View Single Post
  #18  
Old 01-30-2017, 05:14 PM
The Dark The Dark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
i have seen it both ways. it seems the closer to garrison you get the less chaplains would be carrying. given sufficient manpower shortages i could see more chaplains carrying more weapons just so they can actually get around to the soldiers that most need a chaplain. i believe a rifle would lend more credibility among front line troops, after all how can you bless something you aren't willing to do.
The flip side of that (and an argument I've seen from chaplains) is how can you speak about putting trust in God if you put your trust in an M16 instead of God? I can see points on both sides, and I expect there'd be a split, with some chaplains taking one position and some the other. I don't think there's a right answer, but either one can give a good basis for characterization of either a PC or NPC chaplain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes
Well, if we are talking the environment in summer 2000, my bet is "Geneva be damned"...if the chaplain wants a gun he will have it be it a pick up or issued. I think ultimately it would depend on the chaplain and the tenants or their convictions and faith. However, once the nukes are flying and things grow really desperate, no one is really going to raise a fuss about who is armed as far as Geneva is concerned.
I was thinking on that, and I agree the conventions would go out the window around the time the nukes start flying. After that, it would be a matter of conscience. My gut instinct is that Evangelicals and Catholics would be more likely to go armed, with non-evangelical Protestants less likely, but that's only based on each group's approach to just war theory, and I could be totally wrong (and I have no clue how non-Christian chaplains would approach it).
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Reply With Quote