Jump to content
EpicTed

Military Punishment

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Outside of the trial options you could also have word spread about him.   Fewer and fewer people want to work with him, etc.  So say you drop a mission to go blow up a reactor only one of the NPC teams refuses to go with the PC group because of that guy with the reputation for shooting his fellow rebels.  Now the mission is harder for the entire group.

Well, the guy that refuses to go better realize he's likely to be shot for refusing to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 5:13 AM, HappyDaze said:

Well, the guy that refuses to go better realize he's likely to be shot for refusing to go.

Well, if he does, the next time the PCs start giving unpopular orders and mess up a leadership check, their erstwhile allies may not just refuse, but refuse en masse and at gun point or just open fire proactively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of a running subplot in "Band of Brothers", where Lt (later Captain) Spiers was rumoured to have summarily executed a bunch of German prisoners on D-Day. There are all kinds of stories - some say he gave them cigarettes before shooting them, some say he didn't do it, but watched another do it. Others say that it was 5 guys, others say 20. The point - and this is addressed later in the series - is that Spiers found that having the reputation for being a hard-**** was useful in maintaining discipline. 

As far as SW goes, you could make it into a similar thing: a set of stories, with different aspects exaggerated depending on who was telling the story. Another PC says: "Hey, I was there!", to which the response is "Sure you were...but my buddy over here? He was there!" 

Personally, I'd go for the court martial - it's the Rebel Alliance, not the Imperial Military - and have the guy locked up forever in a small cell after being convicted of murder, but that's me, and I get that the OP wants to keep the character in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 11:51 AM, Daronil said:

Rebel Alliance, not the Imperial Military

Cassian Andor shot an intel asset in the back.  Probably not even close to the first time he did that.

His commander ordered him to assassinate another asset that people up the chain from that commander had just ordered captured and brought back alive.

Look at Saw's people

Freedom fighters can do a lot of really nasty stuff in trying to overthrow a government.  Just look at all of human history (yes, even USA Revolutionary War history).  Never forget, the Rebellion to Restore the Republic is a terrorist organization.  So were the Sons of Liberty 

"In Boston, another example of violence could be found in their treatment of local stamp distributor Andrew Oliver. They burned his effigy in the streets. When he did not resign, they escalated to burning down his office building. Even after he resigned, they almost destroyed the whole house of his close associate Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson. It is believed that the Sons of Liberty did this to excite the lower classes and get them actively involved in rebelling against the authorities. Their actions made many of the stamp distributors resign in fear."

And of course the men who signed the Declaration of Independence (at least they were in the eyes of the British Government and the Torys).

This characters actions were pretty savage, and they might have at least seemed justified, but they aren't necessarily anything that people are going to have never heard of before.  

Maybe he'll be like Lt. Aldo Raine on being told he would be shot, "Nahh, I don't think so.  More like chewed out  I been chewed out before."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Cassian Andor shot an intel asset in the back.  Probably not even close to the first time he did that.

His commander ordered him to assassinate another asset that people up the chain from that commander had just ordered captured and brought back alive.

Look at Saw's people

Freedom fighters can do a lot of really nasty stuff in trying to overthrow a government.  Just look at all of human history (yes, even USA Revolutionary War history).  Never forget, the Rebellion to Restore the Republic is a terrorist organization.  So were the Sons of Liberty 

"In Boston, another example of violence could be found in their treatment of local stamp distributor Andrew Oliver. They burned his effigy in the streets. When he did not resign, they escalated to burning down his office building. Even after he resigned, they almost destroyed the whole house of his close associate Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson. It is believed that the Sons of Liberty did this to excite the lower classes and get them actively involved in rebelling against the authorities. Their actions made many of the stamp distributors resign in fear."

And of course the men who signed the Declaration of Independence (at least they were in the eyes of the British Government and the Torys).

This characters actions were pretty savage, and they might have at least seemed justified, but they aren't necessarily anything that people are going to have never heard of before.  

Maybe he'll be like Lt. Aldo Raine on being told he would be shot, "Nahh, I don't think so.  More like chewed out  I been chewed out before."

The Rebel Alliance did not engage in terror operations and did not target civilians. To the contrary, they strove to minimize collateral damage.  Note specifically that Saw's people were not members of the Rebel Alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

The Rebel Alliance did not engage in terror operations and did not target civilians. To the contrary, they strove to minimize collateral damage.  Note specifically that Saw's people were not members of the Rebel Alliance.

