This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

History/society question - why isn't political assassination more prevalent?

Started by Shipyard Locked, September 24, 2015, 09:19:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Werekoala

#30
October 08, 2015, 12:39:42 PM
Then there's always the "Sharks and Lawyers" theory - professional courtesy.

That applies to why nation-states typically don't pursue a policy of assassination, rather than disgruntled individuals/sects/whatever, but it could make for an interesting "wild card" in a campaign setting to have a nation that embarks on a campaign of attempted assassination of high-level leadership of a rival nation.
Lan Astaslem


"It's rpg.net The population there would call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ a hate crime." - thedungeondelver

Iron_Rain

#31
October 09, 2015, 02:51:49 PM
I think there have been piles of assassinations, and that now, as then, they are "believable accidents". Car crashes, heart attacks (from poison), :low blood sugars" from insulin (injected into the toe or a mole), "fast acting cancers" etc.

The media is so OWNED by the elite that when they go after each other, it's not allowed to be in the news.

Historically - we get to read about which ruler did what AFTER they were in power. Chronicallers rarely wrote much about how many of their brothers and uncles they killed to become the ruler.

Iron_Rain

#32
October 09, 2015, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;857579In Ye Olden Days, class cannot be underestimated. When your entire upbringing and culture is based around the right to rule and Divine favour, then doing away with, even with a tyrant, can be viewed as an attack on God's will itself, and will find few people willing to support your attempt. Even if you do it and replace them with yourself or someone more amenable to you, people could quite rightly view the new appointment as illegitimate.

On the contrary -  in Byzantium if you were assassinated then clearly you didn't have God's favor, and the new Emperor did.

Elfdart

#33
October 12, 2015, 09:55:45 PM
In the modern era, there's the issue of retaliation. If one head of state decides to have another whacked, there's a good chance the victim's successors will respond in kind. It's too easy nowadays to discover who did the deed and why, and it's easier still for a determined assassination ring to bump off those responsible.
Jesus Fucking Christ, is this guy honestly that goddamned stupid? He can\'t understand the plot of a Star Wars film? We\'re not talking about "Rashomon" here, for fuck\'s sake. The plot is as linear as they come. If anything, the film tries too hard to fill in all the gaps. This guy must be a flaming retard.  --Mike Wong on Red Letter Moron\'s review of The Phantom Menace

Bren

#34
October 12, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Historically most assassinations of politicians have not been state run. They are performed by crazy individuals or by small groups of the disaffected.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Christopher Brady

#35
October 13, 2015, 02:20:00 AM
Quote from: Iron_Rain;859404I think there have been piles of assassinations, and that now, as then, they are "believable accidents". Car crashes, heart attacks (from poison), :low blood sugars" from insulin (injected into the toe or a mole), "fast acting cancers" etc.

The media is so OWNED by the elite that when they go after each other, it's not allowed to be in the news.

Historically - we get to read about which ruler did what AFTER they were in power. Chronicallers rarely wrote much about how many of their brothers and uncles they killed to become the ruler.

This.  There's so much that we take for granted, and so much we will never know.  So frankly, it could be the number one way of dealing with 'problems', and there's no way we could ever find out.  Or it could be the least useful.

At the end of the day, it really depends on the society you're trying to create, how much access to information they have, how developed the spy/assassination network is.Which are all things you can hand wave anyway.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

Omega

#36
October 14, 2015, 04:30:41 AM
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859247I'm trying to improve my ability to create and run fantasy worlds. Many settings feature realms rife with assassination and I'm exploring the limits of such a thing.

I wouldn't say most TSR/WOTC settings are particularly overflowing with assassination attempts. But they are there to some degree.

In AD&D at least, and to some degree 3-5e, political assassination comes across as a near futile endeavour when the victims relatives or cronies can probably pay for a raise dead at the nearest allied temple. Or DIY.

Something else to consider with political assassination is the probable presence of counter-assassins a-la 007.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions