As mentioned already, the course you would take would be dictated by what ALL of the Players think of this situation. Are they po'd at each other?, wanting to kill off their characters? etc.

Sounds like the death penalty is already a done deal though...

If the GM wanted to change his mind he could say General X was just scaring him. A shuttle comes by and picks him up off of the death planet after a couple nights. Or General X pulls them to the side and tells them they can redeem themselves if they accept a secret mission. There is an unknown mole amongst the Rebel cell. The sentenced player(s) have the benefit of being believed dead, so....

I'm in the anti-death penalty group. The Alliance are the good guys. When was the last time the US military executed someone for cowardice under fire?

Why not just use Contribution Rank? Knock them back to Contribution Rank 0 or possibly 1 for the guy who wasn't punished as much. They are cannon fodder again with a bad name. They are going to be handed some crappy details. Then let them start to redeem themselves.

England even has a monument in honor of those shot for cowardice.

to answer sturns question, Eddie Slovik, shot in 1945

edit: we like to think we're the good.guys, speaking as an American, and we haven't done it in 60 years.

I like sturns idea of using it as a plot device.

Not that I'm English actually, but... yes, as Miishelle says, the Shot At Dawn memorial has over 300 names, all of which were posthumously pardoned on the modern understanding of things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was an injustice and sadly my country was one of the last to recognise this.

Anyway, for a game, it feels like the start of an EoE campaign to me, assuming that's what the players want.

to answer sturns question, Eddie Slovik, shot in 1945

Thanks. My Google-fu had failed me. So one since the American Civil War and that's using realworld gray circumstances. So for a fantasy black and white "good guys" group of the Rebel Alliance, I would think actual execution for cowardice under fire or desertion wouldn't occur at all. Even if it was on the books.

to answer sturns question, Eddie Slovik, shot in 1945

Thanks. My Google-fu had failed me. So one since the American Civil War and that's using realworld gray circumstances. So for a fantasy black and white "good guys" group of the Rebel Alliance, I would think actual execution for cowardice under fire or desertion wouldn't occur at all. Even if it was on the books.

I. think of any. I can remember treason, but not this

Seriously, I can't see the Rebellion (my childhood heroes) behaving in a way as bad or even worse than per-industrial (and beyond) Earth states when it comes to "cowards" facing suicidal odds.

The average Rebel response when facing an ISD is to run like frak, that's the exact reason the Interidctor line was introduced.

There are plenty of non-death sentences that would work out fine. So long as the character don't have any sensitive information about Alliance operations, just cut them loose. If it they do have such information, locking them away to perform non-sensitive but still important efforts for the Alliance, like building bases or working in Alliance factories (someone makes those orange flight suits) is far more fitting for the moral-high-grounders of the Rebel Alliance.

I suggest the sentence is the call by the local Rebel commander. Some commanders and circumstances may be more forgiving. Others may not.

So if the PC wants to continue play with this character in the Alliance then they have a black mark on their record. I'd expect some setbacks when they run into a commander that would have dealt with them more harshly.

I wishwe could see the OP thoughts, but its been two days since he's commented. I think we're just waxing poetic at this point

to answer sturns question, Eddie Slovik, shot in 1945

Thanks. My Google-fu had failed me. So one since the American Civil War and that's using realworld gray circumstances. So for a fantasy black and white "good guys" group of the Rebel Alliance, I would think actual execution for cowardice under fire or desertion wouldn't occur at all. Even if it was on the books.

I. think of any. I can remember treason, but not this

US Military there are 14 offenses that would allow for an Execution. Even in a time of war there are new requirements that have been in place in Regan.

• Capital cases are tried in Courts Martial.
• The panel in the Courts Martial must be unanimous in conviction, that the government has proven necessary aggravating factors, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the only sentence applicable.
• All death sentences are automatically appealed first to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
• Then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
• Finally the sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.

R@pe and Murder have been sentenced to Death in the last few years. The last being in 2013.