That's a matter of history being written by the winners.  

I'm sorry but it completely beggars belief that a rebellion that brought down an empire spanning thousands of worlds did not engage in any activity that could be considered acts of terrorism.  

Part of the path of ANY insurrection (or at least every single one that we have ever seen on our planet) involves causing the government to crack down on the population in an effort to get the segment of the population that is comfortable and supports the regime.  

Sure Mothma and Organa are going to do everything they can to have plausible deniability, but the rebels would have to engage in activities that had significant direct and collateral damage on non-combatants.   

People are just afraid to write it because they don't want to admit that "the good guys" occasionally have to blow up a hotel (like the Israeli independence movement did) r tar and feather some tax collectors, or throw a ton of tea into the harbor,  or straight up murder people that they deem to be "collaberators" or blow up a munitions factory that happens to be operated by slaves and civilians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cassian Andor shot an intel asset in the back.  Probably not even close to the first time he did that.

Well, for one thing, he didn't shoot him in the back. My memory is that he moved in close to the guy and shot him in the stomach. But that's neither here nor there. There are a couple of salient points with this:

1) The guy was one of Saw's mob, who were terrorists, and were considered so by the Alliance in general (more on that momentarily).
2) The guy was unable to escape, was about to be captured by the Empire at which point he would be giving away a whole lot of intel under torture, following which he'd be executed. Cassian probably did him a favour.
3) Anders almost certainly had done similar things before - it's one of the reasons he was such a broken man, carrying the weight of years of ruthless activity with him.

 

 

His commander ordered him to assassinate another asset that people up the chain from that commander had just ordered captured and brought back alive.

 

And this is right around the time that the scattered revolutionary cells were finally organising under that command - Mothma and Organa. If you think Mothma was only demanding the new Alliance act ethically then you haven't watched the final season of Rebels, which included the final falling-out between Saw and Mon Mothma.

Secondly, you'll note that Anders didn't execute Galen Erso. 

 

 

Look at Saw's people

 

Precisely. The ones who were persona non grata among the Rebellion specifically because of their ruthlessness and willingness to cause collateral damage. 

Lastly, as a general point, quoting real-world history as an example of how things "should" or "ought to" be in the Star Wars universe is next to useless. Warfare hasn't included armies standing up and marching toward each other while shooting since about, oh, Napoleonic battles?? 

Edited by Daronil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Cassian Andor shot an intel asset in the back.  Probably not even close to the first time he did that.

His commander ordered him to assassinate another asset that people up the chain from that commander had just ordered captured and brought back alive.

Look at Saw's people

Freedom fighters can do a lot of really nasty stuff in trying to overthrow a government.  Just look at all of human history (yes, even USA Revolutionary War history).  Never forget, the Rebellion to Restore the Republic is a terrorist organization.  So were the Sons of Liberty.

(Snip)

This characters actions were pretty savage, and they might have at least seemed justified, but they aren't necessarily anything that people are going to have never heard of before.  

Maybe he'll be like Lt. Aldo Raine on being told he would be shot, "Nahh, I don't think so.  More like chewed out  I been chewed out before."

Now, you aren't entirely wrong, in that a galactic insurrection would have to resort to some desperate measures in order to make up for the severe force discrepancy. People probably live next to, or even in Imperial factories or shipyards. The Rebels would still attack those locations, try to bomb them, disrupt the Imperial war machine in any way possible just to stand a chance of liberating the galaxy. They'd send children into the fight, either as spies, support staff, or even sabouters or combatants. They'd conduct operations in civilian areas, knowing that the Imperials, who often, if not always had superior firepower, did not share their concerns for civilian lives or collateral damage. They knew that the Empire had no qualms about making examples of Rebel sympathizers or populations harboring them. One need only look at what's left of Alderaan to know what the Empire is capable of. They knew that the fight to defeat them, and end their reign of fear and violence would require every advantage that they could get.

However, this is not that. This is shooting a subordinate for refusing to immediately follow an order without question. A very un-rebel behavior. A decidedly Imperial action. This is abusing their authority, plain and simple.

Edited by Dayham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

That's a matter of history being written by the winners.  

