How to PCs react to Warcrimes

[TicToc]

In light of recent events the topic was broached; How do Characters react to horrifying incidence? Please feel free to sight possible tragedies as well as respond the the scenario with what you believe possible reactions would be.

Scenario 1:
Western soldiers making a living currently as laborers (guards, hiding, ect ect) in a small eastern European village. What is left of a Russian Infantry Battalion is in cantonment nearby. One day a small groups of liquored up rooskies get the idea to graft some goods from the locals. The the grizzled old Russian sergeant is shaking down the locals two younger troops wander off to look for valuables/women/booze. In their attempt to procure said loot a fight ensues. The two drunk soldiers win. Drunk and angry with the world they begin to move from house to house killing any villager they can find. The Russian sergeant and the rest of his men respond. When they arrive at the scene they forcibly stop the murderous individuals, dragging them off back to the cantonment area before more damage is caused. In their wake however there are 11 dead villages mostly women and children as well a a good number of killed livestock. As the characters and other men run in from working the fields, patrolling, ect ect they see what has happened.

What happens next? Where as a character do you go from there? Do you seek reprisal? Do you run? Do you hide? Do you take a diplomatic turn? All of these questions depend heavily on the resources available to the characters, and the relationship with the Cantonment area. To make this scenario reflect recent events a bit more closely presume that the village has little to no resources with which to fight, and that the relationship with the cantonment area was one of forced acceptance to its presence.
__________________

[weswood]

In a not really recent play by post game, a PC walked off the game when a POW NPC was summarily executed.

In you scenario, I would think demanding the drunk russians stand trial would be right. If the main russian force refuses to surrender them, if the PC forces are strong enough, take them. If the PC force was too weak for a direct confrontation, well, I don't know what I'd do. Possibly a covert kidnapping.

[Medic]

As a reply to the scenario you posted, I think, the response varies based on the resources (and history) the characters have and what kind of relations they have had with the neighbouring cantonment before.

Some might consider the neighbouring cantonment a clear and present danger to the village security and from there, there are two viable options. First one is to set up defences around the village, such as erecting a wall/digging a moat and setting up a perimeter. This is a viable option if there are resources for this kind of setup (a forest nearby so wood can be obtained for the construction and arms for the guards).

Another type of response might be that offence is the best defence and the angry villagers would set off with the soldiers on a raid of the enemy cantonment with the intention of giving them the same treatment they had given to the recently dead women and children.

Now, it also depends on the Russian sergeant, who could opt delivering those two to the village they violated and asking the villagers to deal with them as they please. That is a potential option if the sergeant is looking to diminish the probability of armed confrontation and trying to keep the cantonments in good enough terms to conduct trade.

[TicToc]

Personally the first thing I would do is analyze my relationship with the villagers. How much do I really care? Is seeking justice for them worth dying for? If it is worth risking my life for then how far am I willing to go to get justice. Fighting not only presumes the loss of Russian lives that may very well be innocent to the circumstances but also presumes the loss of life to the villagers. Is it right for me to partake/plan/lead/conduct actions that will see the loss of innocent live in the pursuit of justice for lives already lost? If the villagers don't mean that much to me do I have to move on? Can I move on? if I can't move on and don't want to fight perhaps I can seek refuge with the Russians.

Just some thoughts.

[TicToc]

Another scenario, but this time looking at it from the other side.

You have two villages separated by not only geography but also by some form of social boundary be it religious, nationality, whatever. There is a limited food supply that both towns are effectively and grudgingly sharing (call it a forest for small game and a plot of barely arable land). Winter is coming, preparations are escalating, people are getting nervous. It becomes clear that there is not remotely enough food to feed both villages let alone even one fully. What do you do?

The most utilitarian answer is to kill off the other village at least to the point that they are no longer a threat and cannot compete for the limited food. The kindest answer is you suck it up and watch your own people starve and hope that the other village doesn't attack you. Fighting in defense of what is your is one thing, but what about when you are put into the situation where killing the innocent is your surest path to survival? When does it become reasonable/understandable/even acceptable perhaps to commit horrible crimes for the survival of you and yours.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by TicToc

Personally the first thing I would do is analyze my relationship with the villagers. How much do I really care? Is seeking justice for them worth dying for? If it is worth risking my life for then how far am I willing to go to get justice. Fighting not only presumes the loss of Russian lives that may very well be innocent to the circumstances but also presumes the loss of life to the villagers. Is it right for me to partake/plan/lead/conduct actions that will see the loss of innocent live in the pursuit of justice for lives already lost? If the villagers don't mean that much to me do I have to move on? Can I move on? if I can't move on and don't want to fight perhaps I can seek refuge with the Russians.

My assumption for the scenario was that the characters would be there because they chose to be there - having decided that the war has gone long enough.

Much is dependent on the characters' mindset about attrocities as well. If they have vowed to uphold the laws of war (to defend the innocent and protect them from unlawful attacks etc.), then they have little choice but to act upon it. If they are, however, with a more practical mindset, they might even try to take advantage of the situation by inciting the villagers to attack the Russians with their help in order to capture equipment (or something else they might fancy, the Russians have and they do not have).

[simonmark6]

Explore every possible option short of genocide. If there's even a remote chance of getting by without it you take it. If there truly is no other way, destroy the others and hope you live long enough to feel guilty about it. Genes are selfish and survival doesn't have rules.

[Badbru]

Given the senario, the way I see it there is not alot the characters can, or would do.
One, you state the characters are Western Soldiers living in an eastern European village. As such they're allready outsiders. It's cold comfort but there will be a bit of "This nasty thing didn't actually happen to us, what do we care?" Re set your senario in Texas with the rooskies being from Division Cuba and atleast one of the Player characters having come from the village and you'll likely get a different response.

Two, they're allready living and working there. This implies that the "rooskies" don't particularly care about the tradition handfull of player characters numbering three to perhaps ten individuals so running, or hiding, wasn't necesary to begin with so it still probably wont be now.

Seeking reprisals is understandable from the villagers perspective, much less so from the player characters. What can a handfull of PC's do against an entire battalion other than make it angry? Well, maybe that's best answered in play and will depend on the GM but you know what I mean. A fireteam or squad shouldn't be able to do much except ambush similar sized patrols and the result of that will most likely be negative for the villagers.

Diplomacy would seem to be the only viable response. In the first instance in trying to calm down the villagers and in the second instance, and this will depend on the situation with Russian Vs Western forces, assisting in presenting diplomatic overtures for compensation/recompense to the village from the Soviet Battalion commander.

[TicToc]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Explore every possible option short of genocide. If there's even a remote chance of getting by without it you take it. If there truly is no other way, destroy the others and hope you live long enough to feel guilty about it. Genes are selfish and survival doesn't have rules.

Well stated

[simonmark6]

Personally I don't like my answer but I think its true. Becoming an Uncle has changed my view of things, before that I'd probably die in any survival situation because I'm naturally unselfish and have an innate sense of fairness (I realise these aren't necessarily positive traits). Now, I'm pretty sure I'd lie, steal, cheat and kill to ensure my niece's survival, out right cruelty for its own sake might still be out, but otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd be capable of it if the situation was serious enough. I might not like myself for it but I don't think that would even come into the equation.

[Medic]

I believe it boils down to whether your character is an idealist or not. If he (still) has the high ideals of how to treat non-combatants, then he might, based on those ideals try to intervene or bring the two Russians to justice. If not, he might just not care, unless there was something in helping the villagers that affected him on some (selfish) level.

Reminds me of a certain family in Northern Finland in the 17th century, who slaughtered their neighbours within 50 kilometers from their own lands by setting their houses on fire in the middle of the night and waiting underneath the windows with crossbows and spears.

[Badbru]

The second senario is much tougher. Humanity has been grappling with that since we developed a herd mentality and rational thought.

I suppose the most positive approach would be to try and see if both villages were open to pooling resources in a bid to make the forrest & arrable land more productive. Human nature will likely get in the way of this though, sadly. Survival is a powerful driver however and it's not necesarily rational either. Not an easy choice at all.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Personally I don't like my answer but I think its true.

From a social sciences perspective your answer is bang on.

This is basically the "prisoner's dilemma" scenario, in which human beings will more often than not adopt a tit for tat mentality - based on equal retaliation. In most cases, it can be expected that the two villages will cooperate with one another, at least initially.

Humans are seemingly hardwired for mutual cooperation.

[Fusilier]

Bleh... that was poorly written. But I can't do better here at work. Hopefully it made some sense.

