Jump to content

KJDavid

Members
  • Content Count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KJDavid

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/26/1979

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kentucky, USA
  1. Sure. I'm not saying the Alliance can't have a black ops division that does morally questionable things. I'm simply arguing that it seems unlike them to field execute a rank-and-file volunteer who ran from an Imperial Star Destroyer after receiving confusing orders in a combat situation.
  2. Morality is, of course, a factor in how a war is fought, but I've never seen it play a major role in who wins or loses. The American Revolution is a great example. Many claim that the British clinging to "gentlemanly" conduct led to their loss of the war, but this simply isn't true. The British won the majority of the battles, and only lost when the French deployed an army and, more importantly, a fleet to end British naval dominance along the American coast. That coupled with lukewarm support at home led to British defeat. If the British had decided to abandon their gentlemanly rules, victory would not have necessarily followed. Many nations have committed horrible atrocities on their enemies and used draconian policies to maintain order among their own forces. History shows time and again that the army which routinely executes its own soldiers for desertion and not following muddled orders has no greater chance of victory than the one that does not. The Imperial Japanese Army instituted inhumane levels of discipline within its own force structure, and lost despite such depravities. The Soviets did horrible things to their own men, and won. The Americans did not, and won. The Italians did not, and lost. Brutality no more guarantees victory than leniency ensures defeat despite what the bloody minded have to say on the matter.
  3. Show me one war, just one, where "taking the moral high ground" resulted in defeat. Extremists often trot out such a line, but I've yet to see any valid evidence. It is much more often that both sides justify horrific atrocities against their enemies which have nothing to do with victory.
  4. Real-life military organizations do not execute soldiers because of muddled orders. If an officer gives his men conflicting information and responsibilities, those same men aren't dragged behind the chemical shed and shot an hour after the battle ends. Also, just FYI, the actual number of times that soldiers have been executed for cowardice and desertion in actual real-life are surprisingly few and far between. Before the modern era it was virtually impossible to find much less punish deserters who simply disappeared from your camp in the middle of the night or ran during battlefield confusion. In the modern era, it rarely happened, because rates of desertion decreased dramatically due to esprit de corps, propaganda, and better command-and-control. There are two major "Fight or Die" episodes which come dramatically to mind: Soviet Russia in 1941 and Nazi Germany in 1945. The Red Army launched a disastrous offensive in 1941 right into the teeth of German invasion. Faced with a front line in danger of collapse, the NKVD and other Soviet police agencies routinely used summary execution to encourage "bravery in the face of the enemy." Bear in mind this behavior was simply part and parcel of one of the bloodiest regimes known to human history. Then we have Nazi Germany in 1945. Germany was, as most people know, collapsing rapidly. Whether it was actually happening or not the SS and their leadership believed that desertion was weakening the army, so there were SS units patrolling Germany for 'deserters' which usually meant anyone of military age without a good excuse to be in uniform. They hung those they found. Again, this is Nazi Germany. By comparison, the number of people executed for desertion or cowardice among the Allies, Japan, or China in World War II is phenomenally low. Even when you look back at World War I, a war known for its general disregard for human life, you have only a few incidences, most notoriously the French mutinies in 1917 and 198. Around 600 men were executed. Yes, that's a lot, but not compared to the actual number who deserted. So, yes, execution for desertion is very unusual in real life except when practiced by the most violent regimes imaginable who were, at the time, engaged in struggles for their very existence. I don't care how many "shades of gray" are in your campaign. If the Rebel Alliance is executing people for desertion (which it would be argued that the pilot in this instance did not actually commit), then how are they better than the Empire?
  5. House of the Dead was fun to watch, but due to any capability on the part of Boll.
  6. The Revenge of the Sith made Darth Vader look like a whining child. The Attack of the Clones displayed the Jedi Order as one of mind-blowing incompetence. The Phantom Menace was simply hot garbage. It lacked a coherent plot or, most importantly, a protagonist. As far as not being a "real fan" because I didn't like the prequels, I say to that, "Suck it." They were crap. My definition of fan does not require willful ignorance or delusional thinking. Will FA be good? No idea, but there's no way it can be worse.
  7. The Alliance executing members for 'desertion' or any reason is patently absurd on its face. I very much doubt the Alliance executes captured Imperials, but they're going to kill people who risked everything to face down the Empire? Yeah, right. You can play Star Wars with shades of gray and moral ambiguity, and that is perfectly acceptable. It even sounds fun, but let's not act like there is any legitimate ambiguity in the subject material. Star Wars paints a stark line between good and evil. Pretending that it doesn't is simply disingenuous.
  8. Some good ideas in the thread, but.... You could also just beef up the encounters. Throw in a squad of mooks or two specifically to get flamed. The player with the flamer will still have fun, and the other players deal with the other threats. Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about changing any rules or getting in any weird scenarios just to deal with one player's weapon that he probably really, really loves.
  9. It was a great read. Very exciting and funny.
  10. You might want to consider using Google Hangouts. There's an app with all the special AoR and EotE dice, and it tracks Destiny points.
  11. If Teemo is reckless, vicious, and stupid, anything is possible.
  12. Bargos could have enough prestige, political clout, or sheer money to calm down Teemo. Teemo might want the PCs, but does he want them more than he wants to maintain good relations with Bargos? Maybe he stops moving overtly against the PCs, but tries to arrange 'accidents' for them. Sure, Teemo could try to assassinate Bargos. Does he have the political strength to survive such a move? We think of Hutts in an organized crime sense, but they aren't like any modern syndicates. They're more like feuding Byzantine nobility who owe their wealth to drugs, slavery, racketeering, bribery, and the black market. The strength of a Hutt isn't found in his personal armed guard, but his wealth, political connections, blackmailed pawns, and economic influence. Hutts use bounty hunters, because they throw money at serious problems. Hope that helped.
  13. Coordinates to Ilum - useful for anyone interested in building their own lightsaber.
  14. If the droid wants to have equipment integrated into their chassis as per the sidebar on page 47, you should let them do it in line with their Encumbrance rating. If it's something like a blaster that they want to hide, then your NPCs should be able to make Perception checks to spot it just like they would if the Smuggler hid a similar blaster in his boot. The rules aren't actually different for droids, the 'integration' bit just makes it easier to explain narrative wise.
×
×
  • Create New...