Chaplains in T2K

[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.

[dragoon500ly]

I've been looking over some of the TO&Es for the 1970s and 1980s, and there was no authorized weapon for the chaplain, the captain's assistant was authorized an M-16. There were two MTO&Es, one for 2nd Armored Division Forward, dated May, 1981 and one for 2nd Infantry Division, dated January, 1985 that authorized pistols for the chaplain. Both of the MTO&Es were removed within the same year of issue.

These were the only two of thirty-one reviewed that mentioned armed chaplains.

[The Dark]

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.

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).

[ArmySGT.]

The last I heard (although I'm a couple years out of touch with any chaplains) was that regs (FM 27-10, Army Regulation 165-1) required chaplains to be unarmed in combat and in unit combat skills training.

More broadly, under the Geneva Conventions, chaplains are non-combatants, and one carrying a weapon could be considered to have forfeited the rights of a chaplain under Protocol I (e.g. they are not considered a POW, cannot be compelled to work, and must be provided transport between camps for visits to groups of POWs). An armed chaplain loses their protected status and, if wearing a chaplain's badge, could be found guilty of perfidy (falsifying protected status) and subjected to appropriate sentencing (usually execution, if history is any teacher). Likewise, chapel buildings (like hospitals) become legitimate targets if a weapon is taken into them - their protected status is contingent on not being used in a combat role.

Now, in the case of our current conflicts, where the opposing side isn't particularly beholden to the GC, it would make more sense to unofficially carry a personal weapon. For a more conventional conflict, less so.

A pistol is usually typified as a defensive weapon due to short range and small cartridge. You will find Doctors and Nurses armed with pistols too.

[James Langham2]

In the British Army chaplains are unarmed. They are commissioned officers with a status of CF4 (Chaplain to the Forces grade 4 = Captain), CF3 (=Major) and CF2 (=Lt Col). They undertake a short course at Sandhurst for specialists (after ordaining) known colloquially as the "Vicars and Tarts Course."

They are banned from carrying weapons (indeed there was a fuss when one was photographed with a weapon in Afghanistan but many are interested in shooting (2 Para's chaplain in the early 1980s coached their shooting team).

They do not have assistants.

[dragoon500ly]

In the U.S. military, chaplains are supposed to be unarmed, so I'm a bit puzzled about these stories of chaplains carrying such a variety of weapons. I've reviewed over 120 TO&Es and only two mention chaplain being armed, and equally interesting, both of these were removed within 12 months of being released. IMHO this indicates that when a chaplain is armed, they are violating military regulations, as well as the Geneva Conventions. Having said this, there are no regulations forbidding a chaplain from earning a shooting badge, they simply cannot carry a weapon in a combat zone.

As far as the chaplain's assistant, they are more drivers and administrative assistants, hence they are not violating regulations or Conventions if they go armed. In practice (Vietnam and Korea), they acted as a "bodyguard" for the chaplain.

As for medical personnel, this is a bit more open as they can be armed for self-defense purposes, especially in a guerrilla war where the rebels do not honor the Conventions. Indeed, in Vietnam especially, medics carried pistols and rifles, armed their ambulances and didn't hesitate to return fire when attacked.

In addition, Doctors and Nurses, in the U. S. Military, are commissioned officers and are authorized to carry pistols, but are not to engage in combat. I know, doesn't make sense, but it is the military and nowhere does it say it has to make sense.

So, for a T2K scenario, what does the poor GM do It's your game, your decision is final.

[Silent Hunter UK]

I rather think the Geneva Convention has gone out of the proverbial window by this point.

[unkated]

Chaplains may feel they are held by a higher level agreement than the Geneva Convention.

[swaghauler]

Am I the only one who reads this thread and envisions the Priest from Hot Fuzz saying "F*** off grasshopper!" as he puts two into the hero

[James Langham2]

Chaplains may feel they are held by a higher level agreement than the Geneva Convention.

I can see a padre assisting fight marauders to defend a village for example. Might make a great NPC, a padre who fought as he had to defend others and now feels conflicted and tormented.

[Adm.Lee]

Am I the only one who reads this thread and envisions the Priest from Hot Fuzz saying "F*** off grasshopper!" as he puts two into the hero

And no one's mentioned Shepherd Book from "Firefly"

Zoe: "Doesn't the Bible have pretty specific things to say about killing"
Book, loading a weapon: "Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzy around the subject of kneecaps."

And if you watch the following combat scene, he's not aiming above the waist.

Also, "I wasn't always a Shepherd."

[James Langham2]

And no one's mentioned Shepherd Book from "Firefly"

Zoe: "Doesn't the Bible have pretty specific things to say about killing"
Book, loading a weapon: "Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzy around the subject of kneecaps."

And if you watch the following combat scene, he's not aiming above the waist.

Also, "I wasn't always a Shepherd."

Much as I love it he's really a bad example as reading Joss Wheedon's info he is actually an agent who takes the identity of a dead priest (another nice NPC idea!)

[James Langham2]

Actually another thought - the film "The Mission" gives a perfect example of the soldier who tormented by his crimes becomes a priest and has to decide if he should take up arms with the natives against the SPanish.

[CDAT]

I was talking with my cousin this last weekend (who this is what he does in the Air Force) and according to him, they are not allowed to carry arms or even train with them. And if they were to pick one up in a battle and use it even to defend them self they would be charged under the UCMJ after the battle. How does this apply to the T2K My guess is that it would be very late in the game before many of them would start to carry weapons, so I could see them not starting the game with one, but after the game started it would be up to the individual and his/her faith on if they would pick one up post battle or try and trade for one. And none of this means that they can not know about them or even have skill in using them. My cousin transferred in from Security Forces (so I hope he would know something about weapons, and he was saying that his boss in chaplains core is a triathlon or something like that so he shoots as part of his sport.)

[CraigD6er]

Not to derail this from journalists, but another option for a good character would be the combat chaplain. I'm recalling It Took Heroes by Claude Newby, about his service as an LDS chaplain that would accompany troops on patrols and missions. Obviously he's not going to be doing the fighting but if I recall correctly he had, unofficially, a handgun for self defence and carried part of the load for troops that were struggling. Such a character would be a boon for parties that aren't just the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" types but prefer a bit more role playing.