I'm sorry but it completely beggars belief that a rebellion that brought down an empire spanning thousands of worlds did not engage in any activity that could be considered acts of terrorism.  

Part of the path of ANY insurrection (or at least every single one that we have ever seen on our planet) involves causing the government to crack down on the population in an effort to get the segment of the population that is comfortable and supports the regime.  

Sure Mothma and Organa are going to do everything they can to have plausible deniability, but the rebels would have to engage in activities that had significant direct and collateral damage on non-combatants.   

People are just afraid to write it because they don't want to admit that "the good guys" occasionally have to blow up a hotel (like the Israeli independence movement did) r tar and feather some tax collectors, or throw a ton of tea into the harbor,  or straight up murder people that they deem to be "collaberators" or blow up a munitions factory that happens to be operated by slaves and civilians.  

 

7 hours ago, Daronil said:

Well, for one thing, he didn't shoot him in the back. My memory is that he moved in close to the guy and shot him in the stomach. But that's neither here nor there. There are a couple of salient points with this:

1) The guy was one of Saw's mob, who were terrorists, and were considered so by the Alliance in general (more on that momentarily).
2) The guy was unable to escape, was about to be captured by the Empire at which point he would be giving away a whole lot of intel under torture, following which he'd be executed. Cassian probably did him a favour.
3) Anders almost certainly had done similar things before - it's one of the reasons he was such a broken man, carrying the weight of years of ruthless activity with him.

And this is right around the time that the scattered revolutionary cells were finally organising under that command - Mothma and Organa. If you think Mothma was only demanding the new Alliance act ethically then you haven't watched the final season of Rebels, which included the final falling-out between Saw and Mon Mothma.

Secondly, you'll note that Anders didn't execute Galen Erso. 

Precisely. The ones who were persona non grata among the Rebellion specifically because of their ruthlessness and willingness to cause collateral damage. 

Lastly, as a general point, quoting real-world history as an example of how things "should" or "ought to" be in the Star Wars universe is next to useless. Warfare hasn't included armies standing up and marching toward each other while shooting since about, oh, Napoleonic battles?? 

 

24 minutes ago, Dayham said:

Now, you aren't entirely wrong, in that a galactic insurrection would have to resort to some desperate measures in order to make up for the severe force discrepancy. People probably live next to, or even in Imperial factories or shipyards. The Rebels would still attack those locations, try to bomb them, disrupt the Imperial war machine in any way possible just to stand a chance of liberating the galaxy. They'd send children into the fight, either as spies, support staff, or even sabouters or combatants. They'd conduct operations in civilian areas, knowing that the Imperials, who often, if not always had superior firepower, did not share their concerns for civilian lives or collateral damage. They knew that the Empire had no qualms about making examples of Rebel sympathizers or populations harboring them. One need only look at what's left of Alderaan to know what the Empire is capable of. They knew that the fight to defeat them, and end their reign of fear and violence would require every advantage that they could get.

However, this is not that. This is shooting a subordinate for refusing to immediately follow an order without question. A very un-rebel behavior. A decidedly Imperial action. This is abusing their authority, plain and simple.

As @Daronil so succinctly said, Canonically, the rebel alliance refused to resort to terrorist tactics. This was why Saw's group of Partisans were "persona non grata". The rebellion specifically chose the moral high ground while fighting the Empire. This means that no, they did not target non-combatants, they did not torture, or cause mass destruction. They hit military assets only. That is canon. You don't get the Empire to crack down on civilian populations by targeting them yourself. The Rebels needed the general populous on their side. That wasn't gonna happen if they targeted civilians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 10:12 AM, EpicTed said:

During a base defense battle, my group was working together with a couple of minion rebels. When one of them disobeyed an order a PC gave them (which was acceptable, as it was a low-ranking SpecOps guy telling a low-ranking SpecForce guy what to do), said PC shot him on the spot.

Now, court martial-ing them isn't really an option I can work with, so: What sorts of punishment could I deal out? The player's invested in his character, so I don't want to take it away from them, but I feel some kind of repercussions for friendly fire are in order.

Only the commanding officer can administer punishment even during war the NCO’s would only carry it out once he does.  That’s at col 0-6, 0-5, maybe an 0-4 (only if a col level rank isnt available which never happens).  The low level ranking troop was way out of line and should be court martial'd for taking matters into his own hand and deciding then commencing punishment only a commanding officer has authority to do.  I served in the military for a long time and he doing that would have put him in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Edited by Metalghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2018 at 9:51 AM, Mark Caliber said:

I'm with Copperbell on this one.

