Human Nature Question re: Marauders

[ChalkLine]

To me, what makes Poland an interesting setting for a campaign is its long history of mostly failed independence movements. It's been habitually occupied in some form or another by foreign nations for centuries, with only a few brief decades of actual independence -- and then a good chunk of that on a very short Soviet leash.

The Great War ended really on the ideal note for Poland. All three great powers that had partitioned the country were destroyed, leaving the Poles available to be a buffer state and hopefully a counterbalance to the big powers in the area. Of course J3zef Piłsudski's dictatorship was not ideal, nor his behaviour in Ukraine during his Międzymorze otherwise known as the Intermarium strategy of conquering a broad swathe of middle Europe from the Baltic, Aegean and Black Seas including all the Baltic and Balkan States as well as Ukraine. The Entente must have thought they'd created a monster.

[ChalkLine]

(snip goodness for brevity)

The line between official military units committing war crimes and "marauders" is very fine indeed.

-

Well, there are actually clear rules on what you can and cannot do. I studied war crimes in uni1 and in every case I could see there are two sorts; individual war crimes and command war crimes.

Individual war crimes are part of war, they are impossible to stop no matter how good your troops are. Every soldier is an individual subject to immense pressures and the removal of all forms of normalcy. These are the behaviours we usually talk about when we refer to 'marauders' in that they are cut off, isolated, thrown onto their own resources and lose their focus. Normally it is simply a solider out of supervision losing control.

Command war crimes are very different and they range from Calley at Pinkville to the Nazis and The Three Illegal Orders. In all cases they are overseen by the officer corps, the very people placed in position to prevent the crimes, and implemented, planned and carried out according to some agenda.

As you can see the position of the officer is always critical and it's something players don't need to address but NPCs should be put into focus with. The officer's behaviour falls on the "Complicit-Complacent Spectrum" and largely determines what sort of crime occurs and how the military and civilian authorities see it. Note that the officer might not always be on the same place in the spectrum but can slide around due to events.

The laws of warfare are actually fairly lenient towards soldiers stuck behind lines. For instance killing another soldier in an escape is not legally murder as it is if a civilian kills a soldier2. However banditry was outlawed in the early modern era and every soldier knows it and engages in it at their own peril. The further east you go the worse the penalties.

1Which is why you saw me get very heated about it back in the old days
2 Yes, legally The French Resistance were civilian criminals but they have always been considered to have had mitigating circumstances

[Raellus]

De Facto v. De Jure

To clarify, I meant in practice, more than in legal terms- de facto v. de jure. In other words, spirit of the law v the letter.

But still, the argument of "I was just following orders" hasn't held much water at Hague trials.

More to the point, aren't discussions of international law in a T2kU almost moot Realistically, who is keeping score In the field, I mean. There are few extant governments, c.2000, and those that do exist have very little reach. As a purely practical matter, in the field, who does or doesn't qualify as a "marauder" is more a subjective judgment than a legal one.

That's not to say that atrocities should be overlooked in the T2kU. Quite the opposite. As a player, I want to right wrongs and protect the vulnerable from predation. As a Ref, I hope my players want that too. If they don't, it's probably going to be a short campaign. If players act like marauders, and victimize the vulnerable, I'm walking away from the table/computer.

-

[ChalkLine]

To clarify, I meant in practice, more than in legal terms- de facto v. de jure. In other words, spirit of the law v the letter.

But still, the argument of "I was just following orders" hasn't held much water at Hague trials.

More to the point, aren't discussions of international law in a T2kU almost moot Realistically, who is keeping score In the field, I mean. There are few extant governments, c.2000, and those that do exist have very little reach. As a purely practical matter, in the field, who does or doesn't qualify as a "marauder" is more a subjective judgment than a legal one.

That's not to say that atrocities should be overlooked in the T2kU. Quite the opposite. As a player, I want to right wrongs and protect the vulnerable from predation. As a Ref, I hope my players want that too. If they don't, it's probably going to be a short campaign. If players act like marauders, and victimize the vulnerable, I'm walking away from the table/computer.

-

That's a really good point and I think in my campaign it falls under 'everything changes with time and place'. So, if you're out in the wilds of the Mansurian Lakes the situation is very different to that of Lublin or Krakow.

I generally assume if there's a main force unit it follows the rules of warfare unless the story requires otherwise, because normally units that don't tend to disintegrate. This is where we get back to 'what is a marauder' in that I think many of them are simply units in the process of breaking down. Not all, or possibly even most units might do this.

I've been lucky, nearly all my players wanted to retain their humanity. A former player group had a bunch of Russians in a truck that they'd captured. In a hard firefight against bandits they found them giving them covering fire from bandit weapons they'd picked up because they understood that an enemy that behaved like a soldier was far preferable to a friend that behaved like a gangster.

