| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Sorry. I kinda alluded to that with the indoctrination thing. That's what I was trying to explain.
Think of it like this: a person is taught how using deadly force is not always immoral, and in some cases, may be the right thing to do (peripheral circumstances factored in). There are times when your personal moral code requires you to use the force at your disposal in order to save a life or de-escalate a situation, etc.
I suspect that most people have some threshold beyond which they will fell compelled to use deadly force if that is the most certain way to preserve the most (innocent) life possible.
There are some whose threshold is so high, however, that they may never be able to do it, or they become paralyzed with fear from the danger they perceive and are unable to escalate (which may be different than what you are working on here).
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | How much of that willingness to pull the trigger would you say is the result of your military training? |
Quite a lot, in my case.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | How much of that willingness to pull the trigger would you say is the result of your military training? |
Well, there is a valid reason why many military forces went from target shooting on bullseye rings to target shooting on human silhouettes.
Have to desensitize the human brain.
According to a military historian 'SLAM' Marshall it was found that most soldiers in WWII declined to fire at the enemy. Human beings are fundamentally, evolutionarily, disinclined to try to kill other humans.
The few who can do it naturally are 'wolves' and 'sheep dogs' amongst the sheep. Wolves prey on the sheep. Sheep dogs use their abilities to protect the sheep. But almost anyone can be trained.
As Naaman said, one of the ways to combat this is to change the semantics in the brain. "It's not killing...it's eliminating the threat."
"If the target takes X action then I will pull the trigger. So fundamentally, it's up to the target, not me."
Col Grossman expanded upon this in his books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, in summary, it's probably best to assume that most characters in the SWU already have this conditioning, and that any exceptions would be role-playing choices made during character development. Either that or it could be something a GM could apply to specific templates in trade for some other advantage elsewhere.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | So, in summary, it's probably best to assume that most characters in the SWU already have this conditioning, and that any exceptions would be role-playing choices made during character development. Either that or it could be something a GM could apply to specific templates in trade for some other advantage elsewhere. |
I am reminded of the Good Natured quirk in Fallout... you get a bonus to your various non-combat skills, but a penalty to all combat skills.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | So, in summary, it's probably best to assume that most characters in the SWU already have this conditioning, and that any exceptions would be role-playing choices made during character development. Either that or it could be something a GM could apply to specific templates in trade for some other advantage elsewhere. |
Combat characters, yes. I doubt medics, scouts, and pilots (not fighter pilots) though would have it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, now that I'm at my computer, I'm more inclined to give some additional thoughts on this that require some more intricate articulation.
Even someone who is trained may not be able to bring himself to engage in combat.
Here is one anecdote I heard in the army:
When I was at WLC (warrior leader's course), there were some Rangers in my platoon. One of them told us a story about a Ranger whom he had to kick out of the unit (called "relieved for standards"... that is, failure to meet the standards of an Army Ranger). They were moving on foot along a mountain side and they started taking fire from across the valley. Everyone found cover and returned fire, except for one of his troops, who curled up in the fetal position behind a rock. The Ranger NCO told me, "I looked at him and shook my head. I can't get mad at him it [being a Ranger] is just not who he is. When we got back to the FOB, I had to RFS him."
There is also the case of Broward County Sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson, if you want to look into that one. He was fired and charged criminally for not making entry into Stoneman Douglas High School during a shooting. His (in)action spawned the nick name "Coward County Sheriff's Department."
I'm sure there are other stories out there.
Point being, that the willingness of a person to engage a deadly threat with reciprocal force is unconfirmed until a person is in the position where doing so is necessary (or justifiable).
I call it a "test" of sorts. Most people will never face this test. Some will and will engage. Others will and will not engage (whether they flee or freeze or whatever is another question).
If you wanted to include this as an element in the game, you might require player characters with a combat-oriented background to articulate in their write up when they were "tested" in this regard, and how they responded to it (some people just move on with life, others require a significant adjustment and emotional recovery period). For a background that decidedly lacks this "test," you may make exploring this aspect of the character's personality/moral code a feature of and adventure or the campaign.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | So, now that I'm at my computer, I'm more inclined to give some additional thoughts on this that require some more intricate articulation.
Even someone who is trained may not be able to bring himself to engage in combat.