I need WAY more information on this one.

 

I do recall that as an NCO, I did have the authority to perform summary executions on a battlefield for disobedience to orders* and desertion.  Hmmmm.  But I'd have to make certain that I was actually in the right.  There's also the fact that shooting your own troops is generally a waste of ammo and can kill morale.  * (Later in my career that was modified to 'lawful' orders).

TrumpGraphics does make a good point that enforcing discipline on a trooper outside your unit & chain of command doesn't work in the US Army.

However Commissars in Soviet Russia and Gestapo agents in Nazi Germany DID have that authority.  And they DID exercise that authority.

So without details I don't know what would be appropriate.  However, based on what little I do know, a Court Marshal should be convened.  Let THEM sort through the evidence and render a verdict.

 

There is also another cogent facet to this decision too.  Unfortunately (yes unfortunately) success tends to make up for a multitude of sins.

I recall reading a play (Scandinavian playwright and blast me it's been over 20 years so the name escapes me) about a soldier in a mercenary like company.  The contrast is that this soldier is involved in a serious battle and engages in a number of reckless acts but because the unit wins the battle the soldier is hailed as a hero.  In the next battle, the course of the conflict turns against the troop and the soldier, doing essentially the exact same acts, is later tried for criminal misconduct and executed for this 'crimes.'  Because the army lost.

My point being, that if the PC in question affected significant and spectacular actions to turn the tide of battle in favor of his side, then the case may just . . . go away.

However, if they made a material mess of the situation, then a court marshal may go harder on him.

 

And lastly, there is one other consequence possible.  Those SpecForces guys don't die easy.  He may have been shot and may have gone down, but that's quite different from dying.  It's entirely possible that the SpecFor guy is still alive, well, walking, and holding a grudge.

As an NCO you do have the authority to carry them out by the grace of your commander, but only your commander has the authority to decide what punishment he gets not you.  Thats etched into the UCMJ, and no commander would in his right mind give you the authority to decide if and what type of punishment if any the perp would get.  Your commander would be in court himself along side of you as both of you are getting court martial'd for doing such a thing.  You only have the authority to carry out admin punishment, and would never have the authority to decide it yourself even in war.  I served almost 20 so I do know the laws very well in the military.

Edited by Metalghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

 

 

As @Daronil so succinctly said, Canonically, the rebel alliance refused to resort to terrorist tactics. This was why Saw's group of Partisans were "persona non grata". The rebellion specifically chose the moral high ground while fighting the Empire. This means that no, they did not target non-combatants, they did not torture, or cause mass destruction. They hit military assets only. That is canon. You don't get the Empire to crack down on civilian populations by targeting them yourself. The Rebels needed the general populous on their side. That wasn't gonna happen if they targeted civilians. 

Canonically the United States has never committed war crimes and we're always the good guys in wars.  Canonically.

I bring real world history into this because our stories reflect our own experience.  All science fiction and fantasy works like this.  That is why we make it.  

And that's the funny thing about "military assets only."  It's real easy to classify something as a military asset when it's really not....or when your bombs go to the wrong place....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_strategic_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/05/women-victims-d-day-landings-second-world-war

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2017/05/18/dark-violence-and-atrocities-revolutionary-war/X4Kr4EzUUrNeVmnrNeSh2N/story.html

 

Now look, I'm get the most people don't want morally grey (or darker) stuff like this to get in the way of telling a good hero tale.  I'm just giving an opposing opinion, maybe it will help bring a little more nuance to someone's game.  I think that's always worth something. 

And sometimes that supply depot full of Stormtroopers and imperial flags needs to get blown up...and sometimes you find out after the fact that they were guarding a shipment of medical supplies to combat a plague that's decimating a core world.  Dead citizens don't pay taxes and even the most evil of governments wants to keep the people it deems worthy alive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Canonically the United States has never committed war crimes and we're always the good guys in wars.  Canonically.

I bring real world history into this because our stories reflect our own experience.  All science fiction and fantasy works like this.  That is why we make it.  