Officers depend on their status and instinctive deference to control behaviour. Obviously this has zero effect within a player group but NPCs see it as vital, especially eastern troops where officers and senior NPCs have blurred lines. In all sources I've read about officers leading troops out of tight conditions they consistently emphasise how important it was to juggle morale but more importantly control. NPC troops will appreciate an officer that has a plan, thinks nimbly and values their troops. Given this they are far more likely to behave during privation, loss and adverse situations.
Probably the singular best example of this is Captain Bligh sailing a tiny boat across a vast ocean with a crew that rapidly fell apart due to stress to the point that he had one guy in a longboat under arrest. Each man said it was his leadership, firm command and strong plan that got them through.

[Ursus Maior]

Absolutely.
I have an almost-finished scenario where you deal with marauders who are sure they are freedom fighters and even have a banner, a manifesto and a justification for everything shitty they do.

That the level of dedication, worthy for several great evenings. You're players are very lucky!

[swaghauler]

Thank you all, this gives me something to think about! I'm a V1/2 guy, didn't realize that there were other ways to address the encounter math outlined in 2013 and V4. Good information. Also appreciate the insight into how the bad guys might weigh options from that standpoint of human nature.

I'm currently running Red Star Lone Star and the PCs (highly augmented by both starting NPCs and some Mexican deserters who joined along the way) have just inflicted serious losses on Grady LaMarr's gang in the ruins of Corpus Christi. After wiping out a marauder patrol and a long range sniper kill on a minor boss at the entrance checkpoint, the group then executed a very successful ambush of the marauder QRF, destroying one M113 and one HMMWV. The group successfully breached the fortified entrance to the causeway and were pursuing the fleeing remnants of the TCP personnel across the causeway when we decided to break.

As I was planning the next session I just thought, wait a minute, the bad guys have lost approximately 10% of their manpower plus 1/2 of their military vehicle strength in a very short period of time. Are they really going to stand and fight or are they going to (1) run as a group or (2) fragment

You guys gave me a lot of things to consider - I appreciate it!

This is where that LEADERSHIP skill officers and high-ranking NCOs get comes into play. In my V2.2 rules, the commander would roll a test of [Leadership Skill + CHA] with the difficulty set by the casualties taken to hold the band together and get the men to regroup. I use...

Less than 10% Casualties = EASY (X2) test of that skill.
10% Casualties = ROUTINE (X1.5) test of the skill.
11% to 20% Casualties = AVERAGE (X1) test of the skill.
21% to 30% Casualties = FAIRLY DIFFICULT (X0.75) test of the skill.
31% to 50% Casualties = DIFFICULT (X0.5) test of skill.
51% to 75% Casualties = FORMIDABLE (X0.25) test of skill.
76% or more Casualties = IMPOSSIBLE (X0.1) test of skill.

As you can see, I have adopted the old Traveller the RPG skill difficulty levels to give more variety to my task checks.

[Raellus]

Cool system, Swag.

4e has a Command skill, and a connected Unit Morale score. The latter is used, along with CUF, to determine if/when a PC is Suppressed. Unit Morale is primarily meant for PC parties but could easily be modifed and applied to enemy units to determine if/when a marauder group breaks and retreats or scatters.

-

[swaghauler]

Cool system, Swag.

4e has a Command skill, and a connected Unit Morale score. The latter is used, along with CUF, to determine if/when a PC is Suppressed. Unit Morale is primarily meant for PC parties but could easily be modifed and applied to enemy units to determine if/when a marauder group breaks and retreats or scatters.

-

I would also allow anyone with the Psychology Skill to make such a check but I would make it one Level Of Difficulty HARDER (ie Routine becomes Average). The PCs have all of these Skills so we need to make them of some use during play.

[Targan]

The difference between PC and marauder may be a matter of degrees and perception, too.

- C.

The PCs in my last campaign switched to hyper-ruthless mode frighteningly quickly.

[ChalkLine]

The PCs in my last campaign switched to hyper-ruthless mode frighteningly quickly.

My PCs are capable of ferocity but I always try and run inside the law by a wide margin. The place is bad enough without me adding to it.

A lot of war crimes are about power, the culprit feels powerless due to the war and tries victimise someone to make themselves feel better. I don't think I want to spend my Saturday afternoon pretending to be that guy.

[Ursus Maior]

A lot of war crimes are about power, the culprit feels powerless due to the war and tries victimise someone to make themselves feel better. I don't think I want to spend my Saturday afternoon pretending to be that guy.

That sums it up quite nicely. I don't want my sparse hobby time to feel like I binge watch LiveLeaks neither.