Rules of War

[jatay3]

The PC's would have to do it in a way so that little attention would come upon them until the incident was so old that no one cared except the ungentlemanly prince that Sergai Oberlindes beat up.
--------------------------
By the way, would that ungentlemanly prince, be an "ignoble noble"-or is that to annoying a pun?

 

[deadlock]

Jatay3, I did not take into account an interstellar war involving POWs. I guess my logic would be limited to planetary conflicts or civilizations with low interstellar TLs.

At higher TLs and multiple worlds within the borders of a Pocket Empire or larger, I can see POWs being placed in low berths until the end of the war.

Another good campaign idea for "Don't Get Caught" is having the PCs hunt down the unit that is committing the atrocities (especially if there are many). As a twist, make it a unit from the military forces the PCs serve in. Their commanding officers will want the offending unit captured/eliminated before the enemy can get them. Hmm, this looks like something I can run my next group through during the Solomani Rim War.

 

[jatay3]

Gnusam Netor
Avatar Image
Knight
CID # 6311

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 01:47 PMJanuary 20, 2006 01:47 PM Profile for Gnusam Netor Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by jatay3:

to answer the first question, the Solimani destroying Earth would be like Frenchmen destroying Paris.

And MAD only indicates that both sides during the Cold War wanted the other to think that they were prepared to destroy the planet. We will never know the real intention fortunatly enough. I don't think they would destroy Earth either...
Obviously they didn’t, the outcome of the Rim war is known after all. If it would have come to that, the destruction of Earth, I would assume that they would have blamed it on the Imperials anyhow.

What if though, let’s say in some other war, what stops either side from using weapons that would, after the proper escalation and loosing-control-of-the-situation, from ultimately destroying what is fought over? On a galactic scale I mean and remember that it did happen earlier with the Ancients.

We have yet to experience an armed conflict between two nations with nukes, so who knows really. Sometimes the loosing side abstaining from using their entire arsenal seems to work as per my mustard gas analogy, but not always as per my Ancients analogy. However are there rules in place that most follow as per my Uplift analogy?
[Smile]


(BTW, why do you "quote" my avatar im
---------------------------------------------
Because I find the most convenient way to ID you is to copy/paste the whole thing

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3:
I wouldn't want to be in a game where the PC's do atrocities.

Jatay3,

That's easily handled without the creation of an Imperium-wide, extremely busy, always active War Crimes Tribunal complete with immediately avialable enforcement powers. (Something which is totally at odds with the canonical picture of the Imperium by the way.)

PCs don't commit atrocities because they haven't the political pull to cover their asses.

Take your Oberlindes example. The idea that the government in question:

1) Knew in advance that Marc would send a party to rescue Sergei and

2) Knew so far in advance that they were able to get their Imperial noble to tell Baron Marc that his rescue party shouldn't got too rough is totally and utterly ludicrous.

Just imagine the phone call...

Marquis Ruie? This is the Dictator of Nebelthorn. How are you? Fine, thank you. You know we're holding Sergei Oberlindes for belting a cop? Yes, right in the nose. Well, we know his father Baron Marc Oberlindes is sending a rescue team and we want to make sure they don't commit any atrocities while they're breaking into one of our prisons. Yes, that would cause problems. Anyway, could you speak to Baron Marc and ask him to tell his rescue team not to commit any atrocities while they're violating our national sovereignty that the Imperium is sworn to respect? You will? Thank you Marquis! Give my best to Bunny and the children.

Instead this is how Sergei was rescued without the party committing atrocities.

People working for Baron Marc hired the team and briefed them on the situation. They were strongly cautioned that Baron Marc could cover their illegal acts up to a certain point. Sneaking onto the sovereign soil of an Imperial member state and breaking a prisoner out of a prison was bad enough, but the Baron could handle things at the Imperial level provided that not too many bystanders will be killed or wounded and not too much property damage is done. The Imperium doesn't much like Nebelthorn and is willing to turn a blind eye IF things aren't too showy. Sneak in, knock out a few guards, and sneak away? Fine. Kill hundreds or thousands or drop a megaton of explosives onto an entire city? Not so fine. Do that and you won't be covered.