Here is one anecdote I heard in the army:
When I was at WLC (warrior leader's course), there were some Rangers in my platoon. One of them told us a story about a Ranger whom he had to kick out of the unit (called "relieved for standards"... that is, failure to meet the standards of an Army Ranger). They were moving on foot along a mountain side and they started taking fire from across the valley. Everyone found cover and returned fire, except for one of his troops, who curled up in the fetal position behind a rock. The Ranger NCO told me, "I looked at him and shook my head. I can't get mad at him it [being a Ranger] is just not who he is. When we got back to the FOB, I had to RFS him."
There is also the case of Broward County Sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson, if you want to look into that one. He was fired and charged criminally for not making entry into Stoneman Douglas High School during a shooting. His (in)action spawned the nick name "Coward County Sheriff's Department."
I'm sure there are other stories out there.
Point being, that the willingness of a person to engage a deadly threat with reciprocal force is unconfirmed until a person is in the position where doing so is necessary (or justifiable).
I call it a "test" of sorts. Most people will never face this test. Some will and will engage. Others will and will not engage (whether they flee or freeze or whatever is another question).
If you wanted to include this as an element in the game, you might require player characters with a combat-oriented background to articulate in their write up when they were "tested" in this regard, and how they responded to it (some people just move on with life, others require a significant adjustment and emotional recovery period). For a background that decidedly lacks this "test," you may make exploring this aspect of the character's personality/moral code a feature of and adventure or the campaign. |
But those examples may be more telling of someone's inability to risk incoming fire...not necessarily to take a life.
ie...if said individual was shooting from a covered position on an unsuspecting target...would they be able to do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kytross
Line Captain
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a great deal to say on the subject. Read On Killing and On Combat by Dave Grossman. If you're going to carry a firearm you should be taking a moment to make the decision to use it, if necessary, every single day. Mentally prepare yourself.
For the game, it is just a game. Some people are going to want to roleplay to this level, and some people are not.
I'm in a monthly group right now where one character refuses to use blasters, and another is on her way to becoming one of the galaxies best snipers.
Generally I handwave this away as players are HEROES and have already made the necessary decision to do whatever it takes to save the galaxy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | So, now that I'm at my computer, I'm more inclined to give some additional thoughts on this that require some more intricate articulation.
Even someone who is trained may not be able to bring himself to engage in combat.
Here is one anecdote I heard in the army:
When I was at WLC (warrior leader's course), there were some Rangers in my platoon. One of them told us a story about a Ranger whom he had to kick out of the unit (called "relieved for standards"... that is, failure to meet the standards of an Army Ranger). They were moving on foot along a mountain side and they started taking fire from across the valley. Everyone found cover and returned fire, except for one of his troops, who curled up in the fetal position behind a rock. The Ranger NCO told me, "I looked at him and shook my head. I can't get mad at him it [being a Ranger] is just not who he is. When we got back to the FOB, I had to RFS him."
There is also the case of Broward County Sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson, if you want to look into that one. He was fired and charged criminally for not making entry into Stoneman Douglas High School during a shooting. His (in)action spawned the nick name "Coward County Sheriff's Department."
I'm sure there are other stories out there.
Point being, that the willingness of a person to engage a deadly threat with reciprocal force is unconfirmed until a person is in the position where doing so is necessary (or justifiable).
I call it a "test" of sorts. Most people will never face this test. Some will and will engage. Others will and will not engage (whether they flee or freeze or whatever is another question).
If you wanted to include this as an element in the game, you might require player characters with a combat-oriented background to articulate in their write up when they were "tested" in this regard, and how they responded to it (some people just move on with life, others require a significant adjustment and emotional recovery period). For a background that decidedly lacks this "test," you may make exploring this aspect of the character's personality/moral code a feature of and adventure or the campaign. |
But those examples may be more telling of someone's inability to risk incoming fire...not necessarily to take a life.
ie...if said individual was shooting from a covered position on an unsuspecting target...would they be able to do it? |
True. What I was thinking when I typed it up was that even when the use of deadly force is typically considered morally justified or necessary, some folks will not use it.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
True dat. Even IRL, there are folks i know, who would REFUSE to use deadly force to defend themselves or their families..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
