I am thinking either alchemist or evoker wizard.
noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Any class.
I would go with any. (Including ninjas, beat me by a few seconds)
Any class. In fact, I suppose that the common terrorist would be less likely to be a useful class than other organizations.
Terrorism tends to be associated with a rather particular form of guerrilla warfare that usually comes up when there is a large difference in military power (weaker country against stronger country, or small political organization against the group in power). It usually relies upon low skill grunts that are minimally armed and sent after soft, civilian targets.
So they are not exactly cavaliers here. They are less likely to have good combat classes that could be turned into a proper military unit.
You could make a wizard that just so happens to be a terrorist. But terrorist organizations would often lack the resources to support a good wizard training program- so it would have to be a wizard forced out of normal society into illegal activity. If that case, I would advise liberal use of explosive runes- potentially put onto various flyers and dumped across the city. Long lasting danger that could go off at any moment, and it only requires some literate fool to stumble upon it.
You might also want to look into other dark organizations that are more fantasy friendly and better integrated into the typical campaign- the cult, the thieve's guild, the assassin's guild, rebels (tends to have better military power; might even have the backing of local lords due to feudalism), usurpers (the classic treacherous chancellor), etc.
What the others said, just anybody can be a terrorist... now, if you intend to have a firebomber, alchemist or evoker are indeed best suited for it...
We talking suicide bombing, school shooting, mass stabbings? Honestly, barbarian is the most "terrorist" class out there.
For suicide bombing, play an alchemist with negative con. For shooting schools, play a trench fighter with a Madsen Light Machine Gun. For stabbing streaks, Just play a fighter or barbarian,
What the others said, just anybody can be a terrorist... now, if you intend to have a firebomber, alchemist or evoker are indeed best suited for it...
Alchemist is probably a better choice if you want to last longer than one fight- you can hand alchemic weapons off to the grunts (so that the low skilled individuals are killed off instead).
That is the problem with terrorism in this kind of setting- there are not enough goods that can be easily handed off to low skill combatants. As such, it is hard to deal effective attacks without putting skilled personnel on the line.
Otherwise, you just have a bunch of low level commoners that get sent out and slaughtered by the better armed/trained knights/soldiers.
That is why most criminal organizations in the setting seek to either target high value military, political, and business figures (assassin's guild) so that the use of skilled personnel is leveraged. The ones that do target civilians usually seek to turn a quick profit without gaining the attention of authorities (bandits and thieve's guilds; cults face similar trouble when kidnapping 'sacrifices').
noun 1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Any class except paladin, and very few good-aligned classes have any decent excuses free of duress. (IMO, a PC shopping for excuses, e.g., quibbling about the definition of evil/wrong/bad/etc. in order to get away with a tactic they find situationally beneficial, calls into question how 'good' their character really is.)
The use of the word "intimidation" will probably throw people off here. --There's a world of difference, in a moral sense, between being physically intimidating (i.e., a more or less innate state of being that, in game terms, you find necessary to remind potential opponents of from time to time) -- and something like threatening to murder innocents to force political concessions, especially if said threat carries weight because you've a track-record of doing it before.
A "civilian" I would describe as any innocent, inoffensive noncombatant NPC who is not otherwise integral to the scenario plot.
A crimson templar paladin of Ragathiel who used terror tactics against the forces of Hell could actually be really interesting.
"The forces of Hell" aren't civilians.
noun 1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Any class except paladin, and very few good-aligned classes have any decent excuses free of duress. (IMO, a PC shopping for excuses, e.g., quibbling about the definition of evil/wrong/bad/etc. in order to get away with a tactic they find situationally beneficial, calls into question how 'good' their character really is.)
The use of the word "intimidation" will probably throw people off here. --There's a world of difference, in a moral sense, between being physically intimidating (i.e., a more or less innate state of being that, in game terms, you find necessary to remind potential opponents of from time to time) -- and something like threatening to murder innocents to force political concessions, especially if said threat carries weight because you've a track-record of doing it before.
A "civilian" I would describe as any innocent, inoffensive noncombatant NPC who is not otherwise integral to the scenario plot.
A crimson templar paladin of Ragathiel who used terror tactics against the forces of Hell could actually be really interesting."The forces of Hell" aren't civilians.
Depends who you ask. I mean yes, obviously, they are objectively evil. Yet if it's devils talking to other devils...
Ragathiel crusaders also get really sketchy, because the prestige class gets penalized for killing good creatures, but not for neutral, which makes them run dangerously close to accepting collateral damage.
Just gonna put this out there:
- Robin Hood was a terrorist. He use un-lawful violence against civilians (even if high ranking civilians).
- Nelson Mandela was considered a Terrorist, and not just in his own country. Both the US and the UK considered the African National Congress a terrorist organisation. REFERENCE LINK
The definition of terrorist may not fit with the one I posted earlier. To really answer "What class would be a terrorist?" we really need to know what your definition of a terrorist is ...?
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear - a Paladin could absolutely be a terrorist. It just depends on your definition of a terrorist.