So, which is more plausible? Your phone call to the Marquis or Baron Marc cautioning his team that he can only handle Imperial interest up to a certain point?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

Originally posted by jatay3:
I wouldn't want to be in a game where the PC's do atrocities.Jatay3,

That's easily handled without the creation of an Imperium-wide, extremely busy, always active War Crimes Tribunal complete with immediately avialable enforcement powers. (Something which is totally at odds with the canonical picture of the Imperium by the way.)
-------------------------------
I mean I wouldn't want to be in a game where I am expected to do what I would regard as an atrocity,OK.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3: I mean I wouldn't want to be in a game where I am expected to do what I would regard as an atrocity,OK.

Jatay3,

I must have been confused when you wrote:

I wouldn't want to be in a game where the PC's do atrocities. But what if the PC's are expected to do some morally neutral-or even praiseworthy- act that would be annoying to the Imperium if found out.

I don't like atrocity prone players either and will not play one myself. But I also think your idea stated here...

Suppose further that the planet's ruler has high influence in the Imperial government-high enough to ensure that the Impies would object strongly if the operation is not done "right".

... is totally impractical. You've got it backwards.

The players tailor their rescue of Sergei Oberlindes around how much heat Baron Marc can make 'go away' and not around how much heat Nebelthorn can bring to bear before the rescue even takes place. The limits are imposed more by their patron's political power and less by their enemy's.

As I posted, they do not charge in with a brigade of grav armor, slag the city, burn down the prison, all to rescue Sergei. Baron Marc can't make that much 'go away'. They can however, sneak in, knock out some guards, maybe have a small firefight, grab Marc, and run away as fast as they can.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

jatay3
Citizen: SOC-12
CID # 3258

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 09:21 PMJanuary 20, 2006 09:21 PM Profile for jatay3 Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Originally posted by jatay3:
I wouldn't want to be in a game where the PC's do atrocities.Jatay3,

That's easily handled without the creation of an Imperium-wide, extremely busy, always active War Crimes Tribunal complete with immediately avialable enforcement powers. (Something which is totally at odds with the canonical picture of the Imperium by the way.)
-------------------------------
I mean I wouldn't want to be in a game where I am expected to do what I would regard as an atrocity,OK.
____________________________________
Whether there are Rules of War above and beyond the Imperium's is a philosophical point and while I do not wish to hide my views neither do I wish to go on about it. What I said was I would normally feel uncomfortable playing an evil character as a PC. This is a matter as much of taste as anything. Call it "Code of Honor"

As for an Imperial wide war-crimes tribunal being incompatible with Traveller I don't quite agree. If you mean there is no specific organization called "Imperial War Crimes Magistrates", that would be true-tribunals are handled by the military and the IISS. However there is no reason why there should not be one if an Emperor decrees.
As I understand Traveller is based on a balance between the power and the limits of the Imperium. The Imperium can do whatever it wants at any given time or place-but to do this it can only apply itself in a fraction of those given times and places.
Canon makes it clear that war-crimes trials take place fairly regularly.
A more accurate description is that the Imperium cannot prosecute more then a portion of the war-crimes that actually occur and therefore must pick and choose, often on grounds that are in fact unconnected with the justice of the case. On the other hand that is nothing new for war-crimes trials(at Nuremburg they had Communists trying Nazi's. While no injustice was done it would have been perfectly just and would have provided a little macabre amusement if the Nazi's had tried the Commies just afterwords).

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3:
What I said was I would normally feel uncomfortable playing an evil character as a PC. This is a matter as much of taste as anything.

Jatay3,

You and I feel the same way and share the same 'taste' in our games then.

The Imperium can do whatever it wants at any given time or place-but to do this it can only apply itself in a fraction of those given times and places.

A neat, succinct, and wholly accurate description.

Canon makes it clear that war-crimes trials take place fairly regularly.

Name one. Really, name one. Time, place, offense, sentence, you know all the who-what-where stuff.

Do I think the Imperium has landed like a dTon of iridium on some nasty party? Damn straight it has. I'm not aware of any examples in canon however.

I also think the Imperium makes the occasional example, threatens interference in whispers to the right ears, and chooses it's moment very carefully. It is the reputation of the Imperium that does most of the heavy lifting, that and a very judicious blind eye.