And that's the funny thing about "military assets only."  It's real easy to classify something as a military asset when it's really not....or when your bombs go to the wrong place....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_strategic_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/05/women-victims-d-day-landings-second-world-war

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2017/05/18/dark-violence-and-atrocities-revolutionary-war/X4Kr4EzUUrNeVmnrNeSh2N/story.html

 

Now look, I'm get the most people don't want morally grey (or darker) stuff like this to get in the way of telling a good hero tale.  I'm just giving an opposing opinion, maybe it will help bring a little more nuance to someone's game.  I think that's always worth something. 

And sometimes that supply depot full of Stormtroopers and imperial flags needs to get blown up...and sometimes you find out after the fact that they were guarding a shipment of medical supplies to combat a plague that's decimating a core world.  Dead citizens don't pay taxes and even the most evil of governments wants to keep the people it deems worthy alive. 

 

Wrong. There have been US soldiers convicted of war crimes by our own government even in wars we’ve won, so your argument is seriously flawed. The Rebel Alliance was built upon moral principles to fight an evil regime. You don’t defeat evil by committing it. 

Edited by Tramp Graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. There have been US soldiers convicted of war crimes by our own government even in wars we’ve won, so your argument is seriously flawed. The Rebel Alliance was built upon moral principles to fight an evil regime. You don’t defeat evil by committing it. 

Thank you for completely misunderstanding me and then proving my point. 

See, I never claimed or disputed that US soldier haven't been convicted or war crimes.  I said, "canonically the United States has never committed war crimes."  Because that's the story we tell ourselves.  ("Support the troops, stop dragging the military through the mud, you weren't there, you don't know what war is like!!!"  "It's treasonous to question our military leaders.  When you post photos of torture at military prisons you're helping the terrorists win!") That's the story we try to tell the world.  The US doesn't do wars of aggression or unjust wars.  We were built on moral principles. (they're in our founding documents).  We fight evil regimes.  We really need people to believe this.  Sometimes it's even true, but we need it to always be true....and yet...

"On 17 November 1970, a court-martial in the United States charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel Koster, the Americal Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of the charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Colonel Henderson was the only high ranking commanding officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up of the Mỹ Lai massacre; he was acquitted on 17 December 1971."

 

So very many stories like this.   And we're just on country of millions.  You think a Rebellion theoretically comprised of billions if not trillions of beings is only ever going to act in the most just and pure way.  I have some land to sell you.

Edited by Zrob314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Thank you for completely misunderstanding me and then proving my point. 

See, I never claimed or disputed that US soldier haven't been convicted or war crimes.  I said, "canonically the United States has never committed war crimes."  Because that's the story we tell ourselves.  ("Support the troops, stop dragging the military through the mud, you weren't there, you don't know what war is like!!!"  "It's treasonous to question our military leaders.  When you post photos of torture at military prisons you're helping the terrorists win!") That's the story we try to tell the world.  The US doesn't do wars of aggression or unjust wars.  We were built on moral principles. (they're in our founding documents).  We fight evil regimes.  We really need people to believe this.  Sometimes it's even true, but we need it to always be true....and yet...

"On 17 November 1970, a court-martial in the United States charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel Koster, the Americal Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of the charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Colonel Henderson was the only high ranking commanding officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up of the Mỹ Lai massacre; he was acquitted on 17 December 1971."

 

So very many stories like this.   And we're just on country of millions.  You think a Rebellion theoretically comprised of billions if not trillions of beings is only ever going to act in the most just and pure way.  I have some land to sell you.

I did not miss your point, you missed mine. I posted that link to prove that no, we don’t tell ourselves that our soldiers never committed war crimes. Just the opposite in fact. We are very cognizant of the fact that yes, some of our soldiers did commit atrocities, and they were punished for it. As a Desert Storm veteran, I can also tell you that soldiers are obliged to refuse such unlawful orders. Watch A Few Good Men some time.

The Rebel Alliance did not commit atrocities. They did not attack civilians. They specifically targeted Imperial military installations and personnel only. It was the Empire, and only the Empire, which inflicted atrocities during the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I did not miss your point, you missed mine. I posted that link to prove that no, we don’t tell ourselves that our soldiers never committed war crimes. Just the opposite in fact. We are very cognizant of the fact that yes, some of our soldiers did commit atrocities, and they were punished for it. As a Desert Storm veteran, I can also tell you that soldiers are obliged to refuse such unlawful orders. Watch A Few Good Men some time.