[95th Rifleman]

When you get right down to it, the title "hero" is most often posthumous.

In this situation you have to look at the game you are playing. Are the PCs going for a simple escape from reality style game where they are the heroes? Or are they taking the game really serious and taking actions that are considered and as close to how they would really do it?

Both roleplay styles are equaly valid.

If I was in the first sort of game then I'd get my fellow PCs together, organise a defence, train the villagers and take the bastards on.

In the second style of game I'd tuck my head down, ignore what is happening and be thankful it's not happened to me or someone I love.

Human nature is not nice, it's not pretty and when you remove the rules and constraints imposed upon us by society, seriously bad things happen. You are either the guy commiting these acts or the guy avoiding those acts being commited against you.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Human nature is not nice, it's not pretty and when you remove the rules and constraints imposed upon us by society, seriously bad things happen. You are either the guy commiting these acts or the guy avoiding those acts being commited against you.

I'd have to disagree with that 95th. Society is human nature. They are one and the same. Humans are social animals, and thus look more favorably on mutual cooperation than an every man for himself mentality. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have forged societies.

Humans can be cruel, but we are a lot more softer towards one another than people think. Reciprocal altruism is a good example of that.

Extraordinary circumstances may factor in of course and change this.

[manunancy]

I tend to agree that humans are social animals and tend to form groups. But on the flip side of that coin, there's a strong streak of considering that whoever doesn't belongs to the group doesn't count or even is an ennemy to dispose of.

[TicToc]

I cannot argue that humans are social critters. We are however enormously selfish. This can lead the the heights of altruism and the chasms of depravity both. I agree that within a secular click that you belong you will be very likely to sacrifice personally for the betterment of what you see as "your people". I do not believe however that the same can be said for anyone outside of your social group. History has shown that its takes very few degrees of separation from one group to another or from one group to an individual for there to be dismissal and outright violence. I am sure that there may be a number of examples but I cannot think off of the top of my head a time when two groups of people have met and not fought with one another when resources as slim.

Ill wrap up to say that though human nature is to sacrifice for our own it is also to take from those we don't view as our own to better ensure our survival.

[Webstral]

In accord with Legbreaker's observations regarding Twilight: 2000, we'd see atrocities rise with the casualty rate and feelings of desperation. The actions of the KGB and MVD in the Soviet rear areas of Manchuria once the Chinese initiated guerilla warfare aren't hard to imagine. The actions of Soviet troops who have been attacked by guerillas and plagued by booby traps aren't hard to imagine, either. In East Germany, Pact troops are likely to view the East Germans as traitors. Deliberate and ad hoc reprisals against civilians would be commonplace. Poland might fare a bit better initially, but the Soviets would be ruthless in their efforts to acquire labor, food, fuel, and whatever else they needed to prep the country for a defense in depth during the first part of 1997. The Soviet leadership might decry criminal actions by the troops and put on a few show trials, but the pressing need to keep as many rifles in the field as possible would override any high-mided idealism regarding justice and the treatment of Polish citizens.

Once NATO starts to take heavy losses, we can expect the stress to come out in brutal acts towards the citizens. Then, of course, there’s the nuclear exchange. The v1 chronology clearly states that NATO practices scorched earth as Western troops fall back towards Poland. The line between policy and war crimes becomes thin and blurry here. Troops who have been exposed to nuclear warfare are likely to lose a lot of their bearing, to say the least. Theft, rape, beatings, torture, and murder would accompany the withdrawal from Poland. Reprisals against Polish nationals suspected of supporting communist guerillas would mushroom and blend with ordinary thuggery. The advancing Soviets, also in shock from the nuclear exchange, would add reprisals against Poles suspected of cooperating with NATO troops. By 2000, you could probably count the number of unraped women in Poland on both hands. The same situation would exist in Korea, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the Balkans, and China. As nukes fell on the US, UK, Canada, Japan, the USSR, etc ad nauseum, the same picture would develop in all of these countries as the remaining soldiery was subjected to the incredible stresses of trying to maintain order or even just survive in the wake of a strategic, albeit limited, nuclear war.

The PCs who start the game in Poland are badly scarred individuals. Even the ones who have committed no crimes personally will have witnessed them in abundance. Many will have been forced to choose support for their comrades over justice. Many who consider themselves decent people will have done horrible things to survive. The troops who have served long enough to have participated in the 1997 withdrawal from Poland will be crispy critters, psychologically speaking. The newcomers won’t be that much better off, given what they will have had to endure to make it as far as the year 2000 still alive.