That a blind eye is a large part of the equation as more far evident in canon than any War Crimes tribunal. The troopers of the 1188th Lift Infantry Brigade can tell you that.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

Bill Cameron

Name one. Really, name one. Time, place, offense, sentence, you know all the who-what-where stuff.
---------------------------------------------
Gurps Traveller: Nobles p.69 describes the process

as for an example:

the last Imperial soldier executed was Gunnery Sgt. Farouk Chi of the 3277th Line Marine Regiment. He was found guilty of war crimes for his actions in murdering 70 Zhodani prisoners of war.
Gunnery Sgt. Chi was executed by firing squad on 131-1115.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Gunnery Sgt. Chi was executed by firing squad on 131-1115.

Jatay3,

Eight years ago in the G:T timeline. (It's 1123 now.)

11,000 systems, god knows how many brushfire wars, border incidents, megacorp trade wars, global wars on Aramanx and others, all those worlds and all those systems and the last execution under the Imperial 'Rules of War' was eight years ago.

Rather rare, wouldn't you say?

Do War Crimes Tribunals exist in the Imperium? Yes.

Are they continually active? No.

Having to convene a War Crimes Tribunal means all those other options avaliable to the Imperium failed. It's the last resort.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

Bill Cameron
Avatar Image
Marquis
CID # 877

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 11:20 PMJanuary 20, 2006 11:20 PM Profile for Bill Cameron Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by jatay3:
Gunnery Sgt. Chi was executed by firing squad on 131-1115. Jatay3,

Eight years ago in the G:T timeline. (It's 1123 now.)

11,000 systems, god knows how many brushfire wars, border incidents, megacorp trade wars, global wars on Aramanx and others, all those worlds and all those systems and the last execution under the Imperial 'Rules of War' was eight years ago.

Rather rare, wouldn't you say?

Do War Crimes Tribunals exist in the Imperium? Yes.

Are they continually active? No.

Having to convene a War Crimes Tribunal means all those other options avaliable to the Imperium failed. It's the last resort.


Have fun,
Bill Sociability: 1323 | From: Lee, New Hampshire, USA | Became a Citizen: Aug 2002 | Report this post to a Moderator
----------------------------------
By "regularly" I hardly meant "as regularly as customs violations"

And that was the last time an Imperial SOLDIER was executed for war crimes. The Imperial military behaves better then that planetary rabble. At least that's the official story. In any case as very few military organizations bother to try their own personal for war-crimes it does them a little bit of credit.
In any case that was the LAST time-which implies that there were other times before. Indeed GF p10 refers to several war crimes trials that did indeed take place at the end of the civil wars. Of course they did take place at a time when they provided the regime a convenient way to eliminate competition. But such suspicions of political influence have always hung over war-crimes trials.
The book no where states that war-crimes trials of non-Imperial personal didn't take place reasonably often. As you pointed out there are 11000 worlds.
And the "blind eye" sometimes goes the other way. One time several of the SB Rangers were shot attempting to surrender. The Imperial observer ordered those responsible turned over to the parent units of the victims.
I wonder what that Imperial observer said at his debriefing:
"Milord, I didn't know what they would do to those guys"
Reply: "Very well, you are hereby sentanced to be fined 100 Imperial Credits. By the way how's your wife doing?"

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Indeed GF p10 refers to several war crimes trials that did indeed take place at the end of the civil wars.

jatay3,

The Civil War? That was close to 500 years ago.

And the "blind eye" sometimes goes the other way. One time several of the SB Rangers were shot attempting to surrender. The Imperial observer ordered those responsible turned over to the parent units of the victims.

Sure it's in GT:SM. It happened on Pannet. The Trads were held up at a river crossing by a recon squad from the SB Rangers, a platoon-sized merc outfit. The squad held up the Trads for a while, eventually got surrounded, got permission to surrender from their commander, and did. The Trads disarmed the surrendered platoon and then shot them. (That pissed off the mercs hired to fight the Trads, so the Trads lost the war.)

Anyway, here's the telling sentence in the GT:SM story:

And when the Imperials got wind of it, they sentenced the Trad commander to be handed over to the mercs for "justice".

Let's parse that sentence.

'When the Imperials got wind of it...' Does that sound like there was an Imperial observer on the spot to throw a flag and cite the Trads for a war crimes violation? Or does it sound like the mercs had to bring the violation to someone's attention? Someone with more political pull than the Trad government?

Now mull over another bit; ...they sentenced the Trad commander to be handed over.... A rather odd 'tribunal' don't you think? The Imperium issues a sentence but then doesn't carry it out the sentence itself? That doesn't sound like a formal Imperial tribunal to me. It sounds more like the kinds of make-do, on-the-spot, frontier justice many Imperial officials and nobles find themselves routinely dispensing when problems are brought to them.