The Rebel Alliance did not commit atrocities. They did not attack civilians. They specifically targeted Imperial military installations and personnel only. It was the Empire, and only the Empire, which inflicted atrocities during the war. 

Man, I love looking at this. 

So if I'm following you, then while certain rebel soldiers might commit atrocities the Rebellion as an entity does not?

If that's what you're saying how is that at all different from what I said?

See, I'm trying to separate the myth from reality.

War is in and of itself an atrocity.  Murder is murder.  Freedom fighters and despots commit collateral damage, or they choose the wrong target, or they go directly against their orders.  Like the Cassian Andor thing.  It's not important that Cassian didn't kill Galen.  First he very nearly did.  Second he was given an order (that directly conflicted with Mon Mothma's order) and at the end of the day, Galen was assassinated, but it was by an Air Strike, not a sniper.  

When the histories are written there are hero who never did wrong, who knew what they were supposed to do and took up the burden of doing it.

This isn't the histories.  This is the events, and the events are always much much more nuanced.  Sometimes even horrifying.  

But I prefer a more "Game of Thrones" nuanced world.

Neither interpretation of this source material is any more correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Man, I love looking at this. 

So if I'm following you, then while certain rebel soldiers might commit atrocities the Rebellion as an entity does not?

If that's what you're saying how is that at all different from what I said?

See, I'm trying to separate the myth from reality.

War is in and of itself an atrocity.  Murder is murder.  Freedom fighters and despots commit collateral damage, or they choose the wrong target, or they go directly against their orders.  Like the Cassian Andor thing.  It's not important that Cassian didn't kill Galen.  First he very nearly did.  Second he was given an order (that directly conflicted with Mon Mothma's order) and at the end of the day, Galen was assassinated, but it was by an Air Strike, not a sniper.  

When the histories are written there are hero who never did wrong, who knew what they were supposed to do and took up the burden of doing it.

This isn't the histories.  This is the events, and the events are always much much more nuanced.  Sometimes even horrifying.  

But I prefer a more "Game of Thrones" nuanced world.

Neither interpretation of this source material is any more correct. 

No. What I am saying is that the Rebel Alliance did not tolerate such behavior, and will not associate with anyone who engages in such behavior. So, no Rebal Soldiers did not engage in war crimes. Saw Guererra's Partisans did, which is why the Rebel Alliance would not associate with them. Period. Star Wars is not Game of Thrones.  It's very black and white, good vs evil, with not very much room for shades of grey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. What I am saying is that the Rebel Alliance did not tolerate such behavior, and will not associate with anyone who engages in such behavior. So, no Rebal Soldiers did not engage in war crimes. Saw Guererra's Partisans did, which is why the Rebel Alliance would not associate with them. Period. Star Wars is not Game of Thrones.  It's very black and white, good vs evil, with not very much room for shades of grey. 

And that's boring and an incredibly juvenile attitude.  

I'd also point out that the attitude by the Rebel's changed drastically after Alderaan.  

He was too militant, he was too violent, we have to convince people to resist and get Palpatine to step down.  Oh...they're blowing up planets now.....maybe Saw was right. 

So, what about Cassian's boss directly countermanding orders?  He should be shot, huh? Cuz you still haven't addressed that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

And that's boring and an incredibly juvenile attitude.  

I'd also point out that the attitude by the Rebel's changed drastically after Alderaan.  

He was too militant, he was too violent, we have to convince people to resist and get Palpatine to step down.  Oh...they're blowing up planets now.....maybe Saw was right. 

So, what about Cassian's boss directly countermanding orders?  He should be shot, huh? Cuz you still haven't addressed that. 

No, it didn't. Alderaan was a rallying call for the galaxy which strengthened the Rebellion and its ideals.  They never considered Saw right, not even after Alderaan. They never targeted civilans, nor civilian property, neither before, nor after Alderaan. They only targeted Imperial military installations. The only thing Alderaan did is make more systems join the Rebellion against the Empire. 

Saw Guererra attacked and murdered civilians, he destroyed civilian buildings. He murdered prisoners in cold blood. He was a terrorist, and the Rebel Alliance would have nothing to do with him or his kind, and never took on his methods. They chose to maintain the moral high ground. 

