How to PCs react to Warcrimes

[Fusilier]

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, theres 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 wont be that much better off, given what they will have had to endure to make it as far as the year 2000 still alive.

Lets face it, gents: were 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.]

Lets face it, gents: were 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]

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]

flippant answer

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..