The mercs understandably blew the whistle on the Trads to an Imperial official/noble. They investigated the claim and found it to be genuine. Meanwhile, the Trads lost the war and it's time to clean things up.

Now, the Imperial official/noble knows the regional political picture better than his own wife. It's vitally important to his job after all. He knows the Trads haven't much pull and he knows to the inch what he can get away with before being called on his superior's carpet. So, the horse trading begins.

The Imperial official/noble tells the Trads he's got the goods on their upper echelon viz war crimes and the Trads protest their innocence. The give and take merry-go-round spins a few times and the Imperial official/noble gets a solution that all parties don't grumble too much about.

The local Trad commander is turned over, gets 'sentenced' by the Imperial official/noble, is turned over to the mercs, and is dealt with. The score:

- The Trads are relieved, their upper ranks were kept out of it.

- The mercs are happy, the Trad commander has been punished.

- The Imperial official/noble is happy, he handled a potentially explosive problem without involving his superiors by calling for a formal War Crimes Tribunal with all the trappings.

I wonder what that Imperial observer said at his debriefing:

He didn't say a thing because there wasn't an observer there. That is clearly evident in the material, if not in your memory of the material.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

again those are examples. If they gave every incident they would have to write a whole new sourcebook no matter how common that sort of thing is.
I am not claiming that this sort of thing is as common as customs fraud. I am simply denying the opposite extreme.

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

I finally caught up on the posts since yesterday and noticed that there is something that has been overlooked about war tribunals, when they are convened. They are usually at the end of a war to determine if the enemy's leaders and/or certain individuals are guilty of atrocities. A real world example is the tribunal held at the end of WWII.

It has been mentioned that the military does not like to put its own on trial. The reasoning behind this IMHO is they do not want to be reminded that they are just as capable of committing such atrocities.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The Imperial 'Rules Of War' in the OTU are much like our Real World 'Hague Convention'. As such, they boil down to two general suggestions:

1 - Don't Get Caught

B - If You Do Get Caught, Cover Your Ass.

The second 'suggestion' means you either need to be powerful enough to simply ignore the rules, powerful enough that punishing you isn't worth the cost, or have friends that are that powerful and who will protect you.

Canon abounds with exceptions to the so-called Imperial Rules Of War.

No nukes or WMDs? How about the fate of the Imperium's 1188th Lift Infantry Brigade on Malefolge? It was destroyed in a biowar attack by its local 'allies', allies that now rule that planet. Imperial troop killed by WMDs and those responsible now rule the planet? Right.

No economic harm? How about the general war on Aramanx/Aramis? It's been sputtering on and off for decades with LSP bankrolling one nation and the other hiring Vagr corsairs. No huge economic dislocations there, right?

What I find intereasting about the Imperial rules of war is that they are unwritten, yet the Imperium has on occasion put people on trial for violation of them. I mean, the rules of war don't just say "If you piss off the Imperium, it will intervene in your private war". They say, "If you piss off the Impertium, it will put you on trial and shove you out an airlock".

Nice.

That said, there appear to be some conventions of war in place. The Zhodani are very careful to declare war before firing the first shot. The Imperials get incensed with the Sword Worlds for attacking without first declaring war. And one of the characters in Tarsus (or possibly Beltstrike) was captured by the Zhos early in the 5FW and is exchanged in time to serve later in the war.

So the interstellar governments, at least, have at least a few conventions.


Hans

 

[Gnusam Netor]

So we can conclude that there really exist two sets of rules in OTU, one for "domestic" conflict (1) and one for external-imperial-level-conflict (2). What is most interesting from an rpg-ing aspect is probably the domestic level, the rules that govern on how mercs, planetary govs and megacorps and so on have to follow.

Here we also have the advantage of someone actually enforcing the laws, unlike our Geneva Convention which more would resemble the rules between 3I, Zho and SC and so forth. The 3I domestic imperial rules of war are not enforced by the victors, but by a “neutral” body, that is always good for “public” acceptance of the rule or law in question.