So I would put that the Alliance uses a similar method. So a Death Sentence is viable, but it does take time.

The Alliance is generally expected to hold a higher moral ground than the US military even if that seems unrealistic.

Well coming from a country whose military does hold a higher moral ground, it seems pretty realistic to me...

On of the things to note though is that a Death Penalty for Desertion in the US military is VERY VERY hard to do.

First you've gotta get an actual conviction of Desertion. In the US that means the prosecution has to prove the accused left with no intention of coming back... EVER.

So in the US if you "desert" but come back 75 years later and turn yourself in, you were merely really really really AWOL.

And that's how I kinda see the Rebellion, or at least the greater formalized version of it most people think of. Getting convicted of really nasty offenses like Treason, Desertion, and such really require a lot of solid evidence and a rock solid case against you. But I suspect that like the US military, when you've been accused of a crime they tend to investigate you like crazy and charge you with any and all offenses they can. So they might initially investigate you for Espionage, but, not being able to find any solid proof of that, may actually charge you with the stuff they did find like theft, misuse of services and materiel, adultery, and so on. The end result being a few years in prison, and then a solid kicking to the curb.

US Military there are 14 offenses that would allow for an Execution.

But very, very rarely used.

We weren't denying there are laws in place for such. I once was an MP (enforced UCMJ) and am aware there is a law that allows execution for Cowardice Under Fire. Once another squad leader in my platoon even put a handgun to the head of his vehicle gunner in Somolia while under fire when he was too scared to get in the turret and fire back. He threatened him with instant execution due to Cowardice Under Fire, which I believe was completely legal, but I know for a fact my friend would have never actually pulled the trigger.

The Alliance may have threats of such laws in place. I just can't see them actually ever going through with it unless it was some very heinous stuff (killed a bunch of helpless Ewoks*). In our non-fantasy world it is very, very rare in nations that strive to be the good guys. In a cuddly good guys vs bad guys fantasy setting it should be even rarer.

*Well, probably bad example, could be justified.

As awesome as this sounds: characters doing what they think their characters would do...it's not awesome at the same time. AOR not so hot. EOTE funny.

Death would suck. I like the suicide mission or hell...even dishonorable discharge. Maybe they become mercs that work with the rebellion but now they are tainted and branded as cowards. A major issue I see is the schism in your group. Half branded deserters and cowards...half are soldiers doing their jobs. The infighting should be huge and to the point of PVP. I can't really see any good outcome for such a simple and...well...justified response. HELL if you think as a GM that a firing squad is the answer -- put them up against a firing squad...MAKE it interesting too...maybe even have the soldier PCs who risked their lives be told to take the blaster carbines in hand with other troops and have them shoot for betraying them. This could go in a number of ways...death...but make sure the PCs get a cool narrative--- last words. Or the PCs say no and refuse. Or the PCs try to make the officers in command change their minds or hell...maybe you all go rogue and bust them out of prison -- which could make you all Mercs and or maybe change identities and go back into the army. It's sorta a crazy situation!

Death would suck. I like the suicide mission or hell...even dishonorable discharge. Maybe they become mercs that work with the rebellion but now they are tainted and branded as cowards. A major issue I see is the schism in your group. Half branded deserters and cowards...half are soldiers doing their jobs. The infighting should be huge and to the point of PVP. I can't really see any good outcome for such a simple and...well...justified response. HELL if you think as a GM that a firing squad is the answer -- put them up against a firing squad...MAKE it interesting too...maybe even have the soldier PCs who risked their lives be told to take the blaster carbines in hand with other troops and have them shoot for betraying them. This could go in a number of ways...death...but make sure the PCs get a cool narrative--- last words. Or the PCs say no and refuse. Or the PCs try to make the officers in command change their minds or hell...maybe you all go rogue and bust them out of prison -- which could make you all Mercs and or maybe change identities and go back into the army. It's sorta a crazy situation!

