the character KNOWS the guy is mind-controlled. First option is of course, to subdue with non-lethal methods: breaking the control, rendering unconscious, incarcerating, etc. IF that doesn't work and other people are threatened, you may need to use lethal force.

[Skar]

The main difference being who wins and gets to write the history book.

The main difference between revolutionists and terrorists is not who wins and gets to write the history books.  That implies that our founding fathers are the same as Hamas/Al Quaeda/Sendero Luminoso etc... except that they won.

It also implies that a palestinian wandering into a crowded supermarket and blasting himself to bits along with all the innocents in the market is the same as, say, Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.

I agree that history is written by the victors and that recorded history is thus highly subjective.  However, it has absolutely no bearing on the right vs. wrongness of anyone's actions whether they're recorded accurately or not.

Now, if the Boston Tea Party had consisted of an American colonist walking into the governor's mansion while a tea party was going on (and the boy and girl scouts were having a convention in the same room) with a keg o' powder strapped to his back and blowing himself up,(and the American street rejoiced) then we'd have a comparable act.

It is perfectly possible to revolt and not commit atrocities or be terrorists.  (Terrorism is, in fact, totally ineffective.  Witness Ireland and Palestine for example.)  In fact, often, it is morally wrong not to revolt.

It's a fact of life that some things which are bad in some situations in life are good in others.  It's also a fact that some things are never good no matter the situation.  Terrorists, in my book, are those who cross the 'never good' line.

[Oseleon]

I will do anything to win - cheats, hacks, trainers, exploiting bugs, taking advantage of people, etc. I used to do that a lot in counterstrike, but now I switched to RPGs after CS got boring. I will pwn j00 all!

Wow, so you have absolutly no respect for other players who share these games with you?  
can I have your steam ID?

And you have no idea what an RPG is outside of the digital medium...

wow

edit: Or I just have my humor meter set too low and missed the joke

Back on topic.  Look up Thomas Aquanias and his teachings about "Just War" therory.  Compare his criteria to the revolution you are part of...

[Fellfrosch]

I would say that the Boston Tea Party was absolutely an act of terrorism--just a non-lethal one. Though the acts of many revolutionists are not "comparable" in their atrocity to those of Al Qaeda, they are still similar in their purpose and goals: to incite political change through destruction.

I did not mean to imply that the brutal murder of innocents is made acceptable by the whims of political fortune, and I apologize to anyone who was offended--terrorism is a tricky subject to discuss. The main difference between the Founding Fathers and the Al Qaeda, in my mind, is the moral code they use during the revolution, and which was/would be applied to the eventual nation they create. The Founding Fathers used terrorism, but minimized innocent casualties and went on to build a "good" nation. The Al Qaeda use terrorism to maximize innocent casualties, and any political system they try to establish will incorporate the same principles of death and destruction. I suppose you could argue that the former method is not really terrorism, but for me it's more a matter of degree than of definition.

[42]

I've usually found Aquinas to be a little flakey, but he's probably more helpful than someone like Satre, Nietzsche, or Kant. I'm kind of leaning towards a Hobbes approach.

[Skar]

American Heritage Dictionary:
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Merriam Webster:
The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

Wordnet, Princeton University:
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.

I subscribe to the third definition.  However, I'd like to note that all three definitions define either the victims or the coerced party as civilians(people, public, society, civilians).  

Discussing terrorism IS very tricky.  The way the word is used is constantly changing.

[Eagle Prince]

I would say defining terrorism is right in the name.  Its about using fear to get what you want, intimidation.  And think about how the word terrorism is used today, to describe incredibly vile deeds.  Strangely, I happened to watch Arlington Road last night.

I'm kind of glad this came up, I think its given me a fresh perspective on how my character with approach this war.  I'm definatily voting now for conventional, honorable battles; a gentlemen's war.

[Fellfrosch]

It's true that terrorism attacks civilians and non-military targets. The purpose seems to be to effect the military indirectly by holding it hostage: do what we want or the little kid gets it.

[Captain Morgan]

I decided to look up in the thesarus the Synonyms for terrorism. Several entries came up and while I don't agree with all of them, this one seemed most appropriate.
Some other terms for terrorism meaning disorder are:
anarchism, anarchy, chaos, commotion, disorganization,  disturbance,  fight, insurrection, lawlessness, mayhem, misrule, mob rule, quarrel, rebellion, revolution,  strike, terrorism, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, unruliness, uproar

I did edit this list so it was not quite so long. But it is intresting to note that rebellion and revolution both pop up. Your goal is to overthow a goverment that is corrupt, and you don't have an army to battle theirs due to numbers. A resistance using violence to any goverment operation would be cosidered terroristict by the goverment. If you are small group of people trying to fight back against the evil goverment you have no choice but to do the things that terrorists would do. In open battle you would be slaughtered. Your goal is not to insight terror in the masses however so it all come down to symantecs. Is there a better word? I'm not quite sure. Your tactics would be the same, and you would scare people reguardless of your intent.

[Skar]

In the end the difference is simply the line I talked about.

If you are small group of people trying to fight back against the evil goverment you have no choice but to do the things that terrorists would do.

Hardly.  There are far more alternatives to open battle than killing innocent civilians.  

Destruction of materiel for example is far more damaging to an oppressive government than the death of its citizens. (an oppressive government does not care about its citizens after all)  And if you're using terrorism to rebel against a non-oppressive government, killing innocent civilians gains you nothing but more enemies and a populace who doesn't like you either.  Distinctly less-effective.

To use the Palestinians as an example, if they were really serious about achieving their stated goals: self-government and the return of some land grabbed long ago by the Israelis,(to wildly simplify it) they would have adopted the techniques of Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.

Two such obvious and wildly successful examples of peaceful revolution can hardly have escaped their notice.  The fact that they have ignored those techniques is pretty convincing evidence that it's not about their stated goals, it's about hating the Israelis.

It IS a question of semantics.  Terrorism has come to mean too many things.  There is a difference between the kind of rebellion our founding fathers achieved and the kind that uses terrorism.  We need a new word that describes the kind of things rebels do to inflict damage on an oppressive government with the aim of toppling it but does not target innocent civilians.  

How about it Gemm?

[Eagle Prince]

We did get a noble with the biggest standing army on our side, along with a baron who makes weapons.  Not really sure on the exact numbers, but I don't think we are hopelessly outnumbered.  If I am honorable, I think that has more chance of winning than gorilla stuff.  Actually, this is just convincing me more.

[Skar]

Ahhhrrrrg!

Guerilla!!!!!!!

[Eagle Prince]

No, I'm talking about actual war-trained gorillas.  We got Handle Animal maxed out, so we can do that.

[Skar]

Rock on!  Only on TWG.