How to PCs react to Warcrimes

[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.

[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.