I think that the 3I would be very interested in having quite strict rules for how war (1) is conducted, far more limiting then the Geneva Convention for instance. How would it look like though? No nukes for sure. Generally speaking I think the 3I would only allow high-precision, semi-low damage weapons like lasers and conventional missiles. Probably not meson guns either, which by their nature are somewhat low on precision. Besides Meson guns are probably too good as a weapon for the Imperial authorities to allow any yahoo-nation to own them on their own.

Throughout history central governments have usually tried to keep the best stuff for themselves.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:


Canon abounds with exceptions to the so-called Imperial Rules Of War.

No nukes or WMDs?

No economic harm?

I would say the Imperials would be very interested in having a set of rules, that basically say:

I. "Pay youR taxes ... or else."

II. "If you fight, make sure that you and your opponent can still pay your taxes ... or else."

edit to add R

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

I think that the 3I would be very interested in having quite strict rules for how war (1) is conducted, far more limiting then the Geneva Convention for instance. How would it look like though? No nukes for sure. Generally speaking I think the 3I would only allow high-precision, semi-low damage weapons like lasers and conventional missiles. Probably not meson guns either, which by their nature are somewhat low on precision. Besides Meson guns are probably too good as a weapon for the Imperial authorities to allow any yahoo-nation to own them on their own.

It makes me wonder if some covert element in the 3I would build a meson gun underground on a border world that is viewed to be a hot spot at a future time. Of course it would have to be placed on a world that the enemy is either going to pass through with a fleet or try to conquer. An example would be any world bordering the Sword Worlds, the Solomani Rim, or the Two Thousand Worlds.

I can see the 3I doing something of that nature and claiiming it was a necessary precaution due to increasing hostilities with the opposing government.

But if the 3I's RoW ban the use of Meson Guns, would they be in violation if they are built but not used? This brings up another question. If the 3I goes to war against a Pocket Empire with the TL to build Meson Guns, would the 3I deliver a copy of their Rules of War to the enemy and what will be its course of action if the PE rejects the 3I's RoW?

 

[Gnusam Netor]

I was more thinking of "nation" as in planetary government. How they would deal with the Sword Worlds or other extra-imperial entities is not IMO covered by imperial law. But I don't think 3I would condone using Meson guns as some sort of terror machine anywhere, mainly because they would have the most to loose from it being a general practice in warfare. If others use those methods though...

What goes around comes around, even in the future.

(hmm... What comes around goes around ?)

 

[archhealer]

IMTU, the imperium deals with planetary conflicts in one of two ways:
1. If it will significantly and adversley affect the 3I economy in that area, they will step in and try to gains some control of the situation.

2. If it will not, they redzone and blockade the system until the gunfire stops.

 

[jatay3]

Marquis Deadlock
Avatar Image
Marquis
CID # 5120

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 09:05 AMJanuary 20, 2006 09:05 AM Profile for Marquis Deadlock Author's Homepage Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Greetings and salutations,

IIRC, GURPS: Ground Forces and/or GURPS: Star Merc mention Rules of War in the OTU.

There are always Rules of War no matter the TL of the civilizations involved. The only thing is one side may not understand the other's sides rules, especially a higher TL facing a foe with a lower TL. Even our own planet has gone through this. Look at the war against the Native Americans during The United States' expansion. The Whites did not understand the Native Americans scalping and called it barbaric. I do not fully understand it myself, but it is the best example I can think of at the moment.

As far as the "Osama" the wealthy and disgruntled lunatic is concerned, he will use "terror" tactics to destroy his enemies. He will use a 'dirty bomb' of some sort, release a disease into society, propaganda, etc. Now, if this "Osama" is a leader of a planet at war with another planet, then h may follow Rules of War or he may forgo then in the opening battles in hopes that an advantage in the war can be gained. And depending on how much he wants to win, hatred, etc, he may forgo the RoW throughout the war.

For the Rules of War that are applied on our planet, check into the Hague Laws and the numerous Geneva Conventions. You can also check the Wikipedia

Hopefully I have not rambled too much and this helps you out.

--------------------
Marquis Xebryn "Deadlock" Aransala
"Someday, I'll have something witty to put here."
___________________________________________
scalping was a means of keeping score-a more gruesome variation of those pictures of fighters, with rows of Iron Crosses representing German planes shot down.
And scalping wasn't the only reason the Indians were thought barbaric-there were a number of dreadful atrocities. And yes it did go both ways. Frontiersmen were to busy surviving to care, and back-eastern city slickers probably thought both the Indians and the settlers were barbarians.