Let’s face it, gents: we’re obsessed with an ugly, ugly science fiction world. I know most of us focus on the positive aspects of rebuilding and reorganizing. Nonetheless, our positive focus exists in the midst of suffering and tragedy on a scale never before seen in human history.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Let’s face it, gents: we’re obsessed with an ugly, ugly science fiction world. I know most of us focus on the positive aspects of rebuilding and reorganizing. Nonetheless, our positive focus exists in the midst of suffering and tragedy on a scale never before seen in human history.

A brilliant summary, Web!
And this is the point about playing T2k: If a group tries to accept the background, our normal sense for "good" and "bad/evil" just does not work.

We had very sincere discussions in my player group and some of the sessions did not end as happily minded as a FRPG would end.

That's, what T2k may also be about.

[Targan]

In my last campaign the ways that the PCs and their minions reacted to war crimes depended on whether the war crimes were perpetrated by themselves or by others.

In the case of war crimes perpetrated by themselves they would sometimes respond by having a little celebration, holding a debrief to determine how they could have done the job better, use the aftermath as an opportunity to engage in more war crimes that were or were not related to the initial depravity, or (rarely) engage in a little self-reflection and talk about how not to let things get out of hand in the future. Sometimes they would revel in their behaviour, sometimes they would admit among themselves that their actions weren't admirable, sometimes they would be in collective denial and try to pretend that nothing happened or that they weren't responsible.

In the case of war crimes not perpetrated by themselves they would often express self-righteous outrage and vow revenge on those responsible but whether or not that was the case they would usually try to find some angle in the aftermath that would benefit themselves. Sometimes they would do a little investigating of the incident and see what they could learn from it (both to gather intel on their enemies and also to better learn the arts of terror and depravity). On more than one occasion they were so impressed by the crimes of others that they would incorporate what they had seen into their own modus operandi.

Upon reflection, I'm kind of glad that campaign is no longer active. It was kind of depressing to GM.

[TicToc]

Personally I want my PCs to have to infrequently commit crimes of war but to do it grudgingly and with great guilt. It helps set the ambiance of the world.

[pmulcahy11b]

I hate to say it, but by 2000, it'll be, "War Crime, Shmar crime" in most cases. "He's a bit unhinged, but he's useful." The PC's will be careful in any city or settlement who might conduct trials, but that will only be if they think they can't get away or wipe out the local defense force.

That would be kind of interesting, though -- a psychopath or sociopath PC. The player would have to do some research beforehand to have his characterization right, though.

[95th Rifleman]

The closest I came to playing a "war criminal" was with an old character called James Archer, a sergeant with 2 para. His view was a simplistic and, looking back at it, rather sociopathic. He never went out with the intention to commit a crime, he had the belief that he had to do what he had to do to keep his lads safe. he would kill civilians that "where in the way", he'd torture PoWs for information because the ends always justified the means.

What interested me about the character and the game we found ourselves involved in, was that he didn't start that way. Archer was genned up as a by-the-book, old school sergeant who followed the rules and kept his Rupert (army slang for young lieutenant) quietly under control.

As casualties mounted and the situation became more desperate, everyone's character changed. We found ourselves making decisons that where moraly wrong but enabled us to survive with the least amount of casualties and that expended the least amount of resources.

The game round up after a year real-time and we all did some thinking about where the characters ended up compared to how they where genned.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by TicToc

Personally I want my PCs to have to infrequently commit crimes of war but to do it grudgingly and with great guilt. It helps set the ambiance of the world.

Going Home could be your best shot at this. No soldier wants to be the last one to die in a war and it will be easy to put players in the position of doing something immoral or missing the boat.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by TicToc

Personally I want my PCs to have to infrequently commit crimes of war but to do it grudgingly and with great guilt. It helps set the ambiance of the world.

I wish my PCs did their warcrimes grudgingly and reluctantly...

( Before anyone racts - I am making a joke bout our campaign and its tendency to go a bit over the top..I had my PCs all get a card in the deck to teach em a lesson - they all started jostling to be the ace of spades...)

Not to worry guys - I killed somethin like 75% of all characters in due to course..