THIS.

A Like wasn't enough.

Yeah, I don't think the Rebellion would execute deserters. That's more the Empire's style. The Rebel Alliance would court-martial deserters; maybe strip them of military rank and stick them at a desk somewhere, but not execute them for failing to do their duty.

I don't know... There are very few actual rebellions in human history that don't rapidly reach that level. Keep in mind that a lot of the Rebellion will be coming form a military background. The majority, I would think. It's not an intifada, it's not a group of terrorists, it's an actual rebellion. That means planets joining their cause, military troop and ship movements... Drastic - often fatal - punishments for deserters are pretty much close to standard practice historically. When you're telling someone to go out and get killed for you or else, the "or else" has to be a pretty big thing - endangered loved ones who'll die if you run, long-term incarceration and - obviously in this case - execution. The modern approach is to take all of the disparate recruits to your force, isolate them from their normal social structures (friends outside the army, family, etc.) and put them through arduous / scary situations until they form a new psychological attachment to each other viewing that as their "society". Then they get the pressure of viewing it as wrong to put their safety above that of these others. So long as you can get the majority willing to fight (and there are techniques for this as well), then that will carry along most of the rest as well. But for those who haven't quite come to feel a part of the group or simply aren't willing to endanger their life for people they've been made part of a social group of, a stick is needed to stop these ones from flaking away in danger. Hence the serious punishments. The more frightening the fighting, the more frightening you need to make the punishments.

So a planet joins the Rebellion for whatever reason and sends its navy to assist. What do you think will happen to a crewmember or soldier aboard that vessel who tries to flee, etc.? Same thing that normally happens to soldiers who desert during wartime, basically. The military generals aren't likely to suddenly change their practices for no reason.

England even has a monument in honor of those shot for cowardice.

to answer sturns question, Eddie Slovik, shot in 1945

edit: we like to think we're the good.guys, speaking as an American, and we haven't done it in 60 years.

I like sturns idea of using it as a plot device.

America hasn't been in a fight with an equal-level in 60 years is probably the main reason for this. Eddie Slovik was executed explicitly as an example to others. The US was facing major levels of desertion in France in 1945. Eisenhower wrote that he approved Slovik's execution because it was "necessary" to discourage further desertions. Slovik actually expected to get jail when he deserted rather than execution. With jail being the general expectation of many Slovik's execution changed that to some extent making clear to the rest that their generals could and might shoot them for desertion.

Since World War II, the USA has had overwhelming military might in most cases. Therefore there has not been the same level of need for such discouragements of mass desertions. The two wars of particular note for this are the obvious Vietnam, and of course the invasion of Iraq. In the case of Vietnam they did have high levels of desertion (though nothing like on the scale of World War II) but the war was deeply unpopular at home as it went on and that meant that the public was generally much more sympathetic to those who tried to get out of the war - a sympathy magnified several times over given that people were conscripted into fighting against their will. Executing them for desertion would have caused major political fallout which is especially concerning for democracies like the United States. The case of the American and British invasion of Iraq is less of a case of problems with executing deserters (though that would remain a major obstacle) and more a case that there is simply less need. The numbers involved in Iraq are far less than the massive mobilizations of World War II and even though the numbers are large, there is troop rotation in a way that was not possible in World War II. Even more significantly, the American soldiers in the invasion are not conscripts. This single factor immediately reduces the number of desertions you face in your forces by... well, I honestly couldn't say how much, but a lot!

So in short, my contention is that the lack of executions for desertion in the last 70 years is primarily due to reduced need for such and the increased political cost of any government condoning such action. The upshot of this for the Rebellion being that where members of the Rebellion are democratic societies that frown upon such executions, you will see a reduction. Where forces are volunteers you will also see a reduction. But the Rebellion is not exclusively of this composition. There will be many planets or exiled military forces that have Seperatist histories, or are joining for various strategic or tactical advantage and are functioning as a normal military force. In such cases, I would expect execution for desertion to be a known thing. It may in fact be even more need by the generals with the prevalence of personal, long-distance transport. Eisenhower never had to worry about a soldier hopping in an X-Wing and plotting a course for Dagobar on a sudden impulse. They would have had to trek many miles across war-torn France and still not been able to cross the Atlantic and go home. The typical Rebellion pilot or trooper? Not so much.

So a planet joins the Rebellion for whatever reason and sends its navy to assist. What do you think will happen to a crewmember or soldier aboard that vessel who tries to flee, etc.? Same thing that normally happens to soldiers who desert during wartime, basically. The military generals aren't likely to suddenly change their practices for no reason.

(sorry posted about the same time as the above post)

They wouldn't be executed if you are using real 1st world countries as examples.

While there is this belief that realword militaries commonly execute deserters, research suggests otherwise. The US (as noted above) hasn't executed anyone for desertion since WW2. And if you read up on the circumstances it was an oddity even during the worst world war of human history.

Could you find some 2nd or 3rd world country or perhaps a terroristic group that within the last 100 years has commonly executed deserters? I'm sure you could. Would the Alliance be more compareable to those countries or 1st world ones? Then add this setting is a fantasy black & white one and I won't be allowing it for the Alliance except under very extreme circumstances. Even if such punishment is found in the Alliance Code of Military Justice.

Yeah, I don't think the Rebellion would execute deserters. That's more the Empire's style. The Rebel Alliance would court-martial deserters; maybe strip them of military rank and stick them at a desk somewhere, but not execute them for failing to do their duty.

I don't know... There are very few actual rebellions in human history that don't rapidly reach that level.

I don't play the real world rpg, I play the Star Wars RPG. The rebellion just does not seem like a place where deserters would get shot, also neither did the republic for that matter.

So a planet joins the Rebellion for whatever reason and sends its navy to assist. What do you think will happen to a crewmember or soldier aboard that vessel who tries to flee, etc.? Same thing that normally happens to soldiers who desert during wartime, basically. The military generals aren't likely to suddenly change their practices for no reason.

(sorry posted about the same time as the above post)

They wouldn't be executed if you are using real 1st world countries as examples.

While there is this belief that realword militaries commonly execute deserters, research suggests otherwise. The US (as noted above) hasn't executed anyone for desertion since WW2. And if you read up on the circumstances it was an oddity even during the worst world war of human history.

Could you find some 2nd or 3rd world country or perhaps a terroristic group that within the last 100 years has commonly executed deserters? I'm sure you could. Would the Alliance be more compareable to those countries or 1st world ones? Then add this setting is a fantasy black & white one and I won't be allowing it for the Alliance except under very extreme circumstances. Even if such punishment is found in the Alliance Code of Military Justice.

My question would be did America suddenly become a "1st world country" after 1945 and if so what was it before? Yes, execution for desertion has been rare in America in the 20th Century, but I just gave some very detailed reasons why the need for it has also been very rare in America in the 20th Century.

Just as an aside, "1st world country" is a modern invention based on a misunderstanding. And "2nd world country" isn't a commonly recognized term at all. You're using them as if they were rankings of development. Europe was the "Old World" and the Americas were the "New World". The terms rose to prominence with the increasing exploration of the Americas by Europeans. When exploration turned to Africa, that became "the Third World". It wasn't to do with level of development except through correlation. With increasing globalization and familiarity, the terms "New World" and "Old World" fell out of use but "Third World" remained. This led to it becoming an synonym for undeveloped or poor and then later people to assume that therefore "1st world" meant rich / developed. You seem to have completed the backronisms by inserting a middle rank of "2nd world". Sorry for the tangent - just seemed as we're discussing history it might be of interest.

So anyway, I've already given the detailed version with supporting arguments, so all that I can really do at this point is repeat what I said more succinctly: Executing people for desertion is rarely seen in the modern Western world. But then we have rarely seen any modern Western world countries actually threatened. And in the rare instances where we have, execution for desertion - explicitly as an example to others - has occurred. So why would we expect the societies that comprise the Rebellion to not similarly adopt such practices as - unlike our modern Western world - they actually are threatened with being conquered? If the US had executed soldiers for desertion in the invasion of Iraq, the political fallout on Bush or Obama would have been huge (not to mention recruitment issues it would cause). If the USA was being invaded however, then you would see a great deal less outcry if deserters were sometimes executed. That much is undeniable. Planets in the Rebellion are in exactly that circumstance. Around the time of the American Civil War, deserters were branded or tattooed to show their crime. That's not ancient history - America was a republic pretty much in the same form as today, in the 19th Century. I believe I have made a very good argument that in sufficiently threatening circumstances, a country - democratic or otherwise, will use extreme punishments for desertion. Heck, it was only in the 1960's that Americans were rounded up and forcibly shipped off to kill people for territorial advantage half-way around the world in South East Asia. Again, in a modern Western democracy!

Furthermore, in addition to all this, I say there is no good reason to assume that the members of the Rebel Alliance are all modern democracies, politically. Plenty of non-democratic societies would have just as much reason to join up against the Empire as any other. Even the Ewoks were allowed in and they were a primitive society that ate their captives after roasting them alive. Where is this idea that the Rebel Alliance is an analogue of the United States coming from?

Yeah, I don't think the Rebellion would execute deserters. That's more the Empire's style. The Rebel Alliance would court-martial deserters; maybe strip them of military rank and stick them at a desk somewhere, but not execute them for failing to do their duty.

I don't know... There are very few actual rebellions in human history that don't rapidly reach that level.

I don't play the real world rpg, I play the Star Wars RPG. The rebellion just does not seem like a place where deserters would get shot, also neither did the republic for that matter.

An absolutely valid choice for anyone's game. I wont argue with this. I will say that in the movies we saw so little of the actual Rebel alliance and how it functioned that there is plenty of room for other positions too, without contradicting canon. I like a grey rebellion, others will differ. My arguments are about what is realistic. This is a different argument to how one should play or if one can rationalise a different interpretation.

My question would be did America suddenly become a "1st world country" after 1945 and if so what was it before?

In Terms of Military Might it was after WW2, The US Military as a whole Prior to its expansion in the war would be considered 2rd Rate when compared to other World Powers. "England or Germany" It was just undermanned and it really did not have the same War Capabilities of 1st Rate Military Powers. Now it did not take long into the War for that to change and we came out as a 1st Rate/World Power.

Yeah, I don't think the Rebellion would execute deserters. That's more the Empire's style. The Rebel Alliance would court-martial deserters; maybe strip them of military rank and stick them at a desk somewhere, but not execute them for failing to do their duty.

I don't know... There are very few actual rebellions in human history that don't rapidly reach that level.

I don't play the real world rpg, I play the Star Wars RPG. The rebellion just does not seem like a place where deserters would get shot, also neither did the republic for that matter.

An absolutely valid choice for anyone's game. I wont argue with this. I will say that in the movies we saw so little of the actual Rebel alliance and how it functioned that there is plenty of room for other positions too, without contradicting canon. I like a grey rebellion, others will differ. My arguments are about what is realistic. This is a different argument to how one should play or if one can rationalise a different interpretation.

you're playing a game in which people can survive getting hit point blank in the face with a blaster rifle and keep fighting, and people usemagic swords, and you're arguing for realism. valid choice... just saying.

My AOR game is explicitly about the 'moral greys' and the difficulty of fighting a 'just war' against ruthless opposition (Empire, Jedi) who don't respect the conventions of war.

And yet, that said, shooting deserters wouldn't ever be something my AOR players would do.

Obviously, anyone can play it how they wish, but for me, that's what makes the Alliance different from all the other scumbag factions out there.