How to PCs react to Warcrimes

[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.

[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.

[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.