 

And what of Gen Draven's actions? Galen Erso was a military asset, and thus a legitimate military target. Regardless, had Alliance High Command found out Draven countermanded their orders, they would likely have disciplined him. The point is moot anyway, since he was killed by Darth Vader not long after. 

Edited by Tramp Graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alliance would expel anyone that did commit an atrocity/war crime and disavow them totally. Of course, they would likely need to sequester or kill them if they have information that would compromise the Alliance. I'm sure that some members of the Alliance did have some deniable assets that did the 'dark gray' ops, but the Alliance overall tried to keep their public face and hands very clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***And that's boring and an incredibly juvenile attitude.  ***

For you, perhaps. But one is forced to wonder why you like Star Wars, since the black-and-white, good-v-evil philosophy is rampant through the series. 

And as far as taste goes, the moment you say "Game of Thrones nuance" I recoil. For me, "Game of Thrones" is about a creepy old man's fantasies, and bears about as much resemblance to Star Wars as it does to Lord of the Rings. If anyone offered me a chance to play in a "Game of Thrones" nuanced Star Wars game, I would respond with a polite "Um. No thanks." and run a mile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daronil said:

If anyone offered me a chance to play in a "Game of Thrones" nuanced Star Wars game, I would respond with a polite "Um. No thanks." and run a mile. 

It already happened back in 1997 with the Lords of the Expanse boxed set. It was an isolated sector in the Colonies region where you got involved in the politics and conflicts between several noble houses vying to control the future of the Tapani sector. Some loved it, some hated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I feel we are getting pretty heavy territory.

Personally, given the alliance's bant, that they are pretty zero tolerance when it comes to executing their own people. The only reason someone like Cassian and the Alliance Int B get away with it is that they very deliberately preform dodgy deeds outside the direct witnessing of other alliance personal. That bombing wing targeting the bunker? Were probably told directly that was what the high command wanted, amending the mission assignment erase the base after the assasination. That guy Cassian executed? He was the only Rebel witness present and his informant had no method of escape. Jyn's father? only he and K2SO were alliance personal, everyone else had been drafted outside of the alliance and would have been disposable if required.

The running theme is these actions are usually conducted away from the standard rank and file idealist.

So yeah, either opt to dial it back or go the court marshal route, make a new character and have it be an experience. I personally believe that intigratey of setting is much more important then preserving just one, reckless character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 1:43 PM, LordBritish said:

Alright, I feel we are getting pretty heavy territory.

Personally, given the alliance's bant, that they are pretty zero tolerance when it comes to executing their own people. The only reason someone like Cassian and the Alliance Int B get away with it is that they very deliberately preform dodgy deeds outside the direct witnessing of other alliance personal. That bombing wing targeting the bunker? Were probably told directly that was what the high command wanted, amending the mission assignment erase the base after the assasination. That guy Cassian executed? He was the only Rebel witness present and his informant had no method of escape. Jyn's father? only he and K2SO were alliance personal, everyone else had been drafted outside of the alliance and would have been disposable if required.

The running theme is these actions are usually conducted away from the standard rank and file idealist.

So yeah, either opt to dial it back or go the court marshal route, make a new character and have it be an experience. I personally believe that intigratey of setting is much more important then preserving just one, reckless character.

I would also like to note that in Rouge One both of these are still more justifiable then what this character just did. Cassian executing an informant when the empire was already on the way was actually just preventing intel from falling into the hands of the empire. The informant was dead either way, because if they empire caught him he would have been tortured and then executed anyway, and even knowing this Cassian was still cut up about it. For Gallen, the man was considered a war criminal who created a weapon of mass destruction with no evidence that he was anything other than this except the word of his daughter.

As far as this character he just executed a poor dumb scared kid for being a poor dumb scared kid. The player did not have any actual authority only authority granted to him by the people willing to follow him because of how inspiring he was. Without explicit authority anyone not following him was not disobeying a direct order. This would have been equivalent to Luke shooting Han between the eyes in the middle of the hangar before the attack on the death star because Han refused to help. Even if the court martial decided to be lenient on this character Cracken and Madine sure as heck would not. They would send him alone with a group of their best commandos and themselves for an other wise easy mission and things would "go wrong" and they would all gang up on him and kill him rather than let him go free.

Edited by